Shattered Vow

[Canoerebel]

11/13/43 and 11/14/43
 
Ambon:  The Allies wrap up the amphibious phase with a few more shore gun casualties.  No appearance by LBA or combat ships.  This Allied attack comes off at 1:2 but drops forts from 4 to 3 and results in 900 IJA to 500 Allied casualties.  These are good developments and suggest that Ambon may fall within a week.
 
Manikwari:  Miller is reinforcing, but an IJN fast transport CL/DD force got caught there in daylight hours.  TBF scored hits on CL Yubari, CLAA Tatsuti, CL Kitakami, CL Oyoda.  Most of them took multiple hits and all were seen "afire."  This is further attrition on the IJN CA/CL force that has taken some licks over the past two weeks.  I don't think the Japanese can effectively reinforce Mani given its proximity to Sorong and Babo, but we'll see.
 
Milne Bay:  The ground troops have arrived at Townsville and the transports are on the way from the recent Ambon invasion.  I want to use APAs because they unload all troops and supplies in a lightning quick two days.  The invasion will be covered by at least four CVEs.  I don't expect to encounter carriers (surely Miller is focused on the DEI, especially after the move on Ambon?).
 
Battle of Morotai Cripples:  Most of the capital ships are nearing Townsville now and should be out of harm's way barring IJN sub activity.  Alot of heavies will be heading to the west coast.  None of the CVs or BBs have more than moderate damage (on the light side of moderate at that), but it will take some time to get them from here to there.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am doing my best to accurately report the game - the good, the bad, the ugly.  I know my frustrations with certain aspects have been noted.  My hope is that this helps players see what's coming (as crsutton kindly says) and helps present to the developers situations that may need looking at. 

But I don't know if I've done a very good job of conveying how enthralled I am by the game - not ony AE, but the terrific fight that Miller is putting up.  Despite bumps and bruises and woes of various sorts, this game is a BLAST!

Your devotion for and fun with the game are obvious and as I said in your "tip to the hat" thread after the CV battle, I really like reading your AAR.

I tend to agree with Nemo121 and PaxMondo though. You cannot draw conclusions to overall pilot quality or compare the game progress to history when the two major
CV battles are missing that favoured the Allied side, and your pilot training program is much less detailed than Miller´s is.

If you look at all the other AAR´s here then we already have a nice collection of "what if" alternate histories.

Aussies vs. Amis with their nasty forward defense were on the countermove from day one and at the moment it looks
as if Japan could be beaten earlier than historical.
Aztez vs. Erstad has witnessed a much larger Japanese expansion than in history and you still have a bloodred map in ´43.
Q-ball vs. Cuttlefish had some major engagements that turned out the other way and now in early ´43 Q-ball has a foothold
in the Celebes.

Not a single of those AAR´s in itself is representative for game balance.

Each AAR, while all players are competent to a level where its a bit hard to decide who is really the stronger player,
had unique situations that turned tides, and either accellerated the Japanese demise or supported its expansion far over historical borders.

Though I understand that its hard to develop this point of view when you are directly involved into the campaign.

[Canoerebel]

There have been carrier air battles in our game equivalent to Coral Sea and Midway - at least four of them over the last five months.  No, the Japanese didn't lose six carriers, but they did lose well over 1,000 aircraft in the few months before the recent engagement - 200+ at Adak Island (6/43), 500+ at Darwin (7/ or 8/43), and 200+ in the DEI (10/43).  All of these were raids over distant Allied ports or carriers, so I *assume* most of those pilots were lost too.

Then the Japanese lost something between 500 and 1,000 aircraft in the recent engagement, though I'm not sure the pilot mortality would be as high since the battle took place near Japanese carriers and bases.

I'm saying that there should be no way for the Japanese to replace very high pilot losses over a few months and still maintain high pilot quality, but that's what's happening.

