Resize of air groups?

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Even for people who think it's gamey to resize air units, resizing as many Jake units to 20 or 24 as you can should not really be seen as gamey IMO. You can't use them for anything but float planes, and while they're using for range 10 search you're going to lose a lot to Ops - which imposes a HI/supply cost that can add up over time. A rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but it's still there. Jakes cost just as much as a Frank, Jack, George, Sam, or Judy. Likewise, they're really only all that useful at range 8 search (which turns into range 4 ASW). How much of a game changer is that? Not much at all. It just helps at the margins.

I basically agree with the above. However I can also see why some might have a problem with it and it's not the use of the groups on search/ASW that is the issue IMO, it's the ability to train huge numbers of elite IJNAF fighter/bomber pilots.

If you resize enough groups to provide an extra 250 planes (around 12-15 groups from initial size to 24) it will cost 9000 HI to provide them each with a machine (no ongoing cost of replacements as I don't think I have ever lost a plane during training). It's an insignificant cost for the training benefit:

Assuming it takes 3 months to train a fighter pilot (for example) to 70 air/defn/exp, then those 250 extra 'seats' will provide 1000 elite pilots per year (small hit on xp when going from a Pete to a Zero really is laughable). The only type of pilot that is unavailable to train via float plane are torpedo bombers.

1000 elite pilots per annum is a figure that the Japanese Navy never came within a million miles of in the war. If you were going to produce that number of pilots without resizing then the IJN would have to dedicate most starting on map fighter/bomber airgroups, leaving little or nothing for operations, in the early war.

If you start taking the small groups off CL, CA, BB etc and resizing those , you would have a truly monstrous training capacity.

Bottom line is that resizing float plane groups allows the IJNAF pilot quality to be kept up to totally ahistorical level whilst simultaneously allowing maximum operational use of IJNAF fighter bomber groups (some of which would otherwise need to be dedicated to training). A gift that just keeps on giving for the whole war. All this for a very low cost: 36 HI per aircraft, some supply, PP to get some FP groups out of restricted commands. Very minor stuff.

Having said all that, I would go back to my first statement - I do it (with opponents agreement) and allow my opponent to do it. However I would not think a request to not do it to be unreasonable or a reason for turning down a game. Definitely HR territory IMO

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Even for people who think it's gamey to resize air units, resizing as many Jake units to 20 or 24 as you can should not really be seen as gamey IMO. You can't use them for anything but float planes, and while they're using for range 10 search you're going to lose a lot to Ops - which imposes a HI/supply cost that can add up over time. A rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but it's still there. Jakes cost just as much as a Frank, Jack, George, Sam, or Judy. Likewise, they're really only all that useful at range 8 search (which turns into range 4 ASW). How much of a game changer is that? Not much at all. It just helps at the margins.

I basically agree with the above. However I can also see why some might have a problem with it and it's not the use of the groups on search/ASW that is the issue IMO, it's the ability to train huge numbers of elite IJNAF fighter/bomber pilots.

If you resize enough groups to provide an extra 250 planes (around 12-15 groups from initial size to 24) it will cost 9000 HI to provide them each with a machine (no ongoing cost of replacements as I don't think I have ever lost a plane during training). It's an insignificant cost for the training benefit:

Assuming it takes 3 months to train a fighter pilot (for example) to 70 air/defn/exp, then those 250 extra 'seats' will provide 1000 elite pilots per year (small hit on xp when going from a Pete to a Zero really is laughable). The only type of pilot that is unavailable to train via float plane are torpedo bombers.

Not so laughable. Most training aircraft are not of the type that the pilot would fly for missions. A Pete is a floatplane but is maneuverable, with forward facing guns and bombing capability, so it could be used to train for a number of roles (as could all of the floatplane types Japan fielded).

If you train in a Harvard and then step into a Corsair or a P-47, you probably have need of a bit of an adjustment time! [:D]

1000 elite pilots per annum is a figure that the Japanese Navy never came within a million miles of in the war. If you were going to produce that number of pilots without resizing then the IJN would have to dedicate most starting on map fighter/bomber airgroups, leaving little or nothing for operations, in the early war.

