Resize of air groups?

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Resize away, no matter if you're playing as the allies or as the IJ. There's a counter to everything in this game and the counter to the "great resize" is that you'll be absolutely burning through spare airframes just to reinforce 1 unit! It can be pretty good when creating special ASW squadrons but in my opinion this is just an in-game model of actual real life hunter-killer groups. As others have said, you can only resize if a unit is based on a ship that carries aircraft so it already prevents 99 Netties from being created and stops 99 B-29's from being created. 99 squadron on CAP? Alright, where do you find the skilled pilots? If you use sub-standard pilots then your loses are just going to be higher than before, which in turn will cause lower morale to the unit, have to replace those pilots and airframes etc etc. Also more supply and sorties will be used up when you launch.

So the way this little trick works is: you put a group flying a carrier capable model in a port air base, let's say its a group of A6M2 that have a limit of 9. I know for certain I have a few of those in my current game against allied computer opponent.

Once those planes are based there, you choose "transfer to ship." Once they are on the ships, you can resize the group up to what? the typical limit for that type of plane on that type of carrier? or the total limit for all planes on that carrier?

Now you move your enlarged shore based IJN Zero group back to the shore (it is now fully of "damaged" planes that will take a while to get working again), and you move your normal CV air groups back to your carrier and all done?

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Resize away, no matter if you're playing as the allies or as the IJ. There's a counter to everything in this game and the counter to the "great resize" is that you'll be absolutely burning through spare airframes just to reinforce 1 unit! It can be pretty good when creating special ASW squadrons but in my opinion this is just an in-game model of actual real life hunter-killer groups. As others have said, you can only resize if a unit is based on a ship that carries aircraft so it already prevents 99 Netties from being created and stops 99 B-29's from being created. 99 squadron on CAP? Alright, where do you find the skilled pilots? If you use sub-standard pilots then your loses are just going to be higher than before, which in turn will cause lower morale to the unit, have to replace those pilots and airframes etc etc. Also more supply and sorties will be used up when you launch.

Well - training is not much of an issue. It takes as long to train 99 pilots in a squadron of 99 planes as it does to train 27 in a squadron of 27 - about 3 months to 70 air/ 70 defn/ 70 xp. IMO that is the real issue with resizing.

You're right - you can't get 99 plane squadrons of betties, but you can get 90 plane (upsized for 12 IIRC) squadrons of the torpedo armed Helens later in the war.

Just like to reiterate what I said. No suggestion that resizing units or the whole floatplane training thing is gamey - I do both, as I said above. Just that it shouldn't be assumed - it has a major impact on the game and some of the mechanics are poorly modelled. These two features mean it should be agreed with opponent at start.

[Yakface]

Just a thought (calculations pretty rough and ready)

IIRC it costs 5 HI per trainee pilot per month (or per quarter - I forget).

Japan has around 90 small BB,CL,CA,AV,SS etc groups in addition to the land based FP groups. All of the ship based ones (I think) can be resized.

It would be pretty easy to pull off 20 groups without affecting naval search (some of the ships have 2 groups aboard already - pull one off and resize the other).

Pull all the pilots out of the pool and the partially trained ones (dump into reserves if needed). Just train them on map using the FP groups. Huge HI saving. Will save 108,000HI first year (each pilot is trained for 12 months at a cost of 5 HI per month - with 150 new ones added each month: 12*5*150*12). Call that 90K after the cost of the planes. Every year after that is pure profit.

20 groups x 24 planes @ 36HI = 17,280 HI to equip. 480 seats with 3 month cycle would cover the 150 monthly replacements with some spares.

I've never lost a plane on training - so I bet even 0xp pilots are safe. Guess it will cost some supply and you've got to have enough aviation support in the HI. Either way - something like that, I would consider gamey.

Oh - as well as a huge HI saving, you get four 70xp/70AA/70Defn fighter/DB pilots per plane per year (assuming a 3 month cycle Edit - maybe only 3/yr considerinig you will start with sub 10xp recruits).

Another way of looking at the saving - a FP plane costs 36HI and can train 4 pilots a year to 70's in major skills. 16 pilots over a 4 year period. Cost per pilot 2.25 HI. It normally costs 60 HI just to get them to the national average. That one's a no brainer.