It's not Scenario Two that's causing this.  Miller says he began the game with higher pilot quality, but that those guys have long since died.  He says pilot experience and training has been the same as in Scenario One for most of the game.

He says he's able to quickly train new pilots to high skill levels.

So you guys tell me:  Is it reasonable for the Japanese to lose about 1,000 carrier pilots over four or five months and still maintain high pilot quality? 

[Canoerebel]

I admit, however, that I am puzzled about Allied pilot quality. I am really having trouble in this regard and would appreciate comments or suggestions.  A few points:
 
1)  Allied fighter pilots are mostly in good shape - LBA fighter pilots in the eastern DEI are mostly in the high 60s and low 70s, so that seems acceptable.
 
2)  Fighter pilots seem to gain decent experience at frontline bases just by flying CAP and perhaps dealing with the occasional enemy recon or patrol aircraft.
 
3)  Experience increases for fighter pilots training in rear areas is agonizlingly slow.  I've had two USAAF squadrons training at Charters Towers for well over six months and pilots in both are still in the 40s.
 
4)  Unopposed, low-risk bombing runs do not seem to help train bomber crews.  I've had B-25 and B-26 squadrons flying unopposed raids against Port Moresby and Milne Bay for a year now.  Pilot experience in those crews is in the high 40s to high 50s (one squadron is in the high 30s, but it's possible it hasn't been on the front lines long). Am I right that unopposed combat doesn't seem to train bomber crews well?
 
5)  Training for bomber squadrons is also agonizlingly slow.
 
6)  Nearly all of my front line bomber squadrons - even the big 4EB that have seen action regularly for a year - have crew experience ranging from the 30s to the 50s.  None of these are higher than that.
 
7)  To summarize - I am using both training, "milk run" raids, and "real combat" to train pilots.  None of these works very well for bomber crews and only front line duty seems to work for fighter crews.
 
8)  To my knowledge the only thing I haven't been doing is utilizing the Traning Command feature.  I have recently transferred a few high experience fighter pilots to training command.  Not sure yet if I really want to commit to that level of micromanagement.
 
9)  Is there anything else I'm overlooking?  If not is the failure to use training command enough to account for my pilot experience woes?

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
You can't fight Japan along a single axis. To do so is to court this sort of outcome. You may have a primary axis of resistance but it must be supported by judiciously applied attrition etc along other axes.

This is an example of a generality that has many exceptions.

I fought along a single axis of advance in both of my WitP games and won both - one in August '44 and the second in December '44.

In this game I'm largely confined to a single access of advance and the Allies are doing decently, I'd say. Holding most of the eastern DEI by the end of 1943 isn't that bad. And I feel pretty confident about the future.

Of course, no game is entirely singe axis. There are always side missions and commitments elsewhere to one degree or another. In this game, for instance, I committed to a major axis of advance through NoPac, but was rebuffed. I'm also doing some smaller things in SoPac (and soon in New Guinea).

But it is certainly possible for the Allies to move on a singe vector. (One of my WitP opponents said he didn't think it was possible until I did so and beat him).

[modrow]

Canoerebel,

here's my take on things - to be used with great caution. Actually, if I am mistaken I request to be corrected, so I don't make my mistakes too long...

There's a number of points to bear in mind:

a) what you don't mention is the possibility to train pilots and send them back to the pool when trained. As I understand this so far (which may be wrong, my game is not sufficiently old, anyone who knows the real drill please say so), this is what to do

I) Fill your training squadrons (e.g. the ones permanently restricted to West Coast or other places far away from the frontline) with pilots until the option is greyed out.