If you start taking the small groups off CL, CA, BB etc and resizing those , you would have a truly monstrous training capacity.

Bottom line is that resizing float plane groups allows the IJNAF pilot quality to be kept up to totally ahistorical level whilst simultaneously allowing maximum operational use of IJNAF fighter bomber groups (some of which would otherwise need to be dedicated to training). A gift that just keeps on giving for the whole war. All this for a very low cost: 36 HI per aircraft, some supply, PP to get some FP groups out of restricted commands. Very minor stuff.

Having said all that, I would go back to my first statement - I do it (with opponents agreement) and allow my opponent to do it. However I would not think a request to not do it to be unreasonable or a reason for turning down a game. Definitely HR territory IMO

Remember that all groups in game are essentially fighting units. Some of them may have been getting pilots up to snuff on certain airframes during the war, but dedicated training units are not on map until 45. And when you suddenly see how many there are it gives some pause. There are a LOT!!!!

The training set up in game gives the player the option to use combat groups to give extra training to pilots arriving from training school. The National training program for each country produces "trained" pilots to the national standard, just not up to a level that most players find acceptable. [;)]

So we use combat units, taking them out of the combat ready standing, usually in rear areas where they can't quickly be deployed, to give additional specialised training to pilots fresh out of combat flight school.

It would be fun to do a game with an HR on no extra training to allow the national level to be the only level, and let em duke it out. Hard to implement (or for most of us to accept, probably), but it would take some mouse clicking out of the process of game play for sure. It might also give some reality to the loss of super expert pilots in early game Japanese groups, as well as the later higher standard of USAAF/USN pilots later in game. I think arguments about overly successful Nettie TT strikes and 4E bombing runs would be also be dealt with in this kind of game.

[Yakface]

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - the laughable bit IMO is that you can go from training on a Pete to fighting in a Zero and keep all your air/defn skills and only suffer a little exp hit. The effect from the change of aircraft should be much larger.

I'm not against on map training - just pointing out that resizing allows the production of elite IJNAF pilots (from 'national trained pilots') at a-historic levels without affecting operations - and I'm not even against that. Just need to agree it with opponent.

A no training game would have some interesting features.

[crsutton]

The trick is to find a like minded opponent. Viberpol and I allow it but within reason. I tend to resize groups on CVE because I do not like the mix found on them and generally prefer to operate one type of plane from any CVE. I to also expand a few marine air groups to full carrier size. ie:36 fighters or 36 dive bombers to as to have carrier trained groups I can switch out. I don't mind if he is doing it as well. We both don't allow resizing over what would be a normal sized carrier group.

As pointed out above. A massive air force comes at a severe economic cost to Japan. Many Japanese player overlook playing to the end game as most games do not go that far. But it is very easy to come into 1945 and have nothing left in the bank due to over production of aircraft.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The trick is to find a like minded opponent. Viberpol and I allow it but within reason. I tend to resize groups on CVE because I do not like the mix found on them and generally prefer to operate one type of plane from any CVE. I to also expand a few marine air groups to full carrier size. ie:36 fighters or 36 dive bombers to as to have carrier trained groups I can switch out. I don't mind if he is doing it as well. We both don't allow resizing over what would be a normal sized carrier group.

As pointed out above. A massive air force comes at a severe economic cost to Japan. Many Japanese player overlook playing to the end game as most games do not go that far. But it is very easy to come into 1945 and have nothing left in the bank due to over production of aircraft.

But what would be higher priority than production of aircraft? AA guns?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Even for people who think it's gamey to resize air units, resizing as many Jake units to 20 or 24 as you can should not really be seen as gamey IMO. You can't use them for anything but float planes, and while they're using for range 10 search you're going to lose a lot to Ops - which imposes a HI/supply cost that can add up over time. A rounding error in the grand scheme of things, but it's still there. Jakes cost just as much as a Frank, Jack, George, Sam, or Judy. Likewise, they're really only all that useful at range 8 search (which turns into range 4 ASW). How much of a game changer is that? Not much at all. It just helps at the margins.