[Anthropoid]

Uhh . . . totally lost me there Yakface. How does training pilots cost Heavy Industry?

MakeeLearn was correct: beyond the Kreb's Cycle! [:D]

[Yakface]

There is a once a month 5 HI point levy for every pilot who is training to get to the national average (so in the 1-3, 3-6 etc training program). It represents the trainees use of resource (eg writing off training aircraft). At the end of each month, at the point where the HI 'tax' is paid, you will see that HI takes a dive. Pilots in the reserve an replacement pools do not incur the levy.

[Lokasenna]

The HI cost for the trainees is for off-map pilot school, not for those pilots in groups that are on training.

[Anthropoid]

Holy crap I didn't know that . . . so the bigger your "Replacement" pool is the bigger your monthly loss of _HEAVY INDUSTRY!?_

Talk about hammering the Japanese player! [:@][;)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Holy crap I didn't know that . . . so the bigger your "Replacement" pool is the bigger your monthly loss of _HEAVY INDUSTRY!?_

Talk about hammering the Japanese player! [:@][;)]

No. Re-read the previous posts - the pilots that are in basic training before they appear on any lists are the ones spending HI points. Once they finish basic training and are assigned to pools or units, the auto-expenditure of HI ends but you expend supplies when you train them further in squadrons in the game.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Resize away, no matter if you're playing as the allies or as the IJ. There's a counter to everything in this game and the counter to the "great resize" is that you'll be absolutely burning through spare airframes just to reinforce 1 unit! It can be pretty good when creating special ASW squadrons but in my opinion this is just an in-game model of actual real life hunter-killer groups. As others have said, you can only resize if a unit is based on a ship that carries aircraft so it already prevents 99 Netties from being created and stops 99 B-29's from being created. 99 squadron on CAP? Alright, where do you find the skilled pilots? If you use sub-standard pilots then your loses are just going to be higher than before, which in turn will cause lower morale to the unit, have to replace those pilots and airframes etc etc. Also more supply and sorties will be used up when you launch.

Well - training is not much of an issue. It takes as long to train 99 pilots in a squadron of 99 planes as it does to train 27 in a squadron of 27 - about 3 months to 70 air/ 70 defn/ 70 xp. IMO that is the real issue with resizing.

You're right - you can't get 99 plane squadrons of betties, but you can get 90 plane (upsized for 12 IIRC) squadrons of the torpedo armed Helens later in the war.

Just like to reiterate what I said. No suggestion that resizing units or the whole floatplane training thing is gamey - I do both, as I said above. Just that it shouldn't be assumed - it has a major impact on the game and some of the mechanics are poorly modelled. These two features mean it should be agreed with opponent at start.

You're missing one of my earlier points.

All of the groups on map are combat groups. So by using them for training you're taking groups out of combat.

Extra training is possible with these groups, and better if they're resized, but the cost is in the economic hits to doing this. It's not insignificant.

[SheperdN7]

At the end of the day it's all about philosophy- Do you want 20 squadrons with massive numbers of planes in each one or would you rather have 50 squadrons that have a third of the planes in them but enable you to launch airstrikes in many different areas. On the HI subject, I think it's incompetent as a JFB to just resize all your resizable squadrons and then expand the aircraft industry to fill out the TOE of those air groups- you will run out of HI so fast that the war will be over in early '43 at the very latest UNLESS you capture India and/or Australia to satisfy the HI needs that you will be having. I am saying right now that I feel India blitzkrieg is the most underrated strategy in the whole game as by capturing the huge swaths of HI there definitely has the potential to allow the Japanese player to build 20000 aircraft per year. That kind of number would make it very difficult for the allied counter offensive to achieve historical goals and it may even allow the Japanese player to hold onto the Mariana's (which IMHO are the most important islands in the entire pacific, mostly based on the fact that once B-29s get based there, the writing is on the wall.)