II) Train those squadrons

III) Once you reach the desired skill levels for a given pilot, rotate him out of the unit. I think there is a 180 day delay before he is available again, but after those 180 days, you will have a pilot who is trained already. Of course, you refill the unit and go on training...

b) Training on the map was bugged for a while. In general, it works only if your pilot loss rate is sufficiently small. Nemo wrote a post somewhere which outlines this problem in more detail, including downward spirals of quality that may occur, unfortunately I don't recall where and when.

c) There is a difference between the skill and the overall exp values. I think overall exp can reach some levels only by combat missions, but the skill value is honed by training. It is important to have a reasonable skill value to complete the mission.

d) Reportedly (cannot confirm this yet, would be glad to hear other people's take on things) the presence of veterans in the squadron which trains may improve training results. AFAIK, the alternative approach of sending the veterans to TRACOM shortens the time span until the rookies are available as replacement pilots.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I admit, however, that I am puzzled about Allied pilot quality. I am really having trouble in this regard and would appreciate comments or suggestions.  A few points:

1)  Allied fighter pilots are mostly in good shape - LBA fighter pilots in the eastern DEI are mostly in the high 60s and low 70s, so that seems acceptable.

2)  Fighter pilots seem to gain decent experience at frontline bases just by flying CAP and perhaps dealing with the occasional enemy recon or patrol aircraft.

3)  Experience increases for fighter pilots training in rear areas is agonizlingly slow.  I've had two USAAF squadrons training at Charters Towers for well over six months and pilots in both are still in the 40s.

4)  Unopposed, low-risk bombing runs do not seem to help train bomber crews.  I've had B-25 and B-26 squadrons flying unopposed raids against Port Moresby and Milne Bay for a year now.  Pilot experience in those crews is in the high 40s to high 50s (one squadron is in the high 30s, but it's possible it hasn't been on the front lines long). Am I right that unopposed combat doesn't seem to train bomber crews well?

5)  Training for bomber squadrons is also agonizlingly slow.

6)  Nearly all of my front line bomber squadrons - even the big 4EB that have seen action regularly for a year - have crew experience ranging from the 30s to the 50s.  None of these are higher than that.

7)  To summarize - I am using both training, "milk run" raids, and "real combat" to train pilots.  None of these works very well for bomber crews and only front line duty seems to work for fighter crews.

8)  To my knowledge the only thing I haven't been doing is utilizing the Traning Command feature.  I have recently transferred a few high experience fighter pilots to training command.  Not sure yet if I really want to commit to that level of micromanagement.

9)  Is there anything else I'm overlooking?  If not is the failure to use training command enough to account for my pilot experience woes?

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

Bravo.

That's why I'm a little leery of forcing the IJ player into historic constraints without a lot of careful thought - the game might become a drudge, rather than a blast after mid-1943.

Yes, there is a trade off and quite frankly a strictly historical game would mean a game against the AI as nobody would want to play Japan. Hats off to those JFBs out there.[&o]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


Battle of Morotai Cripples:  Most of the capital ships are nearing Townsville now and should be out of harm's way barring IJN sub activity.  Alot of heavies will be heading to the west coast.  None of the CVs or BBs have more than moderate damage (on the light side of moderate at that), but it will take some time to get them from here to there.

This might be the one major problem with a DEI campaign. Your injured ships are in the worst location repair wise. There might be some good reasons for a Central Pacifc campaign. One is the proximity of supplies and repair. The other is it becomes more of a carrier and ship war as the use of LBA air is more restrictive. The DEI is a great place to get a toe hold but as Miller showed us all, a great place to spring a massive trap with combined land and naval air.

Still, the Allies need more than one front and the DEI in an important one. But perhaps with some serious knocking on the CenPac door, the Japanese player just could not keep his carriers in the DEI.

It really is a chess game, this AE....

[Canoerebel]

Yes, distance to the big shipyards is a consideration.

There are plusses and minuses to a DEI-centered campaign, but I sure like doing it this way!  [:D]

As for the hartwig's helpful pilot-training comments, two things:  (1) Yikes at the micromanagement needed, and (2) my green pilots in the west coast squadrons haven't gained much experience even after two years of training.

[Grotius]

You've been playing AE longer than me, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but here's my take.