I basically agree with the above. However I can also see why some might have a problem with it and it's not the use of the groups on search/ASW that is the issue IMO, it's the ability to train huge numbers of elite IJNAF fighter/bomber pilots.

If you resize enough groups to provide an extra 250 planes (around 12-15 groups from initial size to 24) it will cost 9000 HI to provide them each with a machine (no ongoing cost of replacements as I don't think I have ever lost a plane during training). It's an insignificant cost for the training benefit:

Assuming it takes 3 months to train a fighter pilot (for example) to 70 air/defn/exp, then those 250 extra 'seats' will provide 1000 elite pilots per year (small hit on xp when going from a Pete to a Zero really is laughable). The only type of pilot that is unavailable to train via float plane are torpedo bombers.

1000 elite pilots per annum is a figure that the Japanese Navy never came within a million miles of in the war. If you were going to produce that number of pilots without resizing then the IJN would have to dedicate most starting on map fighter/bomber airgroups, leaving little or nothing for operations, in the early war.

If you start taking the small groups off CL, CA, BB etc and resizing those , you would have a truly monstrous training capacity.

Bottom line is that resizing float plane groups allows the IJNAF pilot quality to be kept up to totally ahistorical level whilst simultaneously allowing maximum operational use of IJNAF fighter bomber groups (some of which would otherwise need to be dedicated to training). A gift that just keeps on giving for the whole war. All this for a very low cost: 36 HI per aircraft, some supply, PP to get some FP groups out of restricted commands. Very minor stuff.

Having said all that, I would go back to my first statement - I do it (with opponents agreement) and allow my opponent to do it. However I would not think a request to not do it to be unreasonable or a reason for turning down a game. Definitely HR territory IMO

Maybe we have different levels to classify pilots as "elite", but in my view it's basically impossible to get pilots to elite status as Japan with training only. You just don't have enough groups to do so, even with extreme resizing. Sure, you can get more fighter pilots up to a 60-65 Exp/70 air/60 strafe/70 defense level, which is pretty darn good... but without resizing you'd be at what, 55 Exp/70 air/70 defense? It's really not a big deal.

I definitely can't produce 1000 elite pilots, or even pilots of the quality I mentioned above, in a year.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - the laughable bit IMO is that you can go from training on a Pete to fighting in a Zero and keep all your air/defn skills and only suffer a little exp hit. The effect from the change of aircraft should be much larger.

This is all an abstraction anyway. We can change a "bomber pilot" with certain skills between 2E, 4E, FB, fighters, recon, etc. as long as the skill is high in those areas. EXP does count for something in game, and a few points off seems fine to me for switching types in this context.

Also, it's no difference for either side here, no a total non-issue.

I'm not against on map training - just pointing out that resizing allows the production of elite IJNAF pilots (from 'national trained pilots') at a-historic levels without affecting operations - and I'm not even against that. Just need to agree it with opponent.

A no training game would have some interesting features.

"Elite" is not quite possible through training. Any level plus 70 EXP needs to be done through combat (or lots of flying time at least). You can't get really good 80+ guys without them fighting battles.

You can get a lot of 60+ pilots going, but that's also possible for the Allies using some resizing. The Allies also don't typically lose as many pilots due to amour on virtually every plane, higher durability ratings and better defensive capabilities (2E/4E).

[Anthropoid]

So does this mean that D-Day was "gamey" by the Allied European High Command?

I think people often tend to confuse "ahistorical" with "gamey," and in fact that are often (perhaps not even consciously) euphemizing "cheating" as "gamey."

IMO, anything that the game allows you to do, short of hacking in to your opponents save file, is by definition "NOT CHEATING." In contrast, anything and everything a player does in the game IS "GAMEY" (everything in a game is "gamey") and it may well be "ahistoric."

