How to get the best out of Allied Fighters?

[Peter Weir]

I'm always relaxed That's why I play games to get away from the reality of my work where things arent always so realxed.

Not sure I buy the later in the game stuff about the Zeros and Wildcats. My question is what's happening earlier in the game. Also, what's the story with the squadrons that get tooo many pilots? Can this be corrected or is withdrawal times for these units?

[mogami]

Hi, Scenario 14 begins on 8-1-42 by 10-1-42 as Allies I'm out killing the Japanese fighters using P-40/F4F. I don't think this is 'waiting for later'
Once the P-38 arrives the Japanese player needs a "retreat from theater" option because the game is over.

Scenario's 17 and 19 however begin on 1 May 1942. There is no Midway battle.
This adds approx 100 A6M2 pilots with skill to the mix. Also in these scenarios the Japanese recieve many more Daitai then were sent (and they get them much earlier)

The main Allied fighter at this point in UV is the P-39D. There are also P-40E sqdns at start but they are all under strength. This requires the allied player to spend several weeks/months rebuilding his air power. During this period the Japanese rule the skies. This is not historical. It is not historical because the units doing the ruling were either destroyed at Midway or deployed else where.
(In SRA or Home Islands)
These are 'make believe' scenarios. They should not be used to judge the model.
In these scenarios if the allies attempt to engage in prolonged large scale air to air combat they will lose and lose badly. If the Allies restrict their activity to defending their ports when TF are present they will succeed and have a favorable kill ratio. (Since the aircombat will be P-39's shooting down unescorted Nell and Betty bombers)

By the time the historical scenario (14/ 8-1-42) begins the allies should be able to begin serious air to air combat against the A6M2. However they will remain on the defensive up to the time they defeat the IJN CV. This does not require a carrier versus carrier battle. Most often the first reserve inflicted on UV Japanese carriers results from their supporting a Japanese operation aimed at securing an Auto Victory base and getting too close to Allied LBA. (Often the USN CV airgroups are employed as land based air)

After the reverse is inflicted on the Japanese the Allies can assume the offensive however it must still be realized they are begining operations against a Japanese airforce several times larger then what was present when "Watchtower" was conducted.

It should therefore be quite clear that in scenarios 17 and 19 (and others) that both Allied and Japanese air loss will far exceed the historic. If the UV model is judged soley on the results of the most historicly accurate scenario (14) then I think there is little room for complaint. In this scenario I have never had the Japanese achive a postive kill ratio against P-40/F4F fighters during the months of Aug thru Oct 42. They do at times have good ratios on single missions if you simply count fighters destroyed in air to air and ignore bombers shot down and aircraft lost to operational cause. (many aircraft crash from damage sustained in air to air but are recorded as Op loss)

In every running of this scenario the allies have been winning the fighter ratio contest before the introduction of the P-38 or other advanced allied models. This is hardly "waiting for later" And when it gets later, it only gets worse for the Japanese player. This history and these results are why people play scenarios 17 and 19 and not 14. They are make believe scenarios that allow players a chance to see the what if of Japans early commitment to the South Pacific. They are fun for the Allied player because they allow the feel of the entire war in only 635 turns and using smaller forces. In May Japan is vastly superior in all factors. The Allied player must make some sacrifices to hold.
By early 1943 the shoe is on the other foot and the Japanese player is pulling his hair out. (After being given all the extras he still finds himself in the exact same position only he has suffered many times more the historic loss)

[Nikademus]

One last thing (sorry that this has become so laborious). The numbers that have been tossed around concerning "real life" performance of these pilots and aircraft are taken from only a handful of encounters and those quoting these figures almost never take into account the circumstances in which the fighting took place (and some of these were extremely odd). To say that something or other is incorrectly modelled based on such meager evidence is placing too much weight on too little substance, in my estimation. We UVers are out there whacking away at each other on a daily basis, quite unlike what happened historically.

Why pasternakski ....that was absolutely profound

[pasternakski]

Why pasternakski ....that was absolutely profound

My blushes, Watson...were you referring to the laborious part or the whacking away thing?

[Nikademus]

the wacking part.