I don't think the failure to use TRACOM alone explains your woes. It certainly would help a bit, and it's not hard to do. It's a no-brainer for high-experience pilots sitting around in rear-area units, such as restricted-command squadrons with lots of high-experience pilots. If you have any units like that, move most (not all) to TRACOM and fill them up with untrained pilots. (Leave a few highly-trained pilots in the squadron to train the untrained pilots joining them.) The guys in TRACOM will train newbies a bit more efficiently, and your squadron will train new pilots who can eventually be moved to general or group reserve, for transfer to other squadrons.

You mentioned slow-learning fighter pilots. Are they at least improving their "Air" skills? Those skills should be rising pretty fast, even if overall experience isn't. Experience is important, as it governs things like the possibility of operational loss or crash landings. But it's not the sole all-important variable as it was in WITP. Also, what % of Training are you using? You should set it pretty high (70-80% maybe), but be prepared to reduce that percentage, or stand them down for a turn, if you see morale or fatigue problems.

I don't know if the Allies have any tiny carrier-capable squadrons that are assigned to rear areas. Japan does, and a standard tactic for us is to expand them by placing them on a CV or CVL for a turn and choosing 'expand to fit ship.' Then we remove them, fill them with rookie pilots, and let them train like crazy.

On combat, I'll have to check my bombers, but I recall seeing experience increases with fighter pilots engaged in sweeps, even for very high-experience fighters. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen experience increases without commensurate skill increases -- the very opposite of what I usually see from training alone. Bombers flying ASW and Search improve those skills steadily, but not so much experience, which increases (by design) more slowly than skills.

One consolation for you about Scenario 2. It certainly does give Japan a bigger pool of pilots -- but that has a hidden cost, one that I wasn't aware of until yesterday. The Japanese player pays a hefty "heavy industry tax" on all those extra pilots -- almost twice what Japan pays in Scenario 1. By 1944, Japan has to fund 111,000 heavy industry a *month* in pilot-training costs, with no apparent way to reduce that cost -- Japan is stuck with thousands of useless pilots she'll never use. I'm still crunching numbers, but my initial take is that the "tax" on all those unused pilots more than cancels out the extra resources/oil/supply/fuel Japan gets at the start of Scenario 2. I'd frankly rather be rid of half of them -- they get me nothing and cost me a ton.

Apart from that, you're right that Scenario 2 gives Japan some more toys. Japan gets a few more air squadrons and aircraft too, though not a huge increase over Scenario 1. I see only a couple minor extra ground units (e.g., militia in Vietnam), and some extra escorts and merchant ships. I guess there's now the possibility of building both Musashi and a Taiho-class version of Shinano, plus some more escorts, but I'm not sure I see any other significant increase in ship availability (but I might be missing something). Still, if Japan can use those extra toys to conquer more than she would have otherwise, then I suppose those conquests will help pay for the higher pilot-training "tax."

[Grotius]

I should have added some implications for your game. Given the added pressure on Japan's heavy industry in Scenario 2, strategic bombing is at least as important as in Scenario 1. And if you succeed in separating him from the DEI, as you are embarked on doing, I can't see how he'll sustain his economy for long.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

Bravo.

That's why I'm a little leery of forcing the IJ player into historic constraints without a lot of careful thought - the game might become a drudge, rather than a blast after mid-1943.

Yes, there is a trade off and quite frankly a strictly historical game would mean a game against the AI as nobody would want to play Japan. Hats off to those JFBs out there.[&o]

You both hit the nail I think. Very sensible posts!

As a Japanese player it already a success when you reach a par at games end.
The constraints are already present in the naval and ground troop aspect, to limit them additionally in the air would only make the game frustrating. You would know that you have
a very small chance to continue to be effective in the Air after a couple of high-loss battles and this combined with the Allied knowledge of future Japanese weaknesses would ruin
the game IMO.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

III) Once you reach the desired skill levels for a given pilot, rotate him out of the unit. I think there is a 180 day delay before he is available again, but after those 180 days, you will have a pilot who is trained already. Of course, you refill the unit and go on training...