Personally, I have zero interest in replaying history, so the more ahistoric the better, right up to the point where the ahistoricism hits the "unbelievable" or "unrealistic/impossible" threshold.

I think a lot of players who use the term "gamey" are thinking that it is a euphemism for "cheating" because whatever it is they are referring to is in their opinion "impossible" or rather, would have been "impossible" in the era of the war. But the ironic thing here is: I bet that no one has any desire to play the game in precisely historical sequence. The divergence from history is I suspect an inherent part of the allure for all players, even those who generally prefer their play to follow closely with history. So _some_ degree of ahistoricism is arguably requisite for the game to be fun: imagine if the developers just scripted the entire war from start to finish, with literally every historical action of every single unit--AND every single historic stochastic event (the chance recon spotting, the lucky bomb hit, the unlucky torpedo dud, etc.)--recreated in scripted form in the game! Just click "START" kick back and watch the Pacific War unfold! [X(]

The question at the heart of the discussion, and which we all have a common interest in clear consensus, is: what are the thresholds for "minimum, optimum, and maximum" ahistoricity (assuming of course that these threshold may vary between any two players, but will also exhibit some finite degree of variability across the entire population of players . . .)?

Should the Japanese be able to use their primitive rocket engines to launch a satellite network that bombards Los Angelos into the Stone Age? . . . Clearly impossible and unrealistic, and probably would require something akin to "cheating" by virtue of making changes in the editor which any sane opponent would disagree with if he/she were aware of them before agreeing to a match . . .

Should the Japanese be able to group 1000 fighter planes and their pilots/support staff into a single "unit?" Hmmm, that is not as clearly "impossible" as the Sat-Based Bombardment, but it does seem a bit of a stretch. I guess it would depend on what is meant by "unit" now wouldn't it? Meaning, how does it work in the game?

Drop that number down to 500, 200 or 100 and the "historical tenability" of it also drops accordingly. Can someone pose a serious argument for why it would have been "impossible" for Japan to have reorganized their military so that "units" of aircraft, pilots and support staff were grouped into larger numbers, say 100 or so? If not I say go for it and explore the historical what-ifs. As long as there are not imbalanced dynamics, i.e., as long as there are the sorts of tradeoffs which guys are referring to (not to mention the PP costs eh?) then the simulation is better for allowing ahistoric reorganization.

[szmike]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - the laughable bit IMO is that you can go from training on a Pete to fighting in a Zero and keep all your air/defn skills and only suffer a little exp hit. The effect from the change of aircraft should be much larger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt pilots lose their abilites just from switching planes, they surely need to adjust to different plane characteristics, but it includes changes to new fighter or bomber models too.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

I think people often tend to confuse "ahistorical" with "gamey," and in fact that are often (perhaps not even consciously) euphemizing "cheating" as "gamey."

IMO, anything that the game allows you to do, short of hacking in to your opponents save file, is by definition "NOT CHEATING." In contrast, anything and everything a player does in the game IS "GAMEY" (everything in a game is "gamey") and it may well be "ahistoric."

No, "gamey" means that a certain game mechanic is unrealistic and you're playing the mechanics themselves, rather than what they're actually trying to represent. For example, running off-map convoys at full speed all the time because the game mechanics allow for no fuel being used and no sys damage being suffered is gamey - it is unrealistic and the player is taking advantage of the game mechanics. You would not run your off-map convoys full-speed all the time WITH fuel consumption and sys damage penalty, would you? Another example - putting anything else than Glens and Seirans on subs would be gamey - the game mechanics allow to put larger planes like Jakes on subs, but it is unrealistic because physically impossible to fit thoselarger planes in submarine hangars designed for much smaller airframes.

Now, cheating would be to use cheat codes (not aware of any in the game) for example to add 10.000 HI points to the pool for no costs for example. Or agreeing to a HR but not abiding to it.

