Japanese pilot replacement at start pool

[doktorblood]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I don't mess with either and have never had the IJNAF or IJAAF "collapse" on me.
The Corsair slaughters Japanese fighters of all makes and no matter what pilot experiance. So if you want the Japanese AI to fight better alter the ratings of the Corsair and not the pilot pools.

Well I have to agree that either corsair are over-uberized and/or late war Jap Fighters are over-gimped.

[mogami]

Hi, I think what happened is simple.
Pilot ratings are not as important as the aircraft ratings. In the actual war the aircraft themselves were comparable but the pilots over all were not. But it has translated in WITP that the Allied aircraft themselves were so much better that it ends up making pilot ratings of little importance when the aircraft are not identical in ratings.
So actually having better pilots for Japan in 1943 has very little impact. The pool/replacement rates don't matter that much when pilots are only used once.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, I think what happened is simple.
Pilot ratings are not as important as the aircraft ratings. In the actual war the aircraft themselves were comparable but the pilots over all were not. But it has translated in WITP that the Allied aircraft themselves were so much better that it ends up making pilot ratings of little importance when the aircraft are not identical in ratings.
So actually having better pilots for Japan in 1943 has very little impact. The pool/replacement rates don't matter that much when pilots are only used once.

Yep yep yep. Seems to me that by the time the Corsair (and others) came along the RL Japanes pilot pool was using the scum on the bottom of the pool. This makes the Corsair rated much better than the Japanes planes. In the game when you add the poor pilots in the already poor (compared to a Corsair) planes the problem only increases.

Don't get me wrong the late model Allied fighters were better aircraft - just not as good as their WitP ratings because they were flown by experienced pilots against inexperienced Japanese pilots in (somewhat) inferior planes. So on purely a kill ratio the plane looks unbeatable when in fact it was a combination of plane and pilot making it look good.

[mogami]

Hi, I see this currently in games where I have went into 1943.
Japanese groups with pilots in 80's get 1-1 (or better) against P-38 but are shot down like quail by Corsair. (It does not matter what aircraft the Japanese are flying)
The result is simply that any airfield in range of Corsair becomes untenable for Japan and Japan cannot oppose air control on any airfield with Corsair flying CAP.
24 Corsair on CAP defeats 100+ Japanese fighters on sweep or escort resulting in bombers being slaughtered. (again experianced Japanese pilots flying the newer models)

[Brady]

A few comments:

1) In our game Mogami is making I belave observations with regards to the P-38 that are not entirely fair, I beelave over all the P-38's fair a lot better aganst the Japanese tnah his 1-1, a Lot of P-38's have fallen victom in our game to fatigue, I over used them, long range cap covering landings was their undoing, in Sweaps they have faired far beter aganst all types of aircraft ushualy, unless their green, initial units convereted to type were fairly experanced and have for the most part faired well.

2) The F4U is freaking Uber to be shure, two of my units in only a couple weeks in fighting have over 250 kills between them.

3) In 1943 the Japanese Navy was still turning out skilled trainies, their is plently of evidance to suport this, and I have posted this in the past.

.........

What I beleave is the big determiner in WiTP and how it differs from reality, this is very much a game and not a sim...is that Spead is a Huge factor, the F4U is much faster than the planes it faces, so is the P-38 for the most part, also WiTP gives many Allied planes that were very un- manuverable ratings close to many Japanese types, that were notably very manuaverable by comparasion. Why they have done this is beyond me but a lot of How they make stuff hapen in game is, and when asked this is rarely answered, for fear of sparking the mother of all debates no doubt.

So the Alllies get the edge in the sliding scale, they get decent piolets and have comperable manuaver ratings and are faster, and the one advantage the Japanese had is reduced to a non isue...

Another troubling aspect of the game is the whole isue with units like the AVG, I have watched the AVG just hose down far better plane type's while flying piss pore P-40B's, planes like Ki-61's and Ki-44's, Zeros any model are way better preformes as well, yet they are easymeat for these planes....very preplexing, here it would seam the skill and fatigue are factores, but....


I am very much enjoying the Game Mogami and I are playing but when I start another WiTP game it will undoubtly be a mod.

............

Edit:

A handy little tool from another web sight offer's the following comparasions, the graph is fairly accurate though the P-38 is an "L" and differs from the "G" by around 10-30 mph depending on what part of the flight envelpoe yuor comparing(prety close to the F4U-1 realy):

[Brady]

I am not shure what Manuaver means in the WiTP Universe, but as you can see below, it must mean something other than what it means at least to me. The F4U as an example is arguably the worst manuavering plane on the list yet it scores higher than a Zero. It would be helpfull to know what Manuaver means in WiTP and how it factores into the AtoA calaculations.

