Pilot feedback for MichaelM (no greyjoy please)

[rader]

******smokescreen********
************************
************************
************************
************************
************************


I thought I would chime in on the beta change about not being able to draw pilots out of their training cycle until training is complete (one of the changes in the beta patch.

I have been out of navy pilots for well over a year (actually, I think since late 1942). I am completely unable to train navy kamikaze pilots (I will never be able to use a navy kamikaze group).

Now, it's mostly my own fault. I have probably lost over 12,000 navy pilots in the game so far, and I have been reckless with pilots to say the least. Thus I'm not complaining, just giving some feedback regarding the change in the beta release. Is it intended that the Japanese should have a strict limit on the pilots they can put into the game (and thus in a high attrition game will be unable to use kamikazes)?

[Nemo121]

My understanding is that in a scenario 2 game where you recruit 200 IJNAF pilots per month the total of pilots you can train/recruit from 1st Jan 1942 to 31st December 1945 is 48 months worth of trainees. So, in total, for the entire war the IJNAF of Japan gets, in that situation, 9,600 pilots.

Given that games in 44/45 can have 20,000+ airframes lost and that in '44/'45 Japan historicall between the Phillipines/Okinawa and the 5,000 Kamis recruited for the Home Islands recruited some 6,500 to 7,000 kamikaze pilots the figures just don't add up.

As more games go into 44/45 you are going to see players running into a hard limit which didn't exist in real life - where Japan could just ask for some poor dumb mechanics or bomber crew to volunteer for conversion to kamikaze pilots - where they will be unable to crew planes they build because they've taken quite moderate losses throughout the course of the war. Don't forget the IJNAF could lose 500 pilots in a day in 43/44 and 45 in a carrier clash and once bombing of the Home Islands begins daily fighter pilot losses can easily exceed 40 or 50 when opposing B-29 raids.

Obviously Japan shouldn't be able to recruit endless numbers of good quality pilots but it isn't ahistorical to give it an endless pool of 1 Exp, 1 Skill pilots which becomes active only AFTER kamikazes are activated. That would prevent exploitation but would also prevent the situation where Japan "runs out" of pilots because the scenario designer didn't scale up training enough in 44 and 45.


I've had days in a recent game in which over 3 days I lost over 2,000 planes and pilots ( mostly kamikazes ). I thought that was a high loss rate but had many players who had played into '45 comment to me that they had frequently seen similar loss rates in 45.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

My understanding is that in a scenario 2 game where you recruit 200 IJNAF pilots per month the total of pilots you can train/recruit from 1st Jan 1942 to 31st December 1945 is 48 months worth of trainees. So, in total, for the entire war the IJNAF of Japan gets, in that situation, 9,600 pilots.

Given that games in 44/45 can have 20,000+ airframes lost and that in '44/'45 Japan historicall between the Phillipines/Okinawa and the 5,000 Kamis recruited for the Home Islands recruited some 6,500 to 7,000 kamikaze pilots the figures just don't add up.

As more games go into 44/45 you are going to see players running into a hard limit which didn't exist in real life - where Japan could just ask for some poor dumb mechanics or bomber crew to volunteer for conversion to kamikaze pilots - where they will be unable to crew planes they build because they've taken quite moderate losses throughout the course of the war. Don't forget the IJNAF could lose 500 pilots in a day in 43/44 and 45 in a carrier clash and once bombing of the Home Islands begins daily fighter pilot losses can easily exceed 40 or 50 when opposing B-29 raids.

Obviously Japan shouldn't be able to recruit endless numbers of good quality pilots but it isn't ahistorical to give it an endless pool of 1 Exp, 1 Skill pilots which becomes active only AFTER kamikazes are activated. That would prevent exploitation but would also prevent the situation where Japan "runs out" of pilots because the scenario designer didn't scale up training enough in 44 and 45.


I've had days in a recent game in which over 3 days I lost over 2,000 planes and pilots ( mostly kamikazes ). I thought that was a high loss rate but had many players who had played into '45 comment to me that they had frequently seen similar loss rates in 45.

Oh yes, if you are using kamikazes, it is easy to lose over 1000 pilots a day. This is completely impossible to sustain with a hard cap of less than 10,000 ijn pilots in a game.

[witpqs]

I haven't run into any of the situations myself, but it sounds like the 1 Exp/Skill pilot draw is a viable solution. I suppose there could also be a daily limit imposed on that if overuse is a concern?

[Nemo121]

witpqs,

I would worry about a daily limit just moving the problem down the road you know?

