Too many air groups - AI, B29 production

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:33 pm

Originally posted by Dunedain:
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.

Hi,

Assigning planes to factories is basically already possible, its just been negated till now by the automatic air group upgrades that the game makes, that the user can't override.

If you want weird situations, we could have US building and using British Sunderland patrol craft, British factories producing American planes, etc, but unless you're playing a human, you're using an advantage the AI doesn't have.

More importantly, being strategic commander of Pacific theater means you control only *half* the war. The European theater must be taken into account. Thus the B17/B24/B29 issue is dependent on what production is being done for the European theater. Since FDR and Churchill agreed that Europe was more important and needed to be concentrated on first, you, as the strategic commander of Pacific theater, would have your hands tied on a number of production issues (outside of naval shipbuilding I suppose).

emetcalf · Post by **emetcalf** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 5:09 pm

I agree with Ed on this one. The Japs may not have a prayer in the long term (with the Essex class carriers rolling out), but it all depends on the victory conditions. Until mid to late 1943, the US is in no condition to overwhelm the Japanese; the numbers aren't there yet. If the Japanese have been agressive, the US could have a lot of territory to make up. Depending on the victory conditions, the US could kick butt for two years (1944-1945) and still only get a draw, because they started too far back. Unless the IJN gets stupid, they'll keep all or most of the original six carriers operational, and that's enough to stymie US attacks early in the game.

gdpsnake · Post by **gdpsnake** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 5:12 pm

The Dutch airgroups don't disappear after the Dutch are defeated like the men. The A/C squadrons should disband when the last Dutch land unit and base is taken. The aircraft should go into the replacement pool to represent incorporation into the other nations forces. This should be fairly easy to fix in the patch or at least included in the new game.

Also, I don't like the computer creating my squadrons either. I hate clicking on west coast and finding 20 new squadrons of 4 A/C that I don't want or need or seeing the same in Japan. I should be able to create a squadron out of the available pools of aircraft and pilots as I decide. Leave the pilots in training around the country till I create a combat squadron. (I hope this feature of pilots is used in the new Pacific War game).

The spitfire is not as valuable to me as the P-40 because of the '2 range' versus '3 range'. Range is everything in this game which is why the Wellington is King for the allies and later the P-38's. So I'm way 'unhistorical' because I make everything P-40's and Wellingtons and later P-38's. Why even build a Corsair when the Hellcat shows up a few turns later? In other words, for me, the issue is I never use or build many of the aircraft available because in 'game terms' they don't make good sense. The same can be said of the Jap planes. (Who builds a Mary or Sonia?) This is what needs to be tweaked in the new game. A/C production type and amount, pilots, and some 'political' focus to use other types - maybe tweaking the game scale to reflect more accurate ranges and payloads/attack modes of the A/C. Training issues like Brits train in Gladiators to transition to Hurricanes and not P-38's because Britain has Gladiator training bases and not P-38 training bases and vice versa. The B-26 being primarily a level torpedo bomber while the B-25 is primarily a level AP bomber. Compatibility or ability to obtain spare parts might mean Spitfires in India instead of P-38's.

Also, the computer should not recreate eliminated units. I should create them when I want to out of the available resources. I could give the unit an old designation or a new one. Perhaps the computer could create the cadres but I choose when to equip, activate, and train them.

These are issues mainly for the new game rather than the patch I hope get looked at.

babyseal7 · Post by **babyseal7** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:25 pm

Changing A/C's however is an "option". A highly desirable one at that. Since all the Brit/Dutch units begin the war flying clunkers they must be upgraded in any case, unless you want to expend manufacturing points churning out obsolete A/C.

P40's aren't totally unrealistic for them to be flying at all...it was used as "Lend-Lease" and in service till the end of the war. Since the Pacific wasn't "high priority" for anyone during that period, especially for front-line fighters, and all the A/C had to be shipped anyway this isn't too unbelievable.

Dunno what else you guys think the Jps. should have done to be "more aggressive"? They took the entire Far East with the exception of Midway (tried kinda hard for that), Oz, India and murdered 50 million Chinese. I'd hate to have seen them if they got ticked off, eh? They extended just about as far (and waaaaay past the point) as they possibly could given their resources and manpower. How would their strategy have been "different"? Invaded the HI, Oz or CONUS in '42? Of course, if they'd buried their inter-service rivalries they woulda been a much tougher proposition.

In game terms, the "AI cheats" are in place to give the AI as big a lead (both in points and territory) in '42 as possible in order to make a game of it. Without them, I doubt if an AI game will run much past mid '44. Historically, the war only lasted as long as it did due to the efforts of one man...Doug Macarthur. Without him it probably woulda been over a year earlier.

"Midways" don't happen in '42 in PW, that's one of the things that keeps the game going long term...must be reasonably effective since we're all still playing it.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Aug 22, 2000 6:59 am

Actually, once Sorebaya is gone, and a Dutch AG is destroyed (dispanded or destroyed by a japanese LCU) it cannot reappear. However, if it isn't destroyed it can remain on the map. Not every Dutch aviator surrendered, or was lost in the Indies. There were many hundreds of troops who escaped to Australia. There were even a few Dutch Sqns in the RAAF!

