Allied aircraft production figures

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If I recall correctly, Japanese A/C ops losses were about 65%, and Allied about 60% in the Pacific.

Careful Mike. You're basing your op losses percentage on air frames destroyed in the actual war. As the stats I posted early on in the thread show, op losses on a per sortie basis were very low, about 1%, 2% if you include the non-combat sortie losses but we don’t have the total sorties flown for those stats to add to our total for comparison. The game gets it pretty close now and I think we should strive for a % based on sorties flown, not based on a % compared to combat losses.

The only reason the op losses percentages were so high during the war was because not many aircraft were lost in combat when compared to what we lose in WitP. So when comparing your ops losses in the actual war to aircraft lost in combat you have high percentages.

I think op losses are about right in game needing a slight tweak up perhaps, it's the overly bloody combat routines that make them appear too few. Change combat so the USN and Marines only lose a combined total of about 3,000 planes for the entire game and you'll see a much higher percentage difference for the current op losses that the game has now.

Jim

I understand what you are saying Jim. It's part of what I meant by how everything is inter-related and can't be viewed just as this number or that number. But I've also seen things that suggest that on both sides "attrition" (non-combat losses) wrote off approximately 10% of the deployed aircraft in theatre every month. If you started a month with 2,000 aircraft deployed to units, you could expect to lose 200 in 30 days even if you never made contact with the enemy. Or put another way, if you started the year with 2,000 A/C deployed, and sent in 2400 replacement A/C during the year, the most you could expect to have at the end of the year is 2,000 - minus any combat losses inflicted by the enemy. Air war, especially in an area as backward and hostile as much of the Pacific, is extremely expensive.

[mogami]

Hi, What is so hard about pilot training? I do all mine in Osaka and Tokyo and it's pretty darn easy to keep track of. 
You have front line units (where the combat is occuring) You have bases that are the supply line to these forward bases.
 
Groups train in Osaka/Tokyo and when ready they move to support base.
Front line group can either move back to base to receive replacements or training group divies and sents required replacements to front.
 
Use the all groups menu and sort by type. (I conduct all my air mission orders and movements from this menu.
 
I'd say I have more groups in rear areas doing nothing then I have front line units.
 
Carriers hang out in major ports out of enemy air range so it's not hard to figure out where to send the trained replacements.

[Mike Scholl]

This may well be true in your case Mogami..., but I think you will agree that the "on map" training of air units is subject to some serious abuse by players. Whomever came up with "transport mission training" was not looking to duplicate any historical activity...., he was looking for (and found) a "game mechanic" to abuse. Part of the discussion in this thread was how to provide the Japanese player with a more realistic flow of trained pilots...., and one of the worries was that if you did you would have to somehow "control" on-map training to balance it.

[mogami]

Hi, How ever you slove the problem Japanese pilots will need to be trained on map.  Pilot training has to be impacted by the war.  If you just set a number of auto pilots then supply will never be a factor.
Once Japan is cut off from imports the player will need to decide how much of his remaining supply stockpile is used to train pilots.
 
Personally I don't mind if the best way is also the hardest way to get the results I require. I won't buy into the excuse that pilot training fails because of exploits.  I fails even more if it is not something the player has to worry about.  I am always against any increase to monthy pilot allotment of increase in starting pilot pool.
 
I know these are increased to allow Japanese player to except greater losses early in war and this is exactly why I am against them. The Japanese must train their pilots, they must do it on map and they must decide if allowing their quality to decline is worth what they gain in exchange. They can't fight massive battles early in war and also keep pilot quality high by using an increased starting pool.
 
(There is a reason my games as Japan are not massive bloody conquer the map games)

[Mike Scholl]

"Personally I don't mind if the best way is also the hardest way to get the results I require. I won't buy into the excuse that pilot training fails because of exploits. I fails even more if it is not something the player has to worry about. I am always against any increase to monthy pilot allotment of increase in starting pilot pool."

I can understand, sympathize, and agree with your reasoning..., but HOW do you control the opponant who insists that if the "exploits" are in the game, he's going to use them? Some aren't that easy to spot, and you can invest a lot of time in a game before it becomes obvious. I know you can limit yourself to playing only with players you trust not to abuse the system..., but how do you know who they are until you play them? It's just frustraiting that the "system" is so succeptable to "abuse" and "massaging". OK, I'll get off my soapbox....

