Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108r9 updated 21 January 2012 (2nd part)

[michaelm75au]

I transferred two CVs (Junyo of endurance/speed 8800/25 and Amagi of 9500/34) from Tokyo to Truk.
The TF values were:
Moves (m/c) 7/4
Fuel - 228/96 (48)

At arrival in Truk, the CVs showed remaining endurance of 6854 and 7323 respectively.
The final TF values were:
Moves (m/c) 7/4
Fuel - 177/48 (0)


This was based on scenario #1.

[sandmann_slith]

yahh .
 i have make  a next test .
with 1 DD and 1 Cv .

DD need  48, .... endurance per HEX
CV need now 52, ... Endurance per Hex.
This loks Ok for me.
Are then you drive CV in group self in claer Cv groups you go fast out of full.
No idee here waht is the Problem .

[sandmann_slith]

I think i have it .
Build a Air combat group .
6 CV´s
3 CVl
3CVE
11DD with 5000 endurance
2 DD with 6000 Endurance


In this taskforce mode the DD Need many more Fuell as alone.
One day move alone 200 - 300 Endurance for 1 DD
One day move in Aircombat Group a DD need 1200 - 1300 Endurance per day.
MOve mode is mission Speed

2600 Endurance for 2 days with mission speed for all ships
19 hex was traveld
Is 136,84 Endurance per hex and ship -
this 3x more as alone ?
This is very many

[m10bob]

Would it be possible to make a new kind of "Escort", maybe call is "Salvage Escort"(to simulate the many sea going tugs not included in the game)?

Maybe allow ships in that kind of Escort mission to gain repairs while enroute, perhaps at the cost of a weakened defense,(ala USS Hammons?)..Just thinking out loud..

[Nemo121]

A question re: this pilot pool being able to run out thing....

I'm curious if this has been fully thought through. In 1945 it is quite possible for Japan to lose 400 planes in a day when a major kamikaze action happens.

Given that in the Downfall scenarios with boosted IJAAF and IJNAF pilot replacement rates Japan gets some 360 pilots per month which equates to about 4,320 pilots per year - say 4,500 to make the math simple.

IN 1945 with the high loss rates which can occur it is quite possible for Japanese pilot losses to greatly exceed 10 pilots per day. In fact with kamikazes it isn't unusual for 30 kamikazes alone to be lost per day. Throw in another 20 pilots lost per day to dogfights, bombing raids, ops etc and you can easily end up losing 50 pilots per day - particularly once kamikazes are activated.

50 pilots per day lost for 90 days = 4,500 pilots. At that rate Japan will simply cease to be able to have pilots for planes for 3/4 of the year.

Obviously this can be countered by having large pilot reserves but to maintain this loss rate for a year you'd have to have a reserve of 13,500 pilots - something which the programme won't easily support due to pilot roster limitations.

Also, realistically, Japan just expanded pilot training hugely by asking for volunteers from the army, bomber crews etc etc. These steps aren't available to the Japanese player in game.

I am wondering if a work-around might be that AFTER Kamikazes are activated IF the pilots in training group ( the group of pilots in training for 12 months ) ever empties out then players could continue pulling pilots albeit that those pilots might just have a single point in any and all of the skills and thus would need significant on-map training.

I'm worried about the long-term effects for games which have kamikazes active if such a strict limit on pilot availability remains. Obviously one would have to ensure that the solution couldn't be used to work around the current system of pilot training. I suggest only allowing this new system after kamikazes since that's when Japanese pilot attrition rates will really skyrocket and this problem will become evident. It also avoids a player gaming the system to use up pilot replacements to avoid paying HI costs in 1942 or 1943.

I think this may not have been evident previously as very few people ( relatively speaking ) have experience of the immense pilot attrition Japan experiences once kamikazes are active. Bottom line, 360 pilots a month won't even begin to replace losses once kamis are active.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

A question re: this pilot pool being able to run out thing....

I'm curious if this has been fully thought through. In 1945 it is quite possible for Japan to lose 400 planes in a day when a major kamikaze action happens.

Given that in the Downfall scenarios with boosted IJAAF and IJNAF pilot replacement rates Japan gets some 360 pilots per month which equates to about 4,320 pilots per year - say 4,500 to make the math simple.

