Pilot feedback for MichaelM (no greyjoy please)

[Nemo121]

Alfred,

Wouldn't you agree though that wargames are about modelling capabilities - whether or not the historical personalities chose to utilise those capabilities. Otherwise we might just as well watch a documentary about the conflict if all we care about is constraining things to what actually happened.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This is not a coding issue. It is a scenario design issue if we accept that it is a valid concern, which I am not convinced. For each "historical" argument adduced in support of increasing the pilot numbers to accomodate the desired operational kamikaze tempo use (but never achieved historically), there is also a "historical" arguement which nullifies the feasibility of the desired operational kamikaze tempo use.
Alfred

I agree partially with you, it is about the scenario in this case the GC. The scenario designers have done their very best to allow for the introduction of kami's given the "hooks" that are available. The issue is that while kami's can be used prior to 10/44, they are of almost no value as you have no pilots to use them with. If the training groups are also available at the same time that the kami's are able to be used, then it is in sync ... as I suspect the scenario designers would wish.

[witpqs]

I took Alfred's comment to be questioning the validity of the proposed capability.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I took Alfred's comment to be questioning the validity of the proposed capability.

Ahh, sorry if I miss interpreted ... I can see that now ... oops.

[Nemo121]

Well, historically, any nation which ever ran into danger of "running out of pilots" ( Britain in 1940, Soviet Union in 1942, Germany and Japan in 44/45 ) actually didn't run out of bodies. WHat they ran out of was the ability to train pilots up to a survivable standard.

E.g. Germany and Japan 1944/45 still graduated enough pilots to fly their machines BUT the length of training had fallen so much in order to keep the numbers up that those graduates were just meat on the table.

Neither nation ever had slots in pilot schools which they couldn't fill through either drafting or volunteers. As such I find it really unfathomable how people can seem to think these nations were able to continue creating and fielding divisions of tens of thousands of men ( questionable quality and morale of course ) right through to the last week of the war but couldn't scrounge up an additional 2 or 3,000 volunteers/draftees for pilot training per month.

Alfred maybe you could explain your position better because really I'm just hitting a wall at the idea that they could draft tens of thousands of men into the army but couldn't draft a couple of hundred extra per week into the air force? They had the bodies, they had volunteers/draftees, they had pilot training academies - one can argue they were at saturation but on-map training takes care of that issue. Flight hours would have been very low of course but it wasn't as though they would have had flight academies with empty classrooms due to a lack of volunteers/draftees.

So, I'm a bit stumped on how people can think they would? Anyone care to explain it?

I'd particulary be interested in the historical arguments which argue against the possibility of recruiting more kamikaze volunteers given that between the suicide motorboats, frogmen and kamikazes you can quickly enough reach a figure of some 20,000 kamikaze "volunteers" in August 1945 - about a year's worth of pilot graduates even in scenario 2. I honestly just don't see any which hold water but I might be missing something.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I've had days in a recent game in which over 3 days I lost over 2,000 planes and pilots ( mostly kamikazes ). I thought that was a high loss rate but had many players who had played into '45 comment to me that they had frequently seen similar loss rates in 45.

Yes, it is possible to lose that many planes in the AE. And it certainly is a high loss rate but this ostensibly is the result of the way you (and others) play the game.

You see, you lost 2,000 planes and pilots over 3 days while the Japanese lost 7,830 planes (including 2,944 kamikazes and 558 planes destroyed on ground) during the Battle of Okinawa (1st April - 21st June 1945 = 11 weeks).

Please feel free to do the math and draw your own conclusions what this could mean.

[PaxMondo]

Kereguelen,

Sorry, I'm a little slow and I know you have a point here, I'm just missing it. [&:] Could you be a bit more clear?.

So your example is that historically IJ lost ~100 pilots/day over 11 weeks against Nemo's example of ~650/day over 3 days. In The historical example, I'm prety sure they had days where they lost +300 pilots in a day, and in Nemo's example I'll bet the 4th day he lost less than 200 pilots. Meaning, to me at least, the game is not far removed from historical context. Very good.