[mogami]

Hi, Ask them before you start. "How are you going to train replacement pilots?"

Perhaps when we look for opponents we should say
"I am a win at all costs player"
"I try for historical accuracy when I play"
"I hve no clue about anything, tell me what I should or should not do"

Many options are player defined. We can turn off PDU,Sub Doc,Damage control
Some folks like the exploits and depend on them.  (rather then map out a time table and operational plan for first 6 months they just teleoport every where on turn 1 and then consolidate the postion)

You know almost every "Major" complaint about WITP has a very simple solution. Don't like "Uber CAP" don't put more then 4 CV in a single hex (or more then 2 in a TF) (I find the reasons people don't do this very amusing. Uber CAP cause too bloody combat and strikes do not get through but people won't solve the problem because then the IJN CV might get hurt? OK then be happy with Uber CAP it's doing what you want. But if you want more realism, less bloody air combat and balance then don't use Uber CAP. 12 CV can still operate together just not in the same hex.  Since both player have to agree to this at start Operational planning will account for fact that CV-versus CV battles will take place between TF of not more then 4 CV per hex. (12 CV in 3 ajoining hexes can still launch a coordinated strike however CAP over each TF will be much less then with 12 CV in a single hex so massive coordinated strikes will have an advantage over CAP (however such strikes will only target a single TF) but the odds for the smaller disjointed strikes having an effect are greatly increased.  THis simple fix favors IJN in period before USN CV get the larger fighter squadrons and of course the IJN greatly outnumbers the USN but Japanese players still have to plan for USN because it is not sucide for 3 or 4 USN CV to come out compared to games where 10 IJN CV/CVL operate in single hex.  Since USN is a viable threat this change in play style produces a more realistic game. The USN BB at Pearl now have possible air cover if operating against Japanese bases and so Pearl Harbor strike becomes more important.  (versus games where Japan can ignore USN BB because KB always assured of overwhelming USN CV if they come into contact.  WIth 4 CV per hex limit it is now possible for 3 or 4 USN CV to inflict damage on 2 IJN TF in a single day.  (suppose 3 hexes of IJN CV opposed 1 hex of USN CV but weather grounded 1 or more hexes of IJN CV in AM and opened new target in PM? (I would not risk the war hoping for such a result but at least now it is possible where before it was not)

OK the point is everything that anyone has ever posted about has a solution.
UBER CAP has simple and fun solution
massive ground combat does not occur in my games so it is not a problem
I don't use map edges
I don't overstack airfields
I don't screw with production (much)
I don't fly offensive missions same turn I transfer airgroup
I don't teleport.

Game works great I have alot of fun. My opponents don't have to pull their hair out for anything other then being fooled by those "transports" up by Attu turning out to be Hiryu Soryu Kaga and Akagi

[Mike Scholl]

Game works great I have alot of fun. My opponents don't have to pull their hair out for anything other then being fooled by those "transports" up by Attu turning out to be Hiryu Soryu Kaga and Akagi
 
 
Darn.  One of these days I've got to play this game against you.  It sounds like fun when you talk about it.  Can I put in a bid for a start next year?

[mlees]

A question in regards to those "Operational Losses" figures...

There are many reasons why a plane may become written off as a loss that doesn't involve the death of a pilot or aircrew.

For example, some knucklehead may run into a plane with his tow tractor on the ground.

A storm front blows through and flips a couple over on the apron. (Or blows them off the flightdeck.)

Spare parts are stripped off an airframe to make several others flyable. (Dubbing it a "Hanger Queen".) Eventually enough parts are missing that the plane is just shoved to the side, and a replacement called up from the reserves.

In WiTP, do all operational losses entail life or death risks to the pilots?

[Feinder]

In WiTP, do all operational losses entail life or death risks to the pilots? 

 
Yes.  In WitP, an ops loss = dead pilot.
 
-F-

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

In WiTP, do all operational losses entail life or death risks to the pilots? 

Yes.  In WitP, an ops loss = dead pilot.

-F-

So, a higher number of pilots lost in "operational losses", and a more deadly A2A combat model... does this mean that more pilots die in game than they did in real life?