IN 1945 with the high loss rates which can occur it is quite possible for Japanese pilot losses to greatly exceed 10 pilots per day. In fact with kamikazes it isn't unusual for 30 kamikazes alone to be lost per day. Throw in another 20 pilots lost per day to dogfights, bombing raids, ops etc and you can easily end up losing 50 pilots per day - particularly once kamikazes are activated.

50 pilots per day lost for 90 days = 4,500 pilots. At that rate Japan will simply cease to be able to have pilots for planes for 3/4 of the year.

Obviously this can be countered by having large pilot reserves but to maintain this loss rate for a year you'd have to have a reserve of 13,500 pilots - something which the programme won't easily support due to pilot roster limitations.

Also, realistically, Japan just expanded pilot training hugely by asking for volunteers from the army, bomber crews etc etc. These steps aren't available to the Japanese player in game.

I am wondering if a work-around might be that AFTER Kamikazes are activated IF the pilots in training group ( the group of pilots in training for 12 months ) ever empties out then players could continue pulling pilots albeit that those pilots might just have a single point in any and all of the skills and thus would need significant on-map training.

I'm worried about the long-term effects for games which have kamikazes active if such a strict limit on pilot availability remains. Obviously one would have to ensure that the solution couldn't be used to work around the current system of pilot training. I suggest only allowing this new system after kamikazes since that's when Japanese pilot attrition rates will really skyrocket and this problem will become evident. It also avoids a player gaming the system to use up pilot replacements to avoid paying HI costs in 1942 or 1943.

I think this may not have been evident previously as very few people ( relatively speaking ) have experience of the immense pilot attrition Japan experiences once kamikazes are active. Bottom line, 360 pilots a month won't even begin to replace losses once kamis are active.

Doesn't your argument beg the question: Should a country that commits to killing it's own pilots be able to sustain that effort for month on end, let alone for a full year? Shouldn't a country that commits to killing it's own pilots face the very real prospect of running out of pilots altogether, and rather quickly at that? It seems like you are asking for the game to facilitate a JFBs wet dream rather than reflecting a plausible alternate reality.

[Nemo121]

HansBolter,

I don't think my argument begs that question because this is a game modelling discussion not a philosophy discussion. Philosophically there is so much about wartime Japan that was repugnant that the moral pressure they used to get people to "volunteer" is FAR down the list of things I find most repugnant about them. Historically though they were able to pressurise people into volunteering and had tens of thousands of suicide pilots/motorboat drivers/frogmen/ IJA troops etc ready to die in suicide attacks by the end of the war. They had, in August '45, over 5,000 dedicated kami planes with pilots, some 6,000 suicide motor boats ( with crews ), several hundred suicide frogmen - the limit there was diving suits, not numbers of "volunteers" and so on and so forth. "Volunteer" numbers wasn't their problem. Building the craft to put the volunteers into was their limiting factor. It might be reprehensible but it was also reality.

I see your position as being a moral one placing current morals onto Japan's situation in '44 and '45. The bottom line was that as they built planes, torpedo boats and frogsuits etc they WERE able to find men to fly/pilot and man those weapons systems. Morality may say that some of the methods to get those men to volunteer were repugnant but that's neither here nor there in terms of answering the simple question: DID they get the volunteers they needed? The answer is YES. When they wanted kamikazes they had the pilots to fly them. That was the reality in the war. In the game the current rule would prevent that reality being accurately modelled. That's why I'm asking for a change.

So, no, I don't think I'm asking for an alternate reality. I believe that there is clear historical evidence within Japanese documentation that Japan WAS able to generate thousands of young men per month willing to die for Japan at the hands of a suicide plane, a suicide motor launch, a Kaiten or in a frogsuit. Were many of those men young and misguided or pressurised into it? Sure. But I don't think our model extends to that level.


There's a few ways to make the change:
1. A dedicated "Kamikaze Pool" which activates when kamis activate and has a limitless number of very low experience pilots which have no HI cost or
2. lumping kamis in with the general pool and having a limitless number of pilots in the general pool.

or some variation thereof. Bottom line though, the current system of limiting graduates to 360 or so per month simply doesn't fit reality or allow historical operations to be conducted once kamikazes are active. That's just the objective reality of how the numbers interact with loss rates. Morality has nothing to do with that.