George-363/2514/36(Max spead/Climb/manuver)

A6M3-336/2700/36

Ki-43 IIa-329/2750/34

Ki-44-376/3832/32

Ki-61- 368/2970/32

Ki-84- 392/2780/35

....................................

F4F-4-320/1950/32

F6F-380/2980/36

F4U-1-415/3120/37

P-40B-352/2860/31

P-40E-362/2083/31

P-38G-391/2353/32

The P-47D has a mnuaver rating of 36, and a B-25C-14, just to show I belave the higher the figure the better the handeling, P-47's were also not nimble planes.

[Oznoyng]

I was a big time Corsair fan as a kid. If memory serves, the first combat with Corsairs left over 10 Corsairs shot down against minimal losses by the IJN. That changed quickly but the first engagement was no cakewalk.

[Graycompany]

Tactics were a big part of Allied side, and resulted in the higher kill ratio. this is often overlooked. The Allies got better and better at formation flying and Combat tactics, and as the war progressed, the Japanese pilots tactics were overcome. This coupled with better training of Allies, from '42 on, and sheer numbers were the downfall of the japanese pilots

There is no question the IJN pilots were top line, the IJA were not as good, and were often outclassed by Allied pilots even at the start of the war. Once the Allies got modern planes, the writing was on the wall.

You may argue anything you want, but the facts are the facts, Better planes, better training, faster planes, sheer numbers it is tide all in favor of the Allies, its was true in the real war, as it is in WITP.

[Brady]

"You may argue anything you want, but the facts are the facts, Better planes, better training, faster planes, sheer numbers it is tide all in favor of the Allies, its was true in the real war, as it is in WITP. "

Well you can pick it apart, the proof and the game results are in the details. WiTP endevors to acuraterly ( i hope) model the weapons of war, and we the players put them to use, results are as varried as the methods, and should be. The problem is that sometimes the atempt to efect a Historical outcome in the game caused things to be tweaked to the point that they dont realy properly reflect the weapons.

US Planes were Not all better all the time.

Us Piolets were Not all better all the time.

Japanese Army piolets were Not all that bad.

The Allies did have Numbers on their side to be shure.

The problem in WiTP is that the quote is true prety much all the time in game, given equial or Greater numbers in Beter planes the Japanese have been sean to lose grandely on many ocashons in Games I have played when facing Allied air assests. Granted this can be argued, and should be.

The one clearly questionable rating above that efects AtoA is the Manauaver one, if this were more reflective of the planes true nature's we might see results that aproach reality, instead of instances whear Japanese air atacks with a six to one advantage in Numbers are slaughtered by a handfull of F4U's.

...............

Look at the chart below comparing Ki-61's and P40B's and F4U-1's:



The spead diferances between the primary apontes is comperable, yet F4U's rutinealy enjoy HUGE K/D ratios agant Tony's, but Tonys Do Not aganst P-40B's, in fact I have withensed quiet the opeset efect, whear P40B's have hosed Tony units. The Manauver ratings of the F4U is much higher, while the Tony and P-40B are very close. So it would seam the Manuver advantage WiTP fasly gives the F4U is the culpert.

The Manuaver rating would also explane the P-38's lesser preformance compared to the F4U, despit their similar spead rating. Many sources sight the Wildcat, as the Most Manuaverable US Fighter in the War aganst Japan, yet the game does not reflect this.

Manauverabality losly defined hear, should look somthing like this, with the best (Most) manauverable (aeroabatic) plane:

Oscar-38

Zero-37

Huricane-35

Spitfire-32

Wildcat/George-31


Tony-30

Ki-84-30

P-40-28

P-38-28

Hellcat-28

P-51-27

P-47-25

F4U-25

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just for the record (cough) (and thousandth time)
THE STARTING JAPANESE PILOT POOL AND MONTHLY REPLACEMENTS OF TRAINED PILOTS DOES NOT REPRESENT JAPANESE PILOT TRAINING PROGRAMS.

They are simply "IN ADDITION TO" Japanese pilot training programs.

Japanese pilot training programs are set up and maintained by the Japanese player.

Anyone who uses the pool or replacement rate to maintain the Quality of the Japanese airforces is attempting to "balance" the game. The pilot pool and replacement rate as designed have nothing to do with balance.