Actually, I find that the IJN gets pretty much chewwed up in the Soloman Islands. They usually lose the 4 carriers by the end of 1942, early 1943, but, over a period of time instead of all at once. The Allies lose their historical amount of carriers as well. It will be interesting to see how the scenarios go after the new OB's and Patch are out.

brisd · Post by **brisd** » Tue Aug 22, 2000 9:00 am

I find it hilarious that someone would complain about having too many airgroups, that is new ones being created automatically. How else are all those thousands of planes going to make it into battle? I thought this was a simulation of the war not fiction?? Of course there are Corsairs AND Hellcats, they both were outstanding aircraft and contributed to the war effort. If you don't like a type of aircraft change the airgroup's makeup, that is one of the player options, which is probably too much control really for this scale of game but allows the micromanagers like me something to do. And if you don't like all those airgroups just disband them. Then you can build planes to your heart's delight and never worry about them getting shot down or winning the game either?! Amazing some of these posts...

gdpsnake · Post by **gdpsnake** » Tue Aug 22, 2000 9:15 pm

It was my understanding that if you disband an airgroup they reappear in 6 months with more airplanes.
As for having too many, well, I guess I don't throw my guys to the wolves and put them where they count-the rest being used in backwater spots and the west coast which gets littered with 40+ squadrons competing for training airspace. In early '43, I'm forcing the enemy to lose over 400 A/C a week to my <100. I don't need more squadrons or 1000+ planes a week.
I don't get the 20,000+ spare A/C in the pools into the war either way. Better to scale back A/C production and build something else like trucks or transports (never enough of those!)

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Aug 23, 2000 9:33 pm

Originally posted by brisd:
I find it hilarious that someone would complain about having too many airgroups, ...

Please pay attention to what I said. I am not talking about the *player* having to deal with this, I'm talking about the AI as Japan. In the end game, the AI has few bases to spread out the air groups that it has, because its been driven back to its home islands, and worse, the near destruction of production means most of those groups aren't even close to full strengh. Now a human player would eliminate those bad groups to make room for better groups at that base. By bad I mean not only empty groups but also groups that are no longer useful in the end game (army bombers for example). The AI doesn't do this, and *appears* to suffer from the "too many air groups at a base" penalty, its hard to tell.

At the very least, maybe we should exempt the AI from this rule in its home islands bases.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Aug 23, 2000 9:39 pm

Originally posted by gdpsnake:
It was my understanding that if you disband an airgroup they reappear in 6 months with more airplanes.

As I said to the other poster, I'm talking about the *AI* when its playing *Japan*. It doesn't have the aircraft to return any of its air groups to full strength, and some, like army bombers aren't at all useful when its down to defending only its home islands. The AI, AFAICT, doesn't disband groups that are no longer useful.

gdpsnake · Post by **gdpsnake** » Wed Aug 23, 2000 11:14 pm

Ed,
I understood what you meant and you are right! My reply was for my fellow San Diego man who thinks it's hilarious that one might complain about too many air groups. It's '44 and I have 25+ B-29 groups alone!

For everyone out there, a new book on Emperor Hirohito came out that dispells the 'myth' he had little control. Turns out he knew it all and was CIC of all forces. He and MacArthur struck a deal so Japan would become a US satellite. No wonder there wasn't any 'Nuremburg' for Japan. Not that anyone was guiltless in that war or any other.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Thu Aug 24, 2000 12:24 am

Hi all. I regards to last post about no Nuremburg check again. More Japanese were executed for War Crimes then Germans. They just didn't get big show trials. Mac was out to get every one who had embarrassed him. Love this game.

------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Thu Aug 24, 2000 1:25 am

Hate to say this, but one biography being different from the rest doesn't mean that its true...

Yes, the Japanese were given, on average, much harder sentences than their equivalents back in Europe. For running a concentration camp, an SS soldier might get 10 years, reduced to 5 for good behaviour, and in the Pacific, competent, and indeed compassionate Japanese Military commanders like Yamashita get executed for their troubles.

gdpsnake · Post by **gdpsnake** » Thu Aug 24, 2000 4:21 am

True. But the reason (as the book claims) is that the Japanese officers simply pleaded guilty or accepted their fate to protect the emperor's rule. Death was more acceptable than dragging out the skeletons. In Germany, the Allies had to prove it - nobody wanted to go quietly. Of course, none of the Allied atrocities came out.
The info for this biography has come from the recently available/released papers of the Emperor himself so I think this book is closer to the truth.

[This message has been edited by gdpsnake (edited August 23, 2000).]

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 24, 2000 11:28 am

Originally posted by gdpsnake:
Ed,
I understood what you meant and you are right! My reply was for my fellow San Diego man who thinks it's hilarious that one might complain about too many air groups. It's '44 and I have 25+ B-29 groups alone!

Sorry, about that. I should have read your post more carefully. In fact, your right too, there is a huge number of heavy bomber groups. My experience as I mentioned in the post that started this topic was production never caught up with the number of groups to supply, so I end up with close to a dozen heavy bomber groups permanently in training in a backwater base because no new AC get assigned to them. We might as well reduce the number of groups since we don't have the production to keep them at full strength anyway.

Having thought about this, I'd say the AI playing the Allies and is backed up to the west coast would have exactly the same problem the AI has when playing Japan and getting backed up to Japan itself.