But I doubt that was your point. Sorry for my high density .... really would appreciate any clarification.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Kereguelen,

Sorry, I'm a little slow and I know you have a point here, I'm just missing it. [&:] Could you be a bit more clear?.

So your example is that historically IJ lost ~100 pilots/day over 11 weeks against Nemo's example of ~650/day over 3 days. In The historical example, I'm prety sure they had days where they lost +300 pilots in a day, and in Nemo's example I'll bet the 4th day he lost less than 200 pilots. Meaning, to me at least, the game is not far removed from historical context. Very good.

But I doubt that was your point. Sorry for my high density .... really would appreciate any clarification.

Pax I find this somewhat disingenous. Your apparantley feigned inability to grasp his point that is. Especially since you then go one to present an equally disingenous skewed interpretation in an attempt to undermine his point.

His point is that the rate of loss Nemo sustained over 3 days equated to 667 losses per day, while the historical campaign relected a loss rate of 102 per day. Extrapolate Nemo's loss rate over the 77 days the historical campaign lasted and you get a whopping 51,359 losses!!! What Nemo seems to be asking for is an ability to maintain a loss rate of 667 per day for not only 77 days, but ad infinitum without ever running out of pilots. Some of us simply find that excessive.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Kereguelen,

Sorry, I'm a little slow and I know you have a point here, I'm just missing it. [&:] Could you be a bit more clear?.

So your example is that historically IJ lost ~100 pilots/day over 11 weeks against Nemo's example of ~650/day over 3 days. In The historical example, I'm prety sure they had days where they lost +300 pilots in a day, and in Nemo's example I'll bet the 4th day he lost less than 200 pilots. Meaning, to me at least, the game is not far removed from historical context. Very good.

But I doubt that was your point. Sorry for my high density .... really would appreciate any clarification.

Pax I find this somewhat disingenous. Your apparantley feigned inability to grasp his point that is. Especially since you then go one to present an equally disingenous skewed interpretation in an attempt to undermine his point.

His point is that the rate of loss Nemo sustained over 3 days equated to 667 losses per day, while the historical campaign relected a loss rate of 102 per day. Extrapolate Nemo's loss rate over the 77 days the historical campaign lasted and you get a whopping 51,359 losses!!! What Nemo seems to be asking for is an ability to maintain a loss rate of 667 per day for not only 77 days, but ad infinitum without ever running out of pilots. Some of us simply find that excessive.

Sorry not feigned, not disingenuous, just a too slow I guess ...


Editted for stupidity. Merrill, greatly appreciate your understanding and patience.

[Nemo121]

Kereguelen,

And if the landings had occured at Kyushu they could have lost 5,000 in a day. Peaks tell us very little about averages. I'm sure you know more than enough about statistics to know that and so I'm mystified why and Bolter seem to think a peak should be taken as the average.

I'm NOT suggesting a loss rate of 670 pilots a day should be sustainable. I think that you have to view the 2,000 losses in 3 days as the sort of "pulse" of losses which could happen twice a month maximum ( when CV TFs support an operation ) with a background loss rate of 30 to 50 planes per day. I never suggested a loss rate of 600+ per day on an ongoing basis was historical or even something to be achieved in-game.

However if you look at 2 pulses of 2,000 planes lost per 3 days and a background of 40 lost per day for the other 24 days you can easily end up losing 5,000 pilots in a month in 1945. NO continuous levels of combat just a big battle vs CV TFs or Allied airbases for a few day every 2 weeks and a background level of loss which isn't excessive given the AARs from 1945. Average that over a month and you get a loss rate per day of about 166 planes per day - which isn't all that much more than the Japanese daily losses around Okinawa..... and don't forget my losses in the month include losses in the defensive war over the Home Islands vs fighter sweeps, bomber raids etc. The 102 per day historical figure excludes those numbers so is actually going to be quite a bit higher than 102 losses per day.

Obviously if you compare peak loss rates to averages over x months then you can make all sorts of spurious conclusions. I think we either compare peak with peak or monthly averages.