(huh huh.......i said "wacking" huh huh huh huh)

[pasternakski]

I think you've got something there, Wacker.

Meanwhile, back at the subject, I continue to marvel at the excellence of the P-39D for various tasks. As Mogami points out, they are murder with that 37mm cannon against unescorted Betties and Nells. They are vicious anti-barge strafers (particularly when you see them getting those 500-pound GP bomb hits). They even terrorize IJN destroyers, minesweepers, and other lighter craft when they get the chance.

I always keep a bunch of 'em handy in any Solomons campaign I get involved in as the Allies. I started out my UV life with nothing but contempt for the "Iron Dogs," but know better now.

[mogami]

Hi, There is another current complaint that surprises me. Excess pilots. Now I don't think the program is supposed to keep handing out pilots to groups but I don't mind it when it does. (It does not do it when I am the Japanese so I think it is an allied plot)

When I find a group with excess pilots I move it to a safe base and begin training it. In one present scenario 19 I have 3 24 aircraft fighter groups with 30 something pilots each. After training them I have 3 groups with at least 6 extra pilots. This means when I commit these groups to combat I can lose 6 pilots before I ever risk getting a rookie. Hopefully my 6 now departed pilots will have inflicted some loss on the enemy and that sorry Daitai will either be short pilots and aircraft or now have a few rookies flying for them. Even if the group is hit hard on a single mission I know I can always have a near full size group because if I have to withdraw a group it will take it's trained pilots with it (and when it returns in 60 days be ready to fight long before a group that began with the correct number of pilots could be ready)

I'm not making any excuse for any misbehavior by the program. I'm only pointing out that this particular "curse" is quite handy and not a show stopper. (The Japanese players might protest unless we give them extra pilots in the next patch.)

The only way I can explain to myself why some players fail to achieve success with allied fighters in UV is they drain the pilot pools.

You will never run out of pilots but if you create the need for a large number of trained pilots in a short period of time you can run out of trained replacements. This will begin a cycle of demand out running supply as these new pilots are in turn shot down. (That's why having groups with excess pilots early in a scenario is a good thing. It allows time to train all of them before entering combat. Then even a heavy loss does not require an influx of pilots as each group involved already has a surplus of trained pilots)
I think the heavy loss experienced by some players is a result of using groups too soon or not training them up as much as possible before committing them to combat. I've found I can train a group of 24 pilots starting at 50 experience up to all of them being 60 in around 2 months. But I don't do intense training. I first let the group get to 99 morale and then on clear days fly it at 90 percent training for one day and then rest them back to 0 and repeat. (This is scenario's 17 and 19 where I have 3 months at least before i will undertake any type of offensive operation. I only need 4 fighter groups for every day defense and these groups only fly CAP when a TF is nearby) In scenario 14 the P-39D are moved to the rear as soon as the TF's bring in the troops for PNG. Then the P-40 defend PM while the P-39D/400 train and defend ports in the rear. The USMC and CV groups have always been able for me to defend Lunga. The Japanese wear out their starting (27) pilots long before they impact the nearly 200 Allied pilots. As fresh Japanese Daitai arrive they are put through the meatgrinder. (They have early minor success followed by gradual decline into mediocrity)

[CapAndGown]

Mog,

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this.
1) The program is obviously draining the pool every turn. Every time it has an extra pilot in the pool it assigns it. I now have Emily, Dave, Pete and Mavis chutais with over 50 pilots. That's 50 pilots to fly 9 to 12 planes. They never get trained. They fly for a little while, then they never fly again as new pilots arrive. My best pilots never fly. So much for ever achieving anything with ASW!
2) Because the pool is drained every turn, every time I have a heavy draw on pilots (meaning 5 pilots!) I get crappy pilots (experience in the 20s).
3) This is not happening when I have the luxury of sending everybody off for a siesta in the nanyo. I need them to be flying CAP over my bases.

This over allocation of pilots seriously annoys me. I wish Mike Wood would take a little time off from WitP and fix this. I would also like to see the bug where surface combat and bombardment TF travel at max speed all the time fixed. It is ruining my fleet much too quickly.