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Boy you guys throw asumptions around here like no tomorrow. The number of squadrons that can be resized to 81 (thats the maximum btw) is quite limited. The max for floatplanes is 24 and to be honest only an idiot would resize them all to 24. But even if I do that and empty all my carriers as resize them to 81 I would certainly not run out of HI 1943 at the latest. Thats also an extreme and totally unpractical.
That said one will run out of pilots to train rather quickly even if you pull them all out of flight school.
How much HI does India even have ? Half of Tokyo or so ?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Boy you guys throw asumptions around here like no tomorrow. The number of squadrons that can be resized to 81 (thats the maximum btw) is quite limited. The max for floatplanes is 24 and to be honest only an idiot would resize them all to 24. But even if I do that and empty all my carriers as resize them to 81 I would certainly not run out of HI 1943 at the latest. Thats also an extreme and totally unpractical.
That said one will run out of pilots to train rather quickly even if you pull them all out of flight school.
How much HI does India even have ? Half of Tokyo or so ?

Maybe in Scen 1 you'd run out of pilots, but I'm nowhere close to running out of pilots in Scen 2. I emptied the replacement pool and got sick of clicking. There are several thousand more sitting in pilot school still.

[rustysi]

No, "gamey" means that a certain game mechanic is unrealistic and you're playing the mechanics themselves, rather than what they're actually trying to represent. For example, running off-map convoys at full speed all the time because the game mechanics allow for no fuel being used and no sys damage being suffered is gamey - it is unrealistic and the player is taking advantage of the game mechanics. You would not run your off-map convoys full-speed all the time WITH fuel consumption and sys damage penalty, would you? Another example - putting anything else than Glens and Seirans on subs would be gamey - the game mechanics allow to put larger planes like Jakes on subs, but it is unrealistic because physically impossible to fit thoselarger planes in submarine hangars designed for much smaller airframes.

Now, cheating would be to use cheat codes (not aware of any in the game) for example to add 10.000 HI points to the pool for no costs for example. Or agreeing to a HR but not abiding to it.

Ahistoric - well, history goes out of the window with the first order issued on day 1, and no one wants to "play" a reenactment of the actual war, but try different strategies and different approaches. So yes, everything we do is more or less ahistoric.

+1. I define 'gamey' as taking advantage of something the code will allow.

You could never get any other Japanese float plane other than a Glen on most Japanese subs. I say most because the Seirans were designed to fit on those four monster subs Japan designed. I doubt the Seiran would fit the average 'sub hanger' on all other so equipped Japanese subs. The Glen weighed just over 3100lbs. Even the Pete weighed 2500lbs. more, and that alone would mean it probably could not be launched from the sub ramp/catapult. In addition the Glen was designed to be disassembled. The floats, wings, and a piece to the tail (folded down I believe) came off for stowage. I saw a film of one being readied for action once, it was quite illuminating how quickly it could be accomplished.

Another example I like to use is Japan's 'emergency reinforcements' when a base in the HI is occupied. To do this just to activate these so as to increase Japanese supply use. An adversary would have no idea whether or not this would occur, but in the game its a done deal. If it were option to the Japanese player I'd have no such objection.

But then the arguments are starting. Resizing all float plane groups to 24? The game mechanics allow it - but is it gamey or just ahistoric? Can of worms...

Yep, but as above I agree if players discuss and agree, all is well.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Holy crap I didn't know that . . . so the bigger your "Replacement" pool is the bigger your monthly loss of _HEAVY INDUSTRY!?_

Talk about hammering the Japanese player! [:@][;)]

No. Re-read the previous posts - the pilots that are in basic training before they appear on any lists are the ones spending HI points. Once they finish basic training and are assigned to pools or units, the auto-expenditure of HI ends but you expend supplies when you train them further in squadrons in the game.

Well I think I'm still missing the point here because he was suggesting this was a way to save on monthly HI expenditure by putting more pilots into on map training. If they are not even in the pools yet, then you cannot put them on map eh?

[rustysi]

Well I also rarely do the name clicking thing.

I always do, so I take the slight hit.

The max for floatplanes is 24 and to be honest only an idiot would resize them all to 24.

Hey, I resemble that remark.[:D] TBH I don't know if I do them all. I certainly do most.