In my games in '45 I see an average of 2 massive clashes per month ( in which 2,000 planes could be lost in 3 to 4 days ) and a background loss rate of somewhere between 30 and 50 planes per day.
Over a month that averages out to 166 planes lost per day in ALL THEATRES. The figure by Kereguelen is 102 losses per day on average JUST over Okinawa. Even if the Japanese only lose 20 planes per day elsewhere ( which is probably low give historical ops losses ) you end up with a historical loss rate of 120+ vs my loss rate of 160+.

EVEN the historical loss rate of 120+ per day would be roughly double the number of pilots Japan would graduate per month in Scenario 2 and about triple the number of monthly graduates in Scenario 1 ( going from memory so the figures might be a bit off ). Bottom line though, even the historical loss rate could not be sustained in-game given the hard limit on pilot graduates per month.


HansBolter et al.... I trust we won't continue comparing peak loss rates with averages as that really achieves nothing except to highlight what weird results we get when we choost mismatched pairings. I'm the first to admit I hadn't specifically averaged it out previously but now that I've given average loss rates ( which can be checked vs AARs ) I trust we can compare peaks to peaks and averages to averages. Also take it easy Hans. Throwing around words like disingenuous and intentionally skewed is what will cause this to deteriorate. I'm giving you and Kereg the benefit of the doubt in terms of misinterpreting the 670 as an ongoing average ( which really would be incredible ) so give people on the other side of the fence some of the same credit would you? It IS possible for people to disagree without somehow faking evidence or suchlike.

Kereguelen,
I think the high peak loss rate is more of a function of lethality and concentration of forces which occurs in game. With that said the average loss rate in even my 1945 games is only about 33% above the minimum historical loss rate, which isn't bad at all.... and even the historical loss rate would be unsustainable given the current hard limit on pilot graduates. So, even if you don't want to talk about capability ( which mystifies me since it is a game all about capabilities ) and wish to confine yourself to historical loss levels it is clear that:
a) the game hard pilot limit would prevent there being sufficient graduates per month to sustain a historical Okinawa campaign.
b) in addition it would be utterly incapable of allowing the Japanese to build up a sufficient reserve to pilot the Kyushu kamikazes ---- a reserve which, historically, Japan DID build up.

So, on purely historical grounds the hard pilot limit seems, to me, to fall flat. Once you take into account the higher losses which occur in all phases of the game the hard pilot limit seems even less defensible to me.


And just to be clear: Peak loss rates were mentioned to illustrate a point. I'm not suggesting that expending 670 airframes per day is sustainable day in day out. That'd be ridiculous. However, 100 to 200 airframes per day seems to be the range in which history and 1945 games appear to be running and I think we should give Japan the capability of being able to sustain such daily loss rates of pilots, since historically they were not only able to sustain loss rates of well over 100 per day but also managed to build a reserve of some 5,000 pilots by August 1945 --- which speaks to me of their ability to graduate enough pilots to replace the 120 or so lost per day PLUS another number of pilots to form the reserve. If they began forming it in March 1945 and had 5 months to build it by August then that's 1,000 additional pilots per month just going to the reserve. That brings daily pilot replacements to about 150+ ---- which is within about 10% of my 160+ per day.

Of course not even the 102 lost per day solely around Okinawa could be replaced under the current pilot replacement system, nevermind the pilots the Japanese lost elsewhere, nevermind the pilots they were salting away in the reserve.

[HansBolter]

Nemo,

Very well rationed and well presented argument. I'm convinced.

I wasn't so much accusing you of asking for a loss rate of 667 per day ad infinitum as I was hoping to prompt you into clarifying that it wasn't what you were asking for. You've done a fine job of that.

I apologized to Pax in PM for offending him. It was meant as a friendly poke in the ribs as I truly did believe he was being playfully and fascetiously disingenous in order to make a point.