When you increase the pool and replacement rate you free the Japanese player from responsabilty. He now does not have to bother with pilot training or worry about loss rates from combat/operations. (It is ok to pamper the AI but any human Japanese player who alters these rates is a butt weasel)

The Japanese player does not need "training groups" (players would simply use them as combat groups) The Japanese player of the game WITP will have 2 to 3 times the number of active groups compared to historic Japan. Historic Japan disbanded groups and never rebuilt them. (They organized a new group. This new group will arrive in WITP with trained pilots whether or not Japan disbands the group historically disbanded so Japan now has 2 groups not 1)
If the Japanese player had "training" groups he would need to disband them into combat groups to use the pilots. (Same as now) So in fact the Japanese player has as many training groups as he wants. And as many combat groups as he wants.
Historic Japanese training programs are easy to maintain in WITP on map.

In PBEMs I play the IJN pilot replacement rate is 30 and you can believe me I have to do training, training, training. Including the IJA I´ve got 500 + planes in China only doing training bombing raids since I started in 5/42 and we are now nearly in 10/42. Losses are not so high because my Allied opponent has a very defensive stratetgy (which is very good). I´ve got about 1500 losses of planes but 800+ are op losses which mostly are from my training.

[msaario]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Manauverabality losly defined hear, should look somthing like this, with the best (Most) manauverable (aeroabatic) plane:

Oscar-38
Zero-37
Huricane-35
Spitfire-32
Wildcat/George-31
Tony-30
Ki-84-30
P-40-28
P-38-28
Hellcat-28
P-51-27
P-47-25
F4U-25

Wasn't Spit a lot more maneuverable than a Hurricane? Maybe these should be reversed? I find this list interesting, especially because the P-51 gets such a low rating. Being no subject matter expert, I'd love to hear other people's viewpoints (maybe the spread should be narrower). Now the differences are quite huge between various plane ratings.

Good topic though. I face this issue in my game vs AI as I am not sure I can anymore go into combat against the Allies no matter who flies what Japanese planes (my only major encounter with AI flown F6F's resulted in 70-11 in favor of the US - I halted offensive air missions after that. Partially my own fault though).

--Mikko

[Rainerle]

Hi,

personally I don't concern myself much with the pool, it's just the way it is (just like allied torps). The one thing I wonder is why the japanese started the war with understrength airgroups (those that you have to fill in the beginning). Is this a fact ? Seems really silly to me not to just accelerate a few soon to be finished pilots and get them in a cockpit by Dec. 7th. Input welcome.

[tabpub]

Regarding the pilot pools, one has to remember the Fascist attitude about the war, both in Europe and Japan. They all anticipated short wars, with the corrupt and decadent democracies caving in to their superior positions and forces (and the incompetent Russians having the house fall down after their door was kicked in, to paraphrase Herr Hitler). Remember the Germans giggling when Roosevelt called for 50000 planes to be produced in 1942; they weren't giggling in 1945. Nor were they when they produced the highest monthly production of single seat fighters in late 44, but they didn't have the new pilots to fill them as their training program was falling behind the wastage rate. The Japanese had the same problem and the lag time for correcting it caught up with them before they could really address that fact.....Look a dead horse!!

Regarding manuever ratings; they are not merely some numerical representation of acrobatic ability of the plane (I believe I have seen this stated as far back as UV) It combines several aspects including the tactics used, roll, dive and the like; not just the nimbleness of the plane. It is a arbitrary figure that the programmer(s) came up with. And the spread is not that great in my opinion; 29 is about the worst and what is the highest...38? Personally, when it comes to AtoA combat, speed is the thing. He who has the speed advantage (whether due to height or just having the better power to weight ratio) determines where and when the fight happens. You have to be able to catch me to shoot me; no missles here.

When the IJN lost their 4 carriers and then lost the majority of their other experienced pilots in the Solomons they lost their mobile air capability. You don't see this in this GAME, as we have a Fantasyland approach to air maintainence here. In the WITP world, you can fly 1/2 way round the globe; find the appropriate bombs, bullets and torpedoes waiting for you magically in the form of "supply"; find maintainencemen that can repair, arm and fuel the planes; (imagine some Dutch or Chinese mechanic looking at a beatup Fort that just struggled in to land with an engine out and missing on 2 cylinders in another...you think HE'S fixing anytime soon? Spares hava no, Boss....). In the REAL world, the ground element PRECEDED the planes to their future base....by ship usually. Now, while they were sailing there, the planes would either sit back in the States at a major base or at another on the front where there was a similarly equipped group to support them, but then they had to share, which would cut into their operational ability. Heck, look at what it takes to move a wing these days, something on the order of 5 huge transport planes per plane in the group I think (some other with experience might know for sure...I will have to dash off an email to my friend that was in a MAW ground element to see what it was when he was in).

