Too many air groups - AI, B29 production

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Aug 01, 2000 12:24 pm

Hi Matrix folks,

I noticed on a couple of occaisons when, late in the war, the AI doesn't eliminate air groups which are redundant, or empty or near empty with little chance of getting any new reinforcements due to decimated industry. So once Japan has been pushed back to, essentialy, Japan itself, the AI collects a huge number of air groups in home bases.

I don't know if this affected the AI in any significant way, ie, does the AI get leniency in terms of air group stacking limits? To a human, the situation the AI was in looked like a god-awful mess

. It might be a good idea to make a routine that allows the AI to remove extra/empty/useless air groups in the "home area" late in the war?

Second, does prodution of B29s seem too low to anybody else? What I always see is a half dozen bomber groups which never get replacements because those replacements are taken by bomber groups which came earlier in the internal bomber group list. This even occured when I kept the bombers on night missions to avoid air-to-air combat losses. Could the replacement routine be tweaked so that it spreads out the replacements to all bomber groups and/or improving the expansion of the B29 production so production can more quickly supply enough bombers? I don't think its historical for the last half dozen bomber groups that arrive in the theater, to never get into combat because they never get any more replacements beyond the 3-4 they start with.

Just some thoughts. It may be to late for PAC, maybe consider these issues for WitP?

Ian R · Post by **Ian R** » Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:17 pm

Ed Cogburn said

"Second, does prodution of B29s seem too low to anybody ... Could the replacement routine be tweaked so that it spreads out the replacements to all bomber groups "

You could work around this by

(a) changing some of them back to B24
(b) putting them in the rear to build experience bombing some defenceless and isolated IJN base
(c) Mike has put in a switch to reject the auto upgrade to B29 so the above will now work
(d) when they get to 99 experience move them to Saipan and change to B29. meantime move a burnt out group to the rear on B24s.

The key is the new "reject plane upgrade" feature, thanx to Mike.

Sure the shuffle around loses experience but this increases at an alarming rate when bombing something.

------------------
Ian R

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:32 pm

If they fix the bug that automatically upgrades the original B17/B24 groups to B29's, you can continue to use B17's/B24's in some airgroups from the aircraft in the supply pipeline while B29 production ramps up.

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Tue Aug 01, 2000 6:35 pm

Yeah, What he said!

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Aug 02, 2000 10:52 am

Originally posted by Ian R:

You could work around this by

(a) changing some of them back to B24
(b) putting them in the rear to build experience bombing some defenceless and isolated IJN base
(c) Mike has put in a switch to reject the auto upgrade to B29 so the above will now work
(d) when they get to 99 experience move them to Saipan and change to B29. meantime move a burnt out group to the rear on B24s.

The key is the new "reject plane upgrade" feature, thanx to Mike.

Yes, the reject upgrade option is a good idea. Your tactics would work, but it depends on how many B17/B24s were left in the pipeline. My recollection from the games I played, was there wasn't that many B17s left laying around once the switch to B29s was made. Not enough to keep a bomber group at good strength for very long if it flew a mission every week. I always ended up with a half dozen bomber groups starved for bombers.

The thing I was wondering about is what *historically* happened about the bomber groups? Its a realism issue that prompted me to ask this question. Was there enough B29s for all of them? Did some keep using B17s, and if so where did they get the planes for replacements? Did they "borrow" from the European theater (dominated by B17s)? There must have been B17 production simultaneously with B29 production to support the B17 groups in Europe, but in the game all B17 production switches to B29 production. Should there be an extra production facility in the game that continues making B17s? What *historically* happened?

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Thu Aug 03, 2000 2:49 am

B17's made until April '45 I think. Wasn't widely used in the Pacific because anything the B17 could do (except mass formation flying in heavy flak), the B24 could do better, and the B24 carried a heavier payload and had better range...just wasn't as good a formation flyer due to the high wing design, and not as rugged as the B17.

One reason so many partially strength bomber groups is that the game starts auto-converting landbased bomber groups to the B17, especially those using the Wellington...annoying as the Wellington is the best landbased Army anti-shipping aircraft in the game. Shame they fixed the Vengeance in the last game patch, LOL. The "reject upgrade" will fix alot of problems...it's a pain with the carrier based aircraft as well. How about that period in late '44, early '45 when you don't have any torpedo bombers because they convert them all to TBM's?