[Nemo121]

Hans,

No sweat. I am certainly not immune from saying something a bit too quickly or sharply at times. I hope my reply to you didn't come off too harsh, I read it now and think it was a tad harsher than it had to be also. So, my apologies for that. he problem with getting a bit shirty is that it makes it much easier for people who oppose change for all manner of reasons ( who advocates the change, that the change favours side A over side B etc etc etc ) are basically given free reign to ignore the change if the thread discussing it degenerates.

Personally I've already thought of a work-around which I'm going to be putting in my mod if this doesn't change:
1. Give Japan a godawful number of monthly replacements - something like 7,000 or so.
2. Make the experience of all of those replacements terribly low - to represent that they all graduate with just 20 hrs theoretical and 20 hrs stick time.
3. This will necessitate on-map training for everyone who isn't a kamikaze pilot.
4. Make this huge increase in recruits HI-neutral by creating a Japanese base somewhere on-map ( somewhere in the Soviet Union or somesuch ) which has OIL, a REFINERY and HI sufficient to offset the HI needed by the additional pilots.

By ensuring there's no land-line to other Japanese holdings the base can add its HI to the Japanese economy but not any fuel, oil or supplies. Of course in PBEM it would have to be HRed as being "off limits". Bottom line though there are ways around the problem so it really won't affect my mod since I can work around it with an 20 minutes worth of editing in the database. However I think that a proper all-encompassing codebase solution would be best.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I apologized to Pax in PM for offending him. It was meant as a friendly poke in the ribs as I truly did believe he was being playfully and fascetiously disingenous in order to make a point.

Wish I was that sharp ... sorry. I'm pretty stolid ... I enjoy reading many of the quick wits here, but I am not one of them. I'm more one of those "can stare through a block of stone given enough time" kinda guys. [;)]

[michaelm75au]

Has anyone got a save where pilots can't be drawn because they have run out of replacement pilots?

[Nemo121]

Aye, I'll ask one of the people who has to drop you a line so you can arrange how to get the turn file to peruse.

[michaelm75au]

I have a save showing no replacement pilots.
From quick look, the code is not jumping to the next level (trainee) as expected.

Dedicated training groups and kamikaze groups however do pull in trainee pilots in the same circumstances from what I can see.

[PaxMondo]

Thanks Michael for looking into this and the fix (r6c).
 
[&o][&o][&o]

[rader]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I have a save showing no replacement pilots.
From quick look, the code is not jumping to the next level (trainee) as expected.

Dedicated training groups and kamikaze groups however do pull in trainee pilots in the same circumstances from what I can see.

That actually sounds reasonable to me - early pilot availability only for kamikazes...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: Erkki
While you're at it, maybe you can find an AAR'd PBEM Scenario 1 or DBB game where Japan survived or looks like is going to survive until the historical surrender date? AFAIK there arent any. Not many Scen 2 games either. Let alone one where Japan also has lost half of its CV fleet mid 1942, screw up with PM and Solomons and is still surviving... If we want the game to have such balance that the historical date is the median end date of PBEM games is another thing... [;)]

That's actually a good point... has there ever been a PBEM game where the Japanese player has won (or looks like they were going to)? (not won the war, but won the game on autovictory or points at the end?)

Maybe we can do a survey of games in the AAR section...

PZB's maybe? It's still in 1944, but I think the Japanese are doing well there.

I can't see anything in AE that keeps a Japanese player from winning an autovictory that wasn't already there in WITP. I've won several autovictories in WITP and as a so far Allied AE player I'm sure I could do the same in AE as the IJ player. In fact, playing as the Allied player, I have seen so many weak points for the Allied that I have pretty much a clear plan how to more or less easily win an autovictory as the IJ, at least not any harder than in WITP.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: castor troy


[I can't see anything in AE that keeps a Japanese player from winning an autovictory that wasn't already there in WITP. I've won several autovictories in WITP and as a so far Allied AE player I'm sure I could do the same in AE as the IJ player. In fact, playing as the Allied player, I have seen so many weak points for the Allied that I have pretty much a clear plan how to more or less easily win an autovictory as the IJ, at least not any harder than in WITP.

Referring to a Dec 42 AV, correct?