As it is a 1 Exp,. 1 Skill pilot cannot hit anything ( not even as a kami ) so having limitless numbers shouldn't give Japan any increased ability among its pilots. It should just allow Japan to use on-map training to maintain a viable stream of kamikaze-capable pilots.

E.gf. Take a 1 Exp, 1 Skill pilot, stick him in Low Naval training for 2 months and graduate him when he hits 50 Skill in Low Naval. Rinse and repeat.

[Crackaces]

It only takes about 10 hours of real experince to solo .... 40 hours to get somewhere reliably .. and heck safety is not an issue here you plan to ram something ..[:D]

[witpqs]

Being open minded about whatever it is that Michael might be considering. I'll wait for him to comment.

[Nemo121]

Aye, of course witpqs. I just wanted to put the concern that a limit might just move the problem down the road to another bottleneck out there.


Crackaces,
Indeed [:D]

[JeffroK]

A reasonable case to TEST it before putting out a beta and including it into current games.

[witpqs]

"Beta" is short for "Beta Test". It falls upon the player to read the list of the Beta's changes and decide accordingly, based upon those changes and also the knowledge that there might be new and undiscovered programming errors. [:)]

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

My understanding is that in a scenario 2 game where you recruit 200 IJNAF pilots per month the total of pilots you can train/recruit from 1st Jan 1942 to 31st December 1945 is 48 months worth of trainees. So, in total, for the entire war the IJNAF of Japan gets, in that situation, 9,600 pilots.

Er, no.

IJN pilot replacement rates in Scen. 2 are:

320/month in 1941 [1* = 320]
290/month in 1942 [12* = 3480]
680/month in 1943 [12* = 8160]
680/month in 1944 [""]
880/month in 1945 [12* = 10560]
480/month in 1946, if they're still going [12* = 5760]

So, to take the 42-45 period you have:

3480 + 8160 + 8160 + 10560 or 30360 pilot replacements + 2200 initial pool. Bit more than 9600...

Same numbers for the IJA are:

320/month in 1941 [320]
310/month in 1942 [3720]
815/month in 1943 [9780]
1215/month in 1944 [14580]
1615/month in 1945 [19380]
615/month in 1946, if they're still going [7380]

So, for the 42-45 period again you have:

3720 + 9780 + 14580 + 19380 or 47460 pilot replacements + 2802 initial pool.

[JeffroK]

Might teach players to be a bit more careful about throwing away their pilots.

If you are going to press the mechanics into action, who are going to maintain and arm the aircraft, takes more than 10 hours to train up a rice farmer to this level.

If you press educated engineers etc into action, who is going to research your weapons, repair damaged factories etc.

Maybe, scrap a HQ unit and get a "X" number of 1 skilled recruits.  Then you have to plan your game, not just get a gift.

But, smart japanese players will play an attrition war with their unimited pilots and through management of their factories, ahistorical aircraft numbers against an Allied player whose strength is known 100% down to the day that LCU, Aircraft & Ships arrive in theatre.

There might be a partial excuse for an increase of very poorly trained pilots (can you add a reinforcement group kitted with 1 skill pilots which only arrive when the kami line is crossed which can then be taken out and added to the pilot training pool??) but there is also a case for not wasting your pilots over the Solomons and New Guinea and then getting worried because you run short.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Might teach players to be a bit more careful about throwing away their pilots.

If you are going to press the mechanics into action, who are going to maintain and arm the aircraft, takes more than 10 hours to train up a rice farmer to this level.

If you press educated engineers etc into action, who is going to research your weapons, repair damaged factories etc.

Maybe, scrap a HQ unit and get a "X" number of 1 skilled recruits.  Then you have to plan your game, not just get a gift.

But, smart japanese players will play an attrition war with their unimited pilots and through management of their factories, ahistorical aircraft numbers against an Allied player whose strength is known 100% down to the day that LCU, Aircraft & Ships arrive in theatre.

There might be a partial excuse for an increase of very poorly trained pilots (can you add a reinforcement group kitted with 1 skill pilots which only arrive when the kami line is crossed which can then be taken out and added to the pilot training pool??) but there is also a case for not wasting your pilots over the Solomons and New Guinea and then getting worried because you run short.

These are good points. Separately, I have seen comments that certain nationalities in the game - IIRC Commonwealth was one - have no pilot pools ever yet have (one or more) group(s) arrive that need pilots.

[Nemo121]

kfsgo,

Well different scenarios have different numbers of replacements.

The key point is that when you have an absolute numerical limit you run into the possibility of running into that limit and breaking the model in an ahistorical way.