So, after the rant, WITP is like a diamond. If you don't like the way it looks, cut it in the editor to your style. And if you don't want to cut it, sell it. Personally, it has it's flaws, but it also has it's brilliance (at least to my eye) and cut was pretty good, so I'll keep it as is. But I would think that until someone comes out with a different approach and theory to this conflict we work with this one as best we can...Perhaps with an official fix or two to remain...(not to sound like someone else, but let's look at the numbers on the Ventura.....it's basically an improved Hudson and the range is DRASTICALLY reduced....??? )

Peace.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Brady

I am not shure what Manuaver means in the WiTP Universe, but as you can see below, it must mean something other than what it means at least to me. The F4U as an example is arguably the worst manuavering plane on the list yet it scores higher than a Zero. It would be helpfull to know what Manuaver means in WiTP and how it factores into the AtoA calaculations.

The 2nd-gen Allied aircraft MVR ratings are influenced to represent the high-speed/high altitude advantage that they had over most of the Japanese types they faced. Thats the idea at least. P-47D would be a good example. Its a brick of course..but at high altitude it was fast and suprisingly maneuverable 'at' those fast speeds. Its an abstraction of course.

[Brady]

"The 2nd-gen Allied aircraft MVR ratings are influenced to represent the high-speed/high altitude advantage that they had over most of the Japanese types they faced"


The big problem with this of course is that well, the Japanese planes that they were Faster than already couldnent manuaver with them at those speads or alts anyway, in other words ya they could do those things but they would be all alone in doing them, it is not like europe whear they faced planes on average that preformed all thgought the flight envelope with them. Spead as noted above was the single bigest advantage they had and this is acounted for, that and the training to avoid dog fighting, the problem is that when you get to planes like the Ki-84 or the Frank, that these artificialy comparable manuaver rating are screwing the Japanese.

If you have decent piolets and have fresh airgrops facing comperable allied late warplanes, say a Ki-84 and a Hellcate, the artificial manuaver rating aplied tot he Helcat is going mess up the equation.

This is why I am guesing were seeing the F4U, get ridisously high K/D ratios even when out numbered, and facing decent Japanese types like the Tony.


...............

Huricane was slower but more manuaverable than a Spitfire,P-51 were fast glass jawed beasts that were not particularly manuaverable, they were not bad certainly more handy than a F4U or a Jug.

[Nikademus]

well the Japanese did often try to offer battle despite the disadvantages. They didn't have much choice.

The most important variable in the game is Speed, followed by the gun value. (i.e. even if you raised the MVR rating a bit above the faster Allied plane it would not make much difference)

[Brady]

Gun Values should be fairly equile in Japanese late and Mid war types, to the US planes they faced with a standard 6 pack of 50 cal's, the Two 20mm and two 12.7mm guns on the Japanese planes were as deadly as the 50's they faced. It's been a while since I looked at this...

I am trying to see what is making the F4U be so domanate, when I look at the Spead diferances between in and the P40B and the Ki-61 as noted above in teh example the Guns shoul be fairly equile, espichaly in the uberabstraced would of WiTP in this regard. I dont understand why we see such huge K/D ratios with the F4U over the Tony and Not the Tony over the P40B, the only thing that jumps out is the Manuaver rating.

...........

Sweat freaking Jesious(sry to any religious folks) but ya I see it now, someone outa be slaped for coming up with those figures for gun lethality, good grief I cant beelave after all this time I hadent sean that, even with all the posts I amde on the subject mater since before the game came out...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Gun Values should be fairly equile in Japanese late and Mid war types,

Your mis-understanding me. I was not suggesting an unfavorable comparison between Allied and Japanese gun values. I was simply stating that gun value is an important factor like the speed variable, because at the high end, as represented by the standard 6x50 or by the late war Japanese cannon/MG values, a pulse of fire will usually result in a kill vs a damage against aircraft with a Dur rating of 60 or under.

Combine a plane with a potent gun value and high speed, you have a killing machine (in the game)

[Brady]

I am beging to see how it works with better understanding , espichaly now that I see how their weighted, though a quick glance at the data base would indicate the Japanese guns are very diferent in terms of lethality comapred to the .50 cal.

............

Gota run, and cant get on my saopbox:(, but check this out:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... un-pe.html

It would apear at a glance that the Japnese guns are grosly misrepresented in game.

[Nikademus]

You might be interested in my mod for your next game. It attempts to address much of what has been highlighted in this thread. [:)]