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Wed Aug 16, 2000 3:06 am

Yes, I agree that the fighting in Europe has to be taken into consideration,
as well. So if some factories were locked into producing B-17's, for
example, to supply the war in Europe, I'd have no problem with that.
But any aircraft production that isn't tied to requirements for Europe
should be under the player's control.

Also, I wouldn't want to see silly things like the English making
U.S. planes and the U.S. building English planes. That would be
very strange.

So I think that should be prevented.

emetcalf · Post by **emetcalf** » Wed Aug 16, 2000 5:14 pm

On your point about the US making Brit planes, it's in the game now. Check out Eastern US. It's building Hudson patrol aircraft and Vengeance bombers from the start of the war.

Mike Wood · Post by **Mike Wood** » Wed Aug 16, 2000 9:23 pm

Hello...

Yes, there were several US planes that the US Navy and Army Air Corps did not want, but the British liked. Another was the Ventura. Some US planes were used by both, like the Warhawk and the B-24.

Originally posted by emetcalf:
On your point about the US making Brit planes, it's in the game now. Check out Eastern US. It's building Hudson patrol aircraft and Vengeance bombers from the start of the war.

Of course it did not work that much in reverse. The US didn't fly any Spitfires or Blenheims.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 17, 2000 2:11 pm

Originally posted by Mike Wood:
Hello...

Yes, there were several US planes that the US Navy and Army Air Corps did not want, but the...[snip]

Hi, Mike.

Yep, the Vengence was, I believe, contracted by the British for an American company to produce. Remember how the P-51 Mustang started? It was the creation of an American aircraft company for a contract with the Brits. The plane wasn't interesting at first, but then the Brits thought to try the plane out with a British "Merlin" engine... and the rest is history. (It *is* "Merlin" isn't it? - my mind is going out on me)

Also don't forget the Corsair. The Yanks decided to go with the Hellcat, but the Brits liked the Corsair so much they used them on their carriers.

What is absolutely unhistorical is having the Brits building Mustangs or Thunderbolts, or the Yanks building Sunderlands, Spitfires, or Wellingtons, etc. (I do seem to remember, however, that the Aussies were building Mustangs late in the war.)

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Thu Aug 17, 2000 9:52 pm

"What is absolutely unhistorical is having the Brits building Mustangs or Thunderbolts, or the Yanks building Sunderlands, Spitfires, or Wellingtons, etc. (I do seem to remember, however, that the Aussies were building Mustangs late in the war.)"

Keep in mind that to a large degree British planes were "built in America" and "assembled in the UK". British aircraft production was completely dependent upon US made under license Merlin engines (Packard picked it up when Ford refused to support the war effort) and US instrumentation as well as the machine tools. The game adequately models this (IMO) with the delay to rev up production, the per unit expense rates, and the more limited AC production in the UK. Politically not feasible, and the time cost to retool British factories to producing US designs would be higher in reality...but, hey, it's a game, and it coulda happened. Calcutta and Oz were (I think) assembly points for AC's freighted in by ship in any case, and not really manufacturing points.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Aug 19, 2000 3:12 pm

Originally posted by babyseal7:

...

Politically not feasible, and the time cost to retool British factories to producing US designs would be higher in reality...but, hey, it's a game, and it coulda happened.

...

"Politically not feasible" is the important phrase here. Sure, "it could have happened" is technically true, but the odds? When I said that it would be absolutely unhistorical for Brits to change all their production to US AC, I had the "political" issue front and center in my mind. The English, a proud nation with with their own advanced AC technology and skill would not surrender their pride for this. Contracting with US companies to build British AC because of England's small production capability is one thing, to suggest they would dump the Spitfire (after it saved them in the battle of Britian) and the Wellington (an excellent bomber) and rely totally on another nation is inconceivable.