I'm sure when GG began coding WiTP he thought that the absolute pilot limit in-game wouldn't be a problem yet when players began hitting 1944/45 they began hitting that limit and being unable to draw pilots. BY putting in another absolute limit we are creating a very similar situation in which an absolute limit can be hit and the game stops to function in a historically believable way.

IN 1945 you talk of recruiting 2,500 pilots per month. Players who have played in 45 will tell you that when USN CV TFs and Japanese aerial forces clash they can easily lose 2,500 pilots in 4 or 5 days of action. I think there's a problem there if a design decision ( as opposed to a real historical limiting factor ) prevents them from replacing those losses with newly drafted trainees as Japan historically could have done.


We can argue about the exact replacement rate till we're blue in the face. You are right the replacement rate was higher in Scenario 2 than in the example I gave---- but many scenarios use lower replacement rates than Scenario 2. Scenario 1 does as do many user-created scenarios ---- but the basic issue isn't about how high the numbers are. It is about whether or not an absolute limit on the ability to draft trainee pilots is historically correct and/or if instituting such a limit simply creates another "pilot roster limit" situation which will blow up in people's faces when they get into the late-war time period.

I happen to think it would create problems. E.g in the Armaggedon scenario ( created before these changes were made ) I chose to limit the IJNAF and IJAAF to 366 graduates per month but have them graduate as highly experienced ( 70 Exp). My view was that low-quality trainees could still be pulled even if the pools ran dry ( which is how the game worked then ). Obviously I can alter the mod to account for this new change by giving Japan sacrosanct HI somewhere on map and an additional 10,000 trainees per month at lower experience ( as well as the HI production to compensate for the HI drain of those 10,000 trainees ) etc etc. There are workarounds.

However I think the easiest solution is simply to allow Japan and Allies to draft 1 Exp trainees in limitless numbers if it wants to since that's what happened in real life if they wanted more trainees. They just drafted some poor SOBs to get minimal training and fly kamis or whatever etc. Simple solution, historically reasonable and avoids having an absolute numbers CAP play havoc through the low of unanticipated consequences --- again.


Obviously others can differ and that's great since through mature discussion a better solution might arise.


witpqs makes an excellent point in that this would also, potentially, cripple small Commonwealth countries also. It isn't an AFB or JFB thing. It is a matter for both sides. I think the major bottleneck would be with Japan in late-war but I could definitely see the Ozzies, Kiwis, Chinese etc also suffering unanticipatedly.

[Richard III]

I don`t where you pulled those numbers from.. maybe from "It`s all Borked, that`s why I can`t win " !! " Rader, who seems convinced that the Japanese should win this Fantasy WW II , no matter how many major tactical and stratigic errors the Grand Leader makes...lets just stack the deck for him !

FWIW :I trained in T-28 `s many years ago, while in SAC, ( when they were desperate to raise the pilot pool, due to huge losses over Viet Nam and other reasons I won`t go into here ) Yes, I`m that old.

Maybe in a war environment, with a good educated middle class HS student grounded with mechanical devices, after 10-15 hours of personalize instruction in a duel control trainer, a guy could take off, without ground looping, or putting a wing in, or stalling out, maybe...just maybe...putting some uneducated grunt, raised in a medieval Japanese society in a WW II military prop AC, a quite complicated machine BTW, and expecting him to solo in 10 hours and then, more importantly, be able to join up, even in good weather, with the pathfinder veteran to go to target is ludicrous...

Maybe, as Nemo ( the one refreshing, mature voice of reality on the Forums ) suggests, give him 2 training months and them aim him at the target, but even in the total fantasy world that the AE has become, where would you get the airframes and trainers ? The old pre war pilots were mostly dead..the big airbases were moon craters, the Hellcats were patrolling day & night over the existing AB`s killing anything that looked like a AC.... BUT, once you kick any plausable, history based reality out the door I guess you can design whatever makes people happy.

Oh.... and beyond that shouldn`t there be a trigger before the Kamikaze boys are allowed....oh, I forgot, reality doesn`t enter into it.

I have to say all these fast flowing, untested,Beta changes ( FOW to AC factories, and now possibly boosting the pilots pools ) to the core Grand Campaign end game, as designed by Garry after much testing for balance, makes me very, very nervous, and I think I will put my new proposed PBEM, as allies, using the Beta on indefinite hold, or just play the official patch ( sorry Dog ) because I think all this will break the core game for the allies, at about turn 350.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

It only takes about 10 hours of real experince to solo .... 40 hours to get somewhere reliably .. and heck safety is not an issue here you plan to ram something ..[:D]

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I don`t where you pulled those numbers from.. maybe from "It`s all Borked, that`s why I can`t win " !! " Rader, who seems convinced that the Japanese should win this Fantasy WW II , no matter how many major tactical and stratigic errors the Grand Leader makes...lets just stack the deck for him !

