CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

[worr]

I think that is the point. Their lack of quality is included in the game not only for XP and Zero bonus, but lack of coordination in large strikes.

Mind you this is an educated guess, but I think it makes sense. Lower ability means less coordination as the war goes on. Formation flying isn't easy for a new pilot....and coordinated flying in large groups takes some experience.

Worr, out

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
(even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's).

No, they were in 1 TF. They had 2 carrier divisions (one under Nagumo, and one under Yamaguchi), but they were in the same TF. There were CVLs in a 2nd TF, but they never got into the battle.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's always been my understanding that the Japanese gradually lose their coordination of CV strikes as the war progresses, while the Allies gain theirs.

Hi,
yes, but I don't understand why the Japanese should have less problems with coordination than the Allies. There seems not to be any historical justification for this. Coordination should improve for both sides due to technological progress (fighter control centres, radio equipment etc.). But even in 1944, the Allies did not use 6 CV TF's regulary (if they did this at all).
K

For the US by 1944 the standard "Carrier sub-group" (ie. TF 58.2) had 4 CV/CVL's and their AAA screening vessels. TF 38 or TF 58 would have several of these sub-groups (for a while, the British Pacific Fleet was TF 58.7). At the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Japanese adopted a similar set up, with three CV/CVL sub-groups. And their "coordination" during "The Marianna's Turkey Shoot" was rather poor, with successive waves of "targets" arriving all day. US coordination (thanks to radar and FDC's) made certain that each wave was met by a suitable set of "greeter's.

[rtrapasso]

And I still don't understand the reason behind the carrier strike coordination rules. Don't understand why in WITP the Japanese (using flags and not having enough radios for their planes) have less problems with strike coordination than the Allies. Because of their successful strikes against ports like PH and Darwin? Not really related to carrier battles, it seems. IMHO it would be a much better game if the same penalties would apply for both sides, enforcing the use of smaller carrier TF's as it was historically done in WW2 (even at Midway the Japanese carriers were grouped in two TF's).

Here, here!!

I think the rule originated in comparing apples to oranges: that is, IJN carriers operating in a SINGLE TF were better coordinated (early in the war) than USN carriers operating in SEPARATE TFs.

I think the rule would be more accurate if you gained coordination in strikes when operating your CVs in the same TF, no matter what side was doing it. Of course, the chance that ALL your CVs could get sunk in one devastating attack (a la Midway) is increased, along with coordination of airstrikes. It would be a trade off.

[Andy Mac]

Oops sorry forgot op security

[Gen.Hoepner]

Andy, please edit...those files are now secret...MC could be reading...[;)]

[Gen.Hoepner]

and then again.....problems with Japan are pilots, not planes. Those planes aren't of any use if flown by 25/30 experience pilots

[Andy Mac]

I agree but a 25 - 30 xp pilot is better than a 90 pilot sitting on the ground without a ride !!!!

[Tom Hunter]

John Ellis gives the following fighter production stats for 1942


Japan: 2935
USA: 10769
UK: 9849

Andy I agree with the poster above, you should not quote his game by name. You could post these figures under a headline that says "figures from one AAR" rather than naming the game. He should also edit his posts out, you will notice I do not use his name in this post or identify the game in any way.

In 1943 the figures were:
Japan: 7147
USA: 23988
UK: 10727

It does appear that Japan is producing at a 1943 rate in 1942. As I have mentioned before I think that is fine, but don't call it historical.

The CHS game appears to give the Allies about 18% of their total production in the first year of the war.

Though I agree that pilots are a critical feature for game win/loss I don't think they are relevant if the discussion is about the historical accuracy of production. If we were discussin play balance that would be different.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Yes, ok, but you do know that if you want an accurate historical game you would have to change the whole game.
Starting from the code...

I think, talking about games, balance is more important than historical accurance.

[jwilkerson]

Keep in mind when we are talking about total airplane/frame production figures, many sources will include trainers, whereas WITP does not. Trainers, rough estimate would be about a third of total production. Best CHS can do ( and we are working on the air OB and production right now as we speak ) is to have air OB and production correct at start ( and arriving OB correct ) but players do have the ability to manipulate production after the start beyond the ability of the scenario to control.

PDU on doesn't change production - but it does largely remove the "slot bottleneck" which exists when PDU is off. The "slot bottleneck" is the phenomena ( which I'm very familiar with since none of my games have used PDU on yet ) whereby you have tons of good planes - but can't use them - because you have no available slots in any of your units for that particluar plane type !

[Andy Mac]

Aye but for Allies PDU doesnt really correct that issue.

The inability to force USAAF Gps to use F4F's (that I have plenty of) against P40's (of which I have 0) is a real pain even west coast air gps that never go anywhere cannot be switched to navy or marine types.

Thats fair enough as the Japanese have the same restriction

BUT with production flexibility at the same time it is unbalancing.

In reality if I controlled production the way the Japanes do but not slots I would on day half F4F production and put into army types.

PDU doesnt really help allies in 42 (although I think it helps the allies in 43 and 44 a lot more than Japanese)

Andy