[mogami]

Hi, Oh I see it's occuring in Japanese airgroups as well. Is it just the Patrol groups or does it happen to bomber and fighters as well? This is one of Mike Wood's forums so I'm sure he will see this. I'll post a note in the private forum for him to vist.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

I will talk to Joel and David about it.

Thanks...

Michael Wood
__________________________________________________________________

Mog,

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this.
1) The program is obviously draining the pool every turn. Every time it has an extra pilot in the pool it assigns it. I now have Emily, Dave, Pete and Mavis chutais with over 50 pilots. That's 50 pilots to fly 9 to 12 planes. They never get trained. They fly for a little while, then they never fly again as new pilots arrive. My best pilots never fly. So much for ever achieving anything with ASW!
2) Because the pool is drained every turn, every time I have a heavy draw on pilots (meaning 5 pilots!) I get crappy pilots (experience in the 20s).
3) This is not happening when I have the luxury of sending everybody off for a siesta in the nanyo. I need them to be flying CAP over my bases.

This over allocation of pilots seriously annoys me. I wish Mike Wood would take a little time off from WitP and fix this. I would also like to see the bug where surface combat and bombardment TF travel at max speed all the time fixed. It is ruining my fleet much too quickly.

[Micah Goodman]

Maybe I am just a callous commander but I do not concern my self overly much about losses. As far as I am concerned prior to 1943 the USAAF air units are there only to get a lucky occasional kill on an experienced Japanese pilot that will be hard for him to replace. I have found in my games that the only hope I have of possibly shooting down Zero’s early in the game is with P-40’s or Wildcats. I have found that I have better results (this to me is preventing Japanese bombers from damaging their targets in New Guinea) if I station my CAP at 1,000 feet higher than the Japanese. I have found a huge difference when the Japanese adjust their attack altitude. They cut through my guys like they were not even there.

It seems to me that SOME people want to blame poor command and control on a computer designed bias towards one side or another. This IMHO is drastically overstated in most cases. Oh one other thing, to heck with resting fighter squadrons over much. This is war and they have a job to do. The key is to rest them when the weather is bad. Heavy thunderstorms means a rest other than that, you boys are flying today period! I will admit that my air units perform much better on larger airfields. Any thing at level two and under is more of a hazard to your units operating from there than to the enemy they might engage. Basing them at level one airfield is basically saying, “come shoot me down Mr. Big Bad Zero pilot.” Bottom line, so what if your pilots get waxed in the beginning, it’s a long war and there are more allied pilots than Japanese so big deal.

[Admiral DadMan]

Several of my Patrol groups do this in either sides. I've even noticed my B-26 Sqns doing it. 50 some-odd pilots, average exp over 70, and most over 85...

It needs a fix!!!

[PzB74]

Same here, I got P-39 sqd's with 18 ac and 56 pilots.
My worst Jap case is a str 9 Mavis sqd with 81 jockeys!!!!!!!!

I mostly see these problems in Jap patrol groups, seems like it's more widespread on the Allied side!?

[Damien Thorn]

Same here, I got P-39 sqd's with 18 ac and 56 pilots.
My worst Jap case is a str 9 Mavis sqd with 81 jockeys!!!!!!!!

It looks like they are listing all of the crew and not just the pilots.

[Peter Weir]

Mog,

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on this.
1) The program is obviously draining the pool every turn. Every time it has an extra pilot in the pool it assigns it. I now have Emily, Dave, Pete and Mavis chutais with over 50 pilots. That's 50 pilots to fly 9 to 12 planes. They never get trained. They fly for a little while, then they never fly again as new pilots arrive. My best pilots never fly. So much for ever achieving anything with ASW!
2) Because the pool is drained every turn, every time I have a heavy draw on pilots (meaning 5 pilots!) I get crappy pilots (experience in the 20s).
3) This is not happening when I have the luxury of sending everybody off for a siesta in the nanyo. I need them to be flying CAP over my bases.

This over allocation of pilots seriously annoys me. I wish Mike Wood would take a little time off from WitP and fix this. I would also like to see the bug where surface combat and bombardment TF travel at max speed all the time fixed. It is ruining my fleet much too quickly.