I'm not sure the game is borked overall in terms of victory conditions. Japanese aircraft production is also probably borked, and that works in Japan's favour.

And in terms of play balance, I definitely don't think Japan should win the war... I merely think that given two players of equal ability, there should be a roughly even chance of winning the game (even though Japan would still lose the war in any case). And I have never claimed this isn't true.

In fact, I think there is one single root cause of most of the "borked" aspects in this game. It's the way the code handles large numbers. In land combat, air combat, strat bombing, etc, the game is all about forming death stars that are impregnable and unstoppable. Mass anything: sweeps, CAP, flak, strat bombing, ground bombing, defensive bomber formations, assault values, engineers (for construction/repair), artillery, naval air strikes, etc., and you get a linearly increasing attack and defense (no diminishing return). One side effect of this is that the optimal (and probably unbeatable) strategy for the allies is to sit back and do nothing until 1944, and then just take the map at will (which might not be borked because that's basically what the allies did).

EDIT: It's the same problem Axis & Allies suffers from. And it's why most hex based games (e.g., WiF) use odds ratio or diminishing return naval charts instead of linear combat comparisons.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: Richard III


---

Oh.... and beyond that shouldn`t there be a trigger before the Kamikaze boys are allowed....oh, I forgot, reality doesn`t enter into it.

I have to say all these fast flowing, untested,Beta changes ( FOW to AC factories, and now possibly boosting the pilots pools ) to the core Grand Campaign end game, as designed by Garry after much testing for balance, makes me very, very nervous, and I think I will put my new proposed PBEM, as allies, using the Beta on indefinite hold, or just play the official patch ( sorry Dog ) because I think all this will break the core game for the allies, at about turn 350.

Theres a trigger to kamis too. Date 1944, 1945 or 1946 and Allies owning a non-Chinese non-Russian base certain distance, I think 20 hex, from Tokyo, Yokohama, Saigon and/or Takao. Counted by sea only. Thats what I recall.

I wholeheartedly agree with your second opinion. Before I get the latest Beta I also want the bomber gunners nerfed. [;)]

While you're at it, maybe you can find an AAR'd PBEM Scenario 1 or DBB game where Japan survived or looks like is going to survive until the historical surrender date? AFAIK there arent any. Not many Scen 2 games either. Let alone one where Japan also has lost half of its CV fleet mid 1942, screw up with PM and Solomons and is still surviving... If we want the game to have such balance that the historical date is the median end date of PBEM games is another thing... [;)]


---

I'm for this suggestion, all nationalities should be able to pull at least those EXP 1 SKILL 1 pilots if they're out of replacements or pilots in training. Now, there could be a CAP in it, say 1,000 a month/nationality or even lower. Would help a lot. Those guys arent going to hit a thing any way and need to be trained at least a month for even kamikaze use.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I have to say all these fast flowing, untested,Beta changes ( FOW to AC factories, and now possibly boosting the pilots pools ) to the core Grand Campaign end game, as designed by Garry after much testing for balance, makes me very, very nervous, and I think I will put my new proposed PBEM, as allies, using the Beta on indefinite hold, or just play the official patch ( sorry Dog ) because I think all this will break the core game for the allies, at about turn 350.

Nerfing the pilot pools was one of those fast flowing beta changes... Based on the above, you should support restoring them to the way it was...

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

I wholeheartedly agree with your second opinion. Before I get the latest Beta I also want the bomber gunners nerfed. [;)]

Amen to that brother... this is one of the main reason 4Es are borked. That and independent die rolls for bomb hits.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: Erkki
While you're at it, maybe you can find an AAR'd PBEM Scenario 1 or DBB game where Japan survived or looks like is going to survive until the historical surrender date? AFAIK there arent any. Not many Scen 2 games either. Let alone one where Japan also has lost half of its CV fleet mid 1942, screw up with PM and Solomons and is still surviving... If we want the game to have such balance that the historical date is the median end date of PBEM games is another thing... [;)]

That's actually a good point... has there ever been a PBEM game where the Japanese player has won (or looks like they were going to)? (not won the war, but won the game on autovictory or points at the end?)

Maybe we can do a survey of games in the AAR section...

PZB's maybe? It's still in 1944, but I think the Japanese are doing well there.