To put it in another context:
If you're going to model Iraq or Afghanistan over the past 4 or 5 years etc you can't just decide to not model suicide bombings cause they're morally repugnant or because they often recruit emotionally or intellectually vulnerable people to carry out suicide bombings. It may be repugnant etc etc BUT if you want the model to be accurate you have to model things which happened even if you don't approve of them. You can't just say "I will only allow 1 suicide bombing a month cause I think suicide bombings are morally repugnant."

Instead you should model the things which influence suicide bombing rates:
1. Relatives of those previously killed by Allied forces are more likely to volunteer for future suicide bombing missions.
2. In some areas intensive efforts are made to recruit widows of previous Shaheed - e.g. Chechnya.
3. In some areas where rape is used as a means of pacification those who are raped are sought out as recruits for suicide missions - again more in Chechnya than Afghanistan/Iraq
4. Provision for the families of suicide bombers - the greater the provisions made the greater the rate of volunteering ( particularly an issue in Iraq/Afghanistan and during the Intifada ).
etc etc etc

Does morality come into play when making the model? No, making the model accurate is what matters, not my ( or your )own personal moral view of the repugnance of targetting the widow of a fighter who is emotionally vulnerable and convincing her to blow herself up in a Russian theatre or on a Russian plane.

[HansBolter]

Nemo.

My questions weren't based on any assessment of morality. I'm sorry if the manner in which I structured the questions made it appear so.

It was a simple assessment of resources vs. time vs. intensity of use. If as you stated the Japanes take 50 pilot losses a day for 90 days straight (incredible intensity) they would have chewed through 4500 of the 5000 avaiable pilots you list in the next post. My point is should they really expect to be able to maintain that level of intensity for longer than 90 days? Or even for 90 days?

Shouldn't kamikaze efforts be more realistically structured in waves of intensity with periods of recuperation and build up for the next effort? And if so, then the 4500 yearly pilot allocation would last for far longer than 1/4 of a year. What I find to be delving into the realm of JFB wet dream is the desire to be able to sustain a loss rate of 50 pilots a day for 365 days straight.

The decision to send in suicide attacks was not taken lightly, even by those comitted to the belief that dying for thier emporor was the greatest honor they could achieve. It was a decision made in the face of ultimate disaster and collapse without that level of intense assault. Invoking kamikazes is something the Japanese should be considering doing only as a last dicth effort of desperation. Take the current Grey Joy vs. Rader game as an example. If in mid '44 the Japanese start sending out Kamikazes, is that something they should reailistically have the expectation of sustaining until '46? If Rader invokes them now, and susrtains daily operations of the magnitude described by your loss rate, shouldn't he face the prospect of running extremely low on pilots after 6 months of that level of intensity?

p.s. please don't think that I see asking for an alternate reailty as something to criticize. I'm all for alternate reality, that is what any wargame is about. What I push for is plausibility in the pursuit of alternate reality.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: sandmann

I think i have it .
Build a Air combat group .
6 CV´s
3 CVl
3CVE
11DD with 5000 endurance
2 DD with 6000 Endurance


In this taskforce mode the DD Need many more Fuell as alone.
One day move alone 200 - 300 Endurance for 1 DD
One day move in Aircombat Group a DD need 1200 - 1300 Endurance per day.
MOve mode is mission Speed

2600 Endurance for 2 days with mission speed for all ships
19 hex was traveld
Is 136,84 Endurance per hex and ship -
this 3x more as alone ?
This is very many

Can you zip up your save and attach it here so I can run the test myself?
The endurance used looks correct when I run my tests on an Air Combat TF of 2xCV, 2xCVE, 2xDD.

[Nemo121]

HansBolter,

Ah, ok. Sorry your use of alternate reality and the manner in which the question of "should they run out" was posed led me up the wrong street. My apologies.

In terms of having the numbers.... Well whenever they were running short the Japanese simply seem to have used peer pressure to get entire waves of IJAAF personnel ( these needn't be pilots but guards, various admin personnel, crews from bombers etc ) to volunteer to transition to kamikaze missions or just general 17 to 20 year olds in the general populace to volunteer.

To give some idea of the number of people who had volunteered for suicide missions:
According to Kamikaze Attacks of WW2 the Japanese themselves listed 1450 suicide motor boats available in Formosa for use against an invasion in July 45 with a total of 4,300 suicide motorboats of all types available as of end of July 1945. In addition they had some minisubs which had torpedoes replaced with contact triggers - thus turning them into suicide/ramming subs.