Ahistoric - well, history goes out of the window with the first order issued on day 1, and no one wants to "play" a reenactment of the actual war, but try different strategies and different approaches. So yes, everything we do is more or less ahistoric.

But then the arguments are starting. Resizing all float plane groups to 24? The game mechanics allow it - but is it gamey or just ahistoric? Can of worms...

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - the laughable bit IMO is that you can go from training on a Pete to fighting in a Zero and keep all your air/defn skills and only suffer a little exp hit. The effect from the change of aircraft should be much larger.

The Japanese have used Petes in the CAP role, for example as part of the "R Area Air Force" in the Solomons to protect supply runs to Guadalcanal, but also in the Aleutians and PNG. It was a quite nimble plane which could outmaneuvre faster fighters.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The trick is to find a like minded opponent. Viberpol and I allow it but within reason. I tend to resize groups on CVE because I do not like the mix found on them and generally prefer to operate one type of plane from any CVE. I to also expand a few marine air groups to full carrier size. ie:36 fighters or 36 dive bombers to as to have carrier trained groups I can switch out. I don't mind if he is doing it as well. We both don't allow resizing over what would be a normal sized carrier group.

As pointed out above. A massive air force comes at a severe economic cost to Japan. Many Japanese player overlook playing to the end game as most games do not go that far. But it is very easy to come into 1945 and have nothing left in the bank due to over production of aircraft.

But what would be higher priority than production of aircraft? AA guns?

Well, having a little gas left in the tank when the Allies come knocking in 1945 would be a higher priority.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
No, "gamey" means that a certain game mechanic is unrealistic and you're playing the mechanics themselves, rather than what they're actually trying to represent. For example, running off-map convoys at full speed all the time because the game mechanics allow for no fuel being used and no sys damage being suffered is gamey - it is unrealistic and the player is taking advantage of the game mechanics. You would not run your off-map convoys full-speed all the time WITH fuel consumption and sys damage penalty, would you? Another example - putting anything else than Glens and Seirans on subs would be gamey - the game mechanics allow to put larger planes like Jakes on subs, but it is unrealistic because physically impossible to fit those larger planes in submarine hangars designed for much smaller airframes.

Okay good points. Assuming you are correct and the final version of the game does in fact allow for these "impossibilities" then yes, knowingly taking advantage of them is "cheating" and those two seem like good candidates for house rules.

Sadly, in the absence of painfully exhaustive test results, I'd have to express some skepticism about the former. It was my understanding that TF moved at cruising speed while in off-map mode, no?

The latter: in principle I agree with you. Putting a B-17 on a submarine and launching it with a catapult to an altitude of 50km so it can drop atom bombs on Tokyo would clearly be "impossible" and if the game allowed something like that to be done and a player engaged in it in competitive play willfully then I'd consider it cheating, not "gamey" . . . unless of course one just didn't realize that what one was doing was "impossible."

However, there is a large grey area between "B-17 in space" and "Jake on a Japanese sub" and I simply do not have enough knowledge of the technology in question to say with certainty that it is _impossible_. It does seem quite _likely_ that submarines which were equipped with certain smaller models (assuming glens and Petes are in fact smaller, I don't even know that for sure myself) of float plane should perhaps need to go in for refit in order to be able to equip larger planes . . . it depends entirely on mechanics of it: how is the plane attached, how much of a load can the sub handle, those sorts of things. I mean . . . in actual history, they took the super-structures and decks off of capital ships and converted them into aircraft carriers! so the range of what is _possible_ is quite wide, though obviously achieving exceptional modifications instantaneously and without any building costs is nonetheless impossible.

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Sorry - I wasn't very clear - the laughable bit IMO is that you can go from training on a Pete to fighting in a Zero and keep all your air/defn skills and only suffer a little exp hit. The effect from the change of aircraft should be much larger.

The Japanese have used Petes in the CAP role, for example as part of the "R Area Air Force" in the Solomons to protect supply runs to Guadalcanal, but also in the Aleutians and PNG. It was a quite nimble plane which could outmaneuvre faster fighters.