That is more what I'm talking about. My question is what to do with these squadrons after they collect all the new pilots. Are we just satuck with them forever or can they be withdrawn?

[mdiehl]

Looking at the numbers posted for the Zeke and F4F I'd say that the Zeke's durability should be substantially reduced. I'm not sure where the numbers are derived from but the only thing the Zeke had going for it was the use of a radial engine (as opposed to an in-line). So whatever the designers think "it's got an engine" means in terms of durability, that's where the A6M should be. The F4F should probably be adjusted over that amount to make it several times harder to destroy, because it's got armor and leak-resistant fuel tanks protecting everything. It was easily several factors tougher to kill than an A6M, as the many, many anecdotes from both American and Japanese pilots will attest in re BOTH aircraft.

[pasternakski]

Looking at the numbers posted for the Zeke and F4F I'd say that the Zeke's durability should be substantially reduced. ... The F4F should probably be adjusted over that amount to make it several times harder to destroy ....

Well, I agree with you except in the matter of degree. I sense from the closeness of the numbers that large differences in durability ratings have a drastic effect. If you look at the ratings for later American fighters like the F4U and F6F, they are not substantially higher (just a couple of points or so) than the rating for the F4F.

I would suggest consideration of a re-design of how durability is handled, but - you know - "enough is too much already," as Yogi said.

[Nikademus]

Before the introduction of incendiary bullets (mid 42), the Zero was able to take some punishment , but still not nearly as much as a Wildcat. But numerous Zeros did take damage and walked away. Such was the case during Coral Sea when Zuikaku Zeros routed the TF-17 CAP, shot down several of them for no losses and prevented them from effectively interfering with the strike. Approximately four Zeros of the escort took damage but all made it back to their carriers.

Self sealing fuel tanks are IMO, the most important factor. A plane that cannot be set on fire can be very hard to bring down. Many a Wildcat owed not becoming a "Kill" due to self sealing fuel tanks. (as did many a bomber) After mid 42, The Zero's thin margin for error got even thinner as an incendiary in a fuel tank would be very bad news.

Keep in mind too that there is also an "armor" rating, so you have to look at both factors when judging the plane. Japanese early types have no armor in addition to lower DUR than Allied moderns.

[BPRE]

Hi,

I've just started a Scn 17 (as Japanese) against the AI and am at the moment 20
days into the scenario. Just like cap_and_gown mentions I'm starting to see an
increase in pilots for my patrol squadrons. In most cases only one extra pilot but
I have 1 Mavis with 5 ac and 11 pilots (1 lost ac earlier), another Mavis with 9 ac
and 12 pilots (last assigned, 1 flight, has 93 in exp!!) and one E13A1 with 8 ac and
13 pilots.
I have a save of every single turn so if you need some input data just let me know.

Please don't laugh at my situation though since I've managed to lose all my CVs
already

Regards
BPRE

[LargeSlowTarget]

In all my games I see the plane-pilot-ratio becoming unglued in many squadrons, regardless which side I play. It's worst with patrol squadrons, there are 40-50 pilots for 9-12 planes

Re Zero vs. Wildcat - I'm an Axis-fanboy by birth :p , nevertheless I think the durab and the air-air combat needs tweaking in favor for the Allies. Even considering the armor rating, I think the current values do not adequately represent the effects of six .50 cals hitting Japanese paper-planes or two 7.7 mm and two slow-firing/low-velocity 20mm guns hitting the products of the 'Grumman Iron Works'. Just for example, after much experimenting in good ol' PacWar the values for cannons/durab have been set 8/10 for the Zero and 12/24 for the Wildcat, and it seems to work.
Tweaking the air combat model is tricky. I think the common consent is that in a fight between one Zero and one Wildcat the Zero had a distinct advantage, but that two Wildcats using proper teamwork tactics were worth much more than just two Wildcats fighting on their own - with the Thach Weave they were at least able to mutually protect their six, thus surviving to fight another day and maybe even bagging a Zero in the process. How to translate better tactis into the air-combat-model I don't know, but I would like to read in the combat resolution something like "F4F section employing Thach Weave - F4F evades/Zero breaks off attack/ is damaged/ is destroyed".