It should also be noted that while the crew of the suicide motor boats weren't particularly well-trained Kaiten crew were often trainee pilots. So, at this stage of the war not only did Japan have enough pilots for kamikaze missions but they actually were able to send small numbers on to be trained for Kaiten crewing.

In addition they had 1200 fully trained Fukuryu - suicide divers - with another 2800 or so ready to commence training by war's end. Training wouldn't exactly have taken too long but the key point is that that's another 4,000 men who had volunteered for missions which guaranteed their deaths.


All in all between the 5,000 pilots assigned to kamikazes in August 1945 if the HIs ever got invaded, the 4,000 suicide frogmen and the 4,000+ suicide motorboat pilots + the innumerable IJA troops who had contact-triggered AT mines on poles ( another suicide job ) + kaiten pilots + suicide minisub crews I easily count 15,000 men who'd volunteered for kamikaze type missions ( although they weren't all pilots of course ). Bottom line though, I just don't see that a shortage of volunteers was a problem for Japan.

I think they had enough volunteers for any suicide plane/boat/sub/hair-brained scheme they could develop and produce. Certainly everything I've ever read points to the limiting factor in number of kamikaze missions being availability of planes, not pilots. I think the game should represent that by allowing a limitless number of kamikaze pilots albeit that their experience on being recruited sucks.

I'd be happy to hear a counter-argument with quotes from Japanese documents stating they had kami planes but no pilots cause of a lack of volunteers/conscripts but all I've ever seen happen when they had too few volunteers was that they'd "volunteer" an entire unit and pilots who didn't want to be kamikazes could "opt out". Given the way Japanese society worked no-one ever opted out so they technically all volunteered even though, really, this wasn't so. Either way, the High Command got its 30 or 50 pilots and was able to send them out to die like good little drones whenever it wanted.


One thing to bear in mind is that if you DO send out 50 a day every day then pilot low naval skill will plummet and what you do send out will be ineffective. As you say it is much more likely to occur in pulses where little happens for 15 days and then 750 go out in a day. On average though one could easily see 1500 kamis + 1,000 conventional types being used per month for a pilot loss rate of 2,500 per month. At that rate Japan could simply be unable to recruit even a 1 Exp pilot 2 months into 1944. That seems like a seriously broken outcome for me in which the code may be working as designed but the impact on PBEMs may be completely unrealistic.

In reality Japan faced a simple algorithm. It could have more and more pilots per month if it was willing to graduate them with lower and lower experience/skill. Eventually that leads us to a situation where you have an infinite number of trainees but they graduate so quickly that they have negligible skill ( represented by exp 1, skill 1 ).

[michaelm75au]

Here is a turn by turn of a TF with 2 CV, 2 CVE and 2 DD going from Toyko to Truk.
The daily ship endurance burn is calculated for each hex moved (40NM). Fuel left is then determined by how much endurance left.


[Edit]
Transposed one figure wrongly.

[michaelm75au]

Same TF but with shorter range DDs

[sandmann_slith]

this looks good are very different to me game .
vs computer and in PBEM.
I need 1200- 1300  per day  and ship  in a AIrcombat Tf .

[sandmann_slith]

at moment me cv´s in tokio after refit.
make a cv´group , only 6 CV´s , 3 cvl´s , 3 cve .
The taskgroup stay in tokio and need ca 900 per day and ship and stay only in the same hex.
refuel after one day cost 20000 tons of fuel

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: sandmann

at moment me cv´s in tokio after refit.
make a cv´group , only 6 CV´s , 3 cvl´s , 3 cve .
The taskgroup stay in tokio and need ca 900 per day and ship and stay only in the same hex.
refuel after one day cost 20000 tons of fuel

OK Sandman -
Upload a turn here and give some of us guys a chance to test it using your file. Maybe include beta save and non-beta save zipped.

Cheers

[sandmann_slith]

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: sandmann

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

That's under Q9b ... I'm not sure I still have so will test under the latest 8r5

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: sandmann

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

That's under Q9b ... I'm not sure I still have so will test under the latest 8r5

here you go q9b

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: sandmann

ok this is me file vs the computer.
is the beta .

Shis lay in tokio habor , not as tf at moment.

That's under Q9b ... I'm not sure I still have so will test under the latest 8r5

No problems under the latest ... not docked in Tokyo harbor and no fuel expended.

[sandmann_slith]

hrm then it is so it is fine .
you think is wrong version of beta that we use ?