[Andy Mac]

Im not sure so far from all causes in my game v PZB which is in August 44 Allies have lost 19,000 v 31,000 for Japanese from all causes
 
Split is
 
Allies
 
Sorties 4,422,163
A2A Losses 9,223
Flak 1,412
Ops 5,216
Ground 3,454
 
Japanese
Sorties 3,197,685
A2A Losses 18,179
Flak 1,957
Ops 5,716
Ground 5,132
 
So for the allies the loss per sortie to ops is 1.18% and for the Japanese its 1.788%
 
The ops loss per combat loss (flak and A2A) is allies 49% Japanese 28% although this is skewed by high recent Japanese A2A losses. 
 
Anyone know how these game numberscompare to reality for mid 44 ?
 
Andy

[mlees]

Im not sure so far from all causes in my game v PZB which is in August 44 Allies have lost 19,000 v 31,000 for Japanese

Does this mean for the Japanese, after you remove the ground losses (5,132), that they have lost 25,852 pilots?

[Andy Mac]

I think so yes

[Andy Mac]

Although I suggest that PZB would only loosely call some of the Oscar and Zeke drivers 'pilots'

[mogami]

Hi, I don't think OP loss equals a lost pilot. I have several recon/patrol groups that have only lost aircraft to ops. (never to ground/AA/A2A the groups began with 9 ac and 9 pilots. I just went through and issued new aircraft replacements. Most groups required 5 to 7 new aircraft but only 2 pilots.  So groups had lost up to 7 ac to Ops but none had lost more then 2 pilots.
 
(I often ignore these groups for long periods in rear areas) (I found a few groups in China that had lost ALL their aircraft but still had most of the pilots)

[bradfordkay]

Russ, I think that there's a die roll on ops losses as well. There's a chance that an ops loss will result in a lost pilot. What that chance is, or whether there's any variables involved, I have no idea.

[mogami]

Hi, I know pilots can be killed by Op's It just sounded like people thought it was always automatic they died. I don't think this is the case.

[bradfordkay]

Yeah, I realized you knew that after I reread both our posts. I blame it on having just finished a stretch of working 7 days in a row (and 13 of the last 14). My brain needs a WITP break!

BTW: I agree with you, ops losses don't always appear to kill the pilots. Do you know if Mike included the UV allied advantage in recovering pilots in WITP?

[mogami]

Hi, No I don't know about allied advantage but since I think pilot recovery has something to do with aircraft durabilty I suppose they have an advantage.

OP loss is hard to keep track off because it includes every aircraft not instantly shot down in air to air or by AAA that crashes before returning safely. 

If aircraft damaged by A2A or AAA crashes enroute home it is listed as OP loss. (even though it crashed because of battle damage) (sometimes however an aircraft is crediited to a enemy pilot where it becomes A2A loss) So I am not sure where the dividing line is. However not all OP loss are aircraft downed by weather or mechanical failure or running into mountains or mishaps on takeoff or landing. I think a good portion of them can ultimatly be traced to combat.

[el cid again]

Japan built TOO MANY planes. It would have been more operationally meaningufl to build a smaller number of planes - averagin more engines per plane - and replacing obsolescent types sooner in spite of the impact on numbers ramping up requires. While things can be done to improve the number of pilots and the amount of AVGAS, these would not easily be vastly greater for Jaapn than they were. There is also a limit on the aluminum in the Empire - and better utilization on moer modern types - and more recycling by scrapping older types - would help - but only a modest amount. It is not going to happen Japan would be able to increase its pilot counts, AVGAS or total aluminum by any great multiple. Better for Japan to adopt a strategy oriented towards exploiting what it DOES have - in particular its army - which pretty much sat out the fight - and a number of other things.

According to Ion Hogg, Japan did not in general see tanks as a "war winning weapon" - until too late. In fact, it converted automotive plant to aircraft production - and not doing that - or even going the other way - might have mattered a good deal more. Tanks don't need aluminum or pilots or AVGAS - and they multiply the effectiveness of the fine infantry Japan can field. The key for Japan is to exploit interior lines of communications and to operate effective combined arms forces - not but everything just to make airplanes that then sit (for lack of fuel) or fly poorly (for lack of sufficient trained pilots0. IMHO