Its a game, do whatever you want, but as I said, if your playing the AI, you're using an advantage the AI doesn't know how to use. If you're playing a human, then its fair game. I do know how you feel. In WiR, I always loved the production display showing *all* tank factories for the Soviets producing T34/76s. Its a pretty sight.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sat Aug 19, 2000 9:18 pm

Actually, I wouldn't call Britain's production 'puny'

They actually out produced Germany in all weapons of war until 1942. The Spitfire was an amazing aircraft, and it wasn't until 1944 that the Americans posessed anything home designed that compared relatively well to it (P-47) and it wasn't until late 44 that they got something that was better than it (P-51).

The potential problem I have noticed is not having the UK and Commonwealth using US Aircraft, but, for the USAAF using British aircraft! The Spitfire VIII appears fairly soon in combat (turn 25 or 40), and is MUCH better than any contemporary USAAF aircraft until the P-51. However, the Allied player could switch all P-40 and P-39 production over to Spitfires and arm their FG with them. Not too historical...

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:25 pm

Yeah, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. The U.S. running
around the pacific with a bunch of spitfires? It's just so goofy,
I don't mind a player having flexibility in what aircraft he wants to
produce, but some things are so odd that I'd rather they not be
in the game. I just like to maintain a bit of believeability in
a wargame.

And like Major Tom said, it can cause serious balance problems,
giving the U.S. a huge help when they need it most. The Japs have
it bad enough trying to win without the U.S. getting this advantage.

I hope this sort of thing will be prevented to keep the proper balance
and flavor of the pacific war when you guys release WIP.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Sun Aug 20, 2000 9:53 pm

Something could be done like what the USMC fighter sqns, and IJNAF and IJAAF sqns do, that being, make it so British aircraft CANNOT be added to American Groups. You can't place P-40's in USMC fighter groups, the same should be done with all US groups with the Spitfire.

brisd · Post by **brisd** » Sun Aug 20, 2000 11:52 pm

The Spitfire is indeed a great point-defense fighter. Not until the Corsair and Thunderbolt (my fav WWII fighter) do the USA have something so able to mix it up with the Zero. Spits are great at defending Calcutta from Japanese bombers but try escorting B-25's in the Soloman's with them. P-38's are good for that.

How many more days must we wait!?

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 12:06 am

The idea of having "options" is so the player can choose. If you don't like an option...don't use it. Historical accuracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, we all know how the movie ended.

I kind of like the AI cheats, they're just another obstacle to beat. Realistically, the Jps. didn't have a prayer...give'em all the help you can. I'd like to see them be able to use the China troops as well.

Dunedain · Post by **Dunedain** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 5:59 am

I think you should not only be able to reject upgrades, but select any
available aircraft for production at any factory that supports it.

You're in charge of the strategic war effort in the Pacific, so the
player should be able to direct the placing of orders with factories
for whatever kinds of aircraft he wants, even if they are existing
types that have been in service for a long time.

I'm looking forward to the patch and I'm *really* looking forward
to the sequel.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 9:38 am

Originally posted by brisd:
The Spitfire is indeed a great point-defense fighter. Not until the Corsair and Thunderbolt (my fav WWII fighter) do the USA have something so able to mix it up with the Zero. Spits are great at defending Calcutta from Japanese bombers but try escorting B-25's in the Soloman's with them. P-38's are good for that.

Yea, I not sure this is really going to be a common thing (US using Spitfires). The reason is the Spitfires short (2 square) range. As we all know, a minimum of a 4 square range is necessary to make an AC really useful in the Pacific. In the Pacific, the Spitfire is just a base defense fighter, and with low exp it isn't even good at doing that.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 9:53 am

Originally posted by babyseal7:
The idea of having "options" is so the player can choose. If you don't like an option...don't use it. Historical accuracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, we all know how the movie ended.

No problem with options. The thing is, right now, these cheats for the AI, and the automatic upgrade of air groups to newer AC, are not options...

I kind of like the AI cheats, they're just another obstacle to beat. Realistically, the Jps. didn't have a prayer...give'em all the help you can.

That's not necessarily true. Many have commented about the Battle of Midway having required some extrodinary good luck for the US, to catch the IJN carriers when they were most vulnerable (armed planes on deck, and no Zero CAP because the Zeros were on the deck chasing torpedo-bombers which had tried to attack just before the dive-bombers arrived).

The Japanese made a lethal mistake assuming the US was pacifist and would want to avoid war at any cost. If they had realized that, there strategy would have been very different.