Hartwig,

This point is wrong and could mess you up. When a pilot is Active, left-click on him to put him in Group Reserve, then (when he is in Group Reserve), left-click on him again to put him in General Reserve.

When a pilot is already in the Group Reserve, right-click on him to make him Active.

Now here is the trap: when a pilot is Active, right-click on him to rotate him home for 180 days! Never do that because it has no benefit.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow
III) Once you reach the desired skill levels for a given pilot, rotate him out of the unit. I think there is a 180 day delay before he is available again, but after those 180 days, you will have a pilot who is trained already. Of course, you refill the unit and go on training...

Hartwig,

This point is wrong and could mess you up. When a pilot is Active, left-click on him to put him in Group Reserve, then (when he is in Group Reserve), left-click on him again to put him in General Reserve.

When a pilot is already in the Group Reserve, right-click on him to make him Active.

Now here is the trap: when a pilot is Active, right-click on him to rotate him home for 180 days! Never do that because it has no benefit.

[X(][:(][8|] (not at you, witpqs, because I appreciate your comments and help!, but rather at this kind of micromanagement.

Is there anyone else out there who doesn't like this kind of micromanagement, or am I destined to be a lone passenger pigeon winging his way to extinction?

[Canoerebel]

*bows to Grotius-san*
 
Thanks, Grotius, for many helpful pointers and comments.
 
I began the game with the impression that Scenario Two gives the Japanese more DDs, four more infantry divisions, and some kind of beginning enhancement in pilot quality or quantity.  I could be wrong about those, but that's my recollection. 
 

[witpqs]

I could see managing squadron leaders, like ships' captains, but individual pilots is too much.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Personaly I find it rather fun.

[wpurdom]

Is there anything else I'm overlooking?

Maybe. I'm no expert, but here are some suggestions:

1. The consensus on the boards seems to be that a better use for the TRACOM pilots, is to first assign 1 to each squadron in order of priority as far as it goes. This results in a quicker pick-up of experience, we're told. Others suggest have no more than two yellow TRACOM pilots in any frontline squadron so as not to waste their training talents (but keep a replacement for one being shot down.)

To rotate out, you don't have to send them off for 180 days. You can send them to TRACOM, you can use get veteran to get them from TRACOM, or using a right click you can put them into reserve in the squadron they're in and then use get veteran to pull them directly to the squadron where needed.

2. 100% training. Some people seem to do that without special measures and let the fatigue rise without terrible things happening. I overfill my training squadrons to 125%+ of the number of planes to keep the fatigue reasonable because I believe without a lot of evidence that it keeps ops losses down.

3. Overfill frontline squadrons with pilots. General Kenney believed that frontline squadrons should have two arcrew for every plane and I agree in AE with planes facing a lot of combat. It lets you sustain a higher rate of operational tempo and accumulate more net experience. CAUTION - the computer can handle excess pilots well up to a certain point (130%-150%?? - there are folks who could tell you better), but if you go all the way up to double, probably some pilots will just sit there sidelined in group reserve.

[anarchyintheuk]

I'm right there with you on this. Unfortunately, it's AE's version of homework. I do pilot/squadron fu twice a month . . . at least it will limit the time you spend on it to maybe an hour real time per month.

[AcePylut]

Canoe, I agree with you on pilot training.  It does seem like a lot of unnecessary micro-management work.  But I'm glad it's being discussed, cuz now I"m going to have to add it to my list of "weekly chores", lest I end up in 44 with all exp 40 pilots, on the US Side.
 
I'm not sure why there is this level of management for pilots and not other stuff.  Seems to me if you wanted this level, the supplies could have been broken out into "toilet paper rolls, ammo >.50cal, C-rations" etc. 
 
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of pilot training, but this is a little too much imho.