Even with all this I've never drained my pilot pool and gone into the training cycle pilots. Even if I did the cost would just be switched from HI to supply, as groups on training use supply. And you would need to train those pre-grads as their experience and skill levels would be rather low to say the least.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Well I also rarely do the name clicking thing.

I always do, so I take the slight hit.

The max for floatplanes is 24 and to be honest only an idiot would resize them all to 24.

Hey, I resemble that remark.[:D] TBH I don't know if I do them all. I certainly do most.

Even with all this I've never drained my pilot pool and gone into the training cycle pilots. Even if I did the cost would just be switched from HI to supply, as groups on training use supply. And you would need to train those pre-grads as their experience and skill levels would be rather low to say the least.

Well with all I meant all. This would include to remove all groups from your ships. I doubt you do that

[rustysi]

If they are not even in the pools yet, then you cannot put them on map eh?

If Japan runs out of pilots in her pilot pool, she may then start drawing them from the training cycle. These would be poor candidates for any combat activity. Its essentially what Japan did IRL when her front-line pilots were gone. The results would be the same, unless she trains them up.

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Resize away, no matter if you're playing as the allies or as the IJ. There's a counter to everything in this game and the counter to the "great resize" is that you'll be absolutely burning through spare airframes just to reinforce 1 unit! It can be pretty good when creating special ASW squadrons but in my opinion this is just an in-game model of actual real life hunter-killer groups. As others have said, you can only resize if a unit is based on a ship that carries aircraft so it already prevents 99 Netties from being created and stops 99 B-29's from being created. 99 squadron on CAP? Alright, where do you find the skilled pilots? If you use sub-standard pilots then your loses are just going to be higher than before, which in turn will cause lower morale to the unit, have to replace those pilots and airframes etc etc. Also more supply and sorties will be used up when you launch.

Well - training is not much of an issue. It takes as long to train 99 pilots in a squadron of 99 planes as it does to train 27 in a squadron of 27 - about 3 months to 70 air/ 70 defn/ 70 xp. IMO that is the real issue with resizing.

You're right - you can't get 99 plane squadrons of betties, but you can get 90 plane (upsized for 12 IIRC) squadrons of the torpedo armed Helens later in the war.

Just like to reiterate what I said. No suggestion that resizing units or the whole floatplane training thing is gamey - I do both, as I said above. Just that it shouldn't be assumed - it has a major impact on the game and some of the mechanics are poorly modelled. These two features mean it should be agreed with opponent at start.

You're missing one of my earlier points.

All of the groups on map are combat groups. So by using them for training you're taking groups out of combat.

Extra training is possible with these groups, and better if they're resized, but the cost is in the economic hits to doing this. It's not insignificant.

Yes - however, lets face it you will need to do lots of on-map training to get pilots to useful levels. So it's a question of how much you compromise between having active grouops and training groups. Re-sizing allows Japan to set-up a very effective training program without using anything other than floatplane squadrons (plus a few some TB groups). Effectively the IJNAF doesn't have to compromise.

By re-sizing the float plane squadrons and using them to train fighter pilots you really aren't losing very much operationally. You can keep all of your IJNAF fighter squadrons on active duty and simply feed them with trained pilots from the float plane squadrons - which really only have marginal utility. Same for DBs.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

If they are not even in the pools yet, then you cannot put them on map eh?

If Japan runs out of pilots in her pilot pool, she may then start drawing them from the training cycle. These would be poor candidates for any combat activity. Its essentially what Japan did IRL when her front-line pilots were gone. The results would be the same, unless she trains them up.

Ah right. But that off-map pool is at least several hundred isn't it? So in order for the ploy that Yakface was thinking out loud about to work, you'd need to first have depleted several hundred pilots, then upsize all your resizeable units ,then fill them all with pilots from the pool?

[rustysi]

Well with all I meant all. This would include to remove all groups from your ships. I doubt you do that

Its all a matter of game style with me. I like to see what's coming and the only way to do that is to have eyes in the sky. Now granted these A/C are only going to spot something a day out at best, but at least I can get that 'pucker' effect when I say... 'Holy crap look what's coming'.[X(]