Yes - no problem with that, but I do think that if you transferred one of those Pete pilots directly into a George or Jack or divebomber type, they would need quite a bit of retraining. The current minor hit to xp doesn't do justice to the difficulty from going from one plane to another IMO

[Grfin Zeppelin]

They dont get a XP hit from going to floatplanes into a fighter squadron.

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: Yakface
Yes - no problem with that, but I do think that if you transferred one of those Pete pilots directly into a George or Jack or divebomber type, they would need quite a bit of retraining. The current minor hit to xp doesn't do justice to the difficulty from going from one plane to another IMO

While building a scenario for Babes, I had occasion to look at various IJAAF unit movement records. In mid ’42, the 1st and 11th sentai went to the Akeno Flight Training Center to transition from the Ki-27 to the Ki-43-1. It took them one and a half months each (June-July for the 1st, Aug-Sept for the 11th). Immediately following these, the 63rd sentai went to Akeno to transition from the Ki-43-1 to the Ki-43-II. This took five weeks.

These were some of the most highly experienced IJAAF fighter squadrons out there. But it was back in the day when the war was still young and the Japanese could yet afford the luxury of doing things the right way. For the Allies, just think how long it took to transition from a Stearman to a real fighter aircraft.[:D]

[ed] In the same vein, the 13th sentai was a Ki-45 squadron that managed to lose all but 2 of their planes in 3 months in New Guinea. They simply took over the Ki-43s left behind by 11th sentai when she went home; no transitioning but they did get some orientation help from the 1st sentai people. They lost 1/3 of their planes in take-off, landing and flight accidents within one month, during a period when they were assigned solely to convoy escort duties until they learned how to fly the damthings.[:D]

Matt

[LargeSlowTarget]

Yes, the transition from one aircraft type to another is not realistically modelled in the game. However, since it is unrealistic in the same way for both sides, it is a non-issue in the "gamey" context. The only difference is in the quantities involved since Japan can obtain more FP training 'seats' through resizing than the Allies. But as others have pointed out, resizing comes with a hefty trade-off.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin
They dont get a XP hit from going to floatplanes into a fighter squadron.

Sure they do lose XP (I observe ~1-7 points loss for my 75+ ones, with average around 3 points) as long as
1) it is transition from a different type plane as defined by groups in the pool (f/b/p/t/r)
2) you pick pilots by clicking on the name

But same pilots do not lose XP at all when you use "release 1/5/10 pilots" tool. And relying on this one I would call gamey more than resizing, if only it was not so god damn useful for the usual training. Can't live w/o it

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin
They dont get a XP hit from going to floatplanes into a fighter squadron.

Sure they do lose XP (I observe ~1-7 points loss for my 75+ ones, with average around 3 points) as long as
1) it is transition from a different type plane as defined by groups in the pool (f/b/p/t/r)
2) you pick pilots by clicking on the name

But same pilots do not lose XP at all when you use "release 1/5/10 pilots" tool. And relying on this one I would call gamey more than resizing, if only it was not so god damn useful for the usual training. Can't live w/o it

I see. Well I also rarely do the name clicking thing.

[SheperdN7]

Resize away, no matter if you're playing as the allies or as the IJ. There's a counter to everything in this game and the counter to the "great resize" is that you'll be absolutely burning through spare airframes just to reinforce 1 unit! It can be pretty good when creating special ASW squadrons but in my opinion this is just an in-game model of actual real life hunter-killer groups. As others have said, you can only resize if a unit is based on a ship that carries aircraft so it already prevents 99 Netties from being created and stops 99 B-29's from being created. 99 squadron on CAP? Alright, where do you find the skilled pilots? If you use sub-standard pilots then your loses are just going to be higher than before, which in turn will cause lower morale to the unit, have to replace those pilots and airframes etc etc. Also more supply and sorties will be used up when you launch.

[MakeeLearn]

SheperdN7

There's a counter to everything in this game

In games like this... that is the best!