Are the Japanese now TOO powerful??

[SamCole]

I don't know about CHS but Andy said that in his stock game he was getting 60 USN pilots a month. If you add that up 12/41 to 8/45 = 44 months which comes out to 2640 USN pilots for the whole war? Seems a bit shy to me.

[ny59giants]

I guess a question to be answered by Matrix and the software guys, Is can the amount of pilots be modified so there is not a flat rate of pilots and experience levels throughout the war??
If memory is correct, the experience level of the Americans should increase over time as those who were in combat were rotated home to teach the new recruits, while the Japanese should go down as they kept their's in their squadrons until they died. There should be a way to increase the monthly pilots for the Allies as time goes on.
Again, both these issues are probably to be answered by those more qualified than me.  [&o][&o]

[Sardonic]

Given the actual production capability of the USA in WW2......it isnt even an abstraction to simply allow unlimited low grade replacements.
 
Not high grade, no.  You cant mass produce CV capable pilots.
 
But thousands of P-39?  Why not?
 
The limitation would be upon the number of engines being produced.
 

[SamCole]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

Given the actual production capability of the USA in WW2......it isnt even an abstraction to simply allow unlimited low grade replacements.

Not high grade, no.  You cant mass produce CV capable pilots.

But thousands of P-39?  Why not?

The limitation would be upon the number of engines being produced.

According to Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea", that is just what the USN did. In mid 1944 the USN was qualifing about 8000 pilots a month! Just a few more than the 60 we get in stock.

[Sardonic]

I would never contradict Dunnigan.

However in my mind, mass produce is more like 40k than 8k

I cant read Gary's mind. I have no idea why he set it at 60.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
How would the US respond if China fell, if India fell, if day fighter losses climbed but night fighters remained almost untouched, if navy pilot pools were running low but there were a lot of USMC pilots etc.  What needs to be done is to figure out all the varied triggers and then figure out reasonable responses. With that done the programmers can put in the necessary code and implement the appropriate interactions between triggers and responses.

You completely miss the point. You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath. I don’t care what your or others arguments are, they’re simply specious arguments and have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the allied production model is borked beyond any semblance of reality. No set of in-game conditions or circumstances can possibly justify the neutered allied production model.

Here are some limited figures for aircraft production numbers during the war that I found with a quick google search:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Pro ... WWII.shtml

The US army alone produced some 297,199 aircraft, Japan only produced 76,320 aircraft total. Add to the US another 60,456 aircraft produced for the US navy and the US total production for the war was 357,655 aircraft. Even if only 30% of the total US production went to the Pacific, that’s 107,297 aircraft. But as we all know far more than 30% went to the Pacific since entire production runs of air frames like the F6F, F4U and B-29 were used almost exclusively in the Pacific.

Those combined with the many other units operating in the Pacific using all other models of US aircraft produced during the war would easily exceed 30% of the total production of US planes. Early in the war a figure of 30% sent to the Pacific was probably accurate, but by 1944 a figure of 40% - 45% of total production being sent to the Pacific is probably more accurate.

By the end of 1942 the US should be out producing Japan in both front line fighters and pilots by double at least and that margin should simply grow as the war progresses. Since the sytem is so bloody I say give everyone 10 times their historical production numbers, but at least give the US enough air frames and pilots to compete with all those Japanese factory upgraded production numbers.

But since Japan has the ability to change over all their factories to just their best fighters, they can easily out produce the allies in front line fighters for the entire war. If they have 500+ factories producing front line fighters, the allies will never gain an advantage because all their front line fighters are fixed with pool productions usually around 100 – 150 air frames and earlier air frame factories cannot be upgraded to give them a multi-hundred production pool like Japan gets to use.

When a single days air combat then shreds six months of allied fighter production, they are left with no choice but to downgrade to obsolete models while Japans production easily replaces their losses giving them a decidedly decisive advantage due solely to their being able to OUT PRODUCE the allies.

I don’t care if PDU’s are on or not, fixed replacement pools are easily defeated by the unlimited Japanese production system. (unlimited in the sense all factories can upgrade to the best air frames throughout the entire war.

Couple all this with a measly 60 US naval pilots a month and the outcome is inevitable no matter how well or bad the Japanese player is doing in the land war.

Hell the US CVE’s alone will suck up 2 full years of naval replacements just by arriving on map as reinforcements, so I wouldn’t even credit the US navy with the equivalent of 60 pilots a month.

Jim

[bradfordkay]

Surely if the game can have the experience level of replacement pilots change as the game progresses, it can also handle an alteration in the number of replasement pilots over time?

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
How would the US respond if China fell, if India fell, if day fighter losses climbed but night fighters remained almost untouched, if navy pilot pools were running low but there were a lot of USMC pilots etc.  What needs to be done is to figure out all the varied triggers and then figure out reasonable responses. With that done the programmers can put in the necessary code and implement the appropriate interactions between triggers and responses.

You completely miss the point. You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath. I don’t care what your or others arguments are, they’re simply specious arguments and have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the allied production model is borked beyond any semblance of reality. No set of in-game conditions or circumstances can possibly justify the neutered allied production model.

Here are some limited figures for aircraft production numbers during the war that I found with a quick google search:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Pro ... WWII.shtml

The US army alone produced some 297,199 aircraft, Japan only produced 76,320 aircraft total. Add to the US another 60,456 aircraft produced for the US navy and the US total production for the war was 357,655 aircraft. Even if only 30% of the total US production went to the Pacific, that’s 107,297 aircraft. But as we all know far more than 30% went to the Pacific since entire production runs of air frames like the F6F, F4U and B-29 were used almost exclusively in the Pacific.

Those combined with the many other units operating in the Pacific using all other models of US aircraft produced during the war would easily exceed 30% of the total production of US planes. Early in the war a figure of 30% sent to the Pacific was probably accurate, but by 1944 a figure of 40% - 45% of total production being sent to the Pacific is probably more accurate.

By the end of 1942 the US should be out producing Japan in both front line fighters and pilots by double at least and that margin should simply grow as the war progresses. Since the sytem is so bloody I say give everyone 10 times their historical production numbers, but at least give the US enough air frames and pilots to compete with all those Japanese factory upgraded production numbers.

But since Japan has the ability to change over all their factories to just their best fighters, they can easily out produce the allies in front line fighters for the entire war. If they have 500+ factories producing front line fighters, the allies will never gain an advantage because all their front line fighters are fixed with pool productions usually around 100 – 150 air frames and earlier air frame factories cannot be upgraded to give them a multi-hundred production pool like Japan gets to use.

When a single days air combat then shreds six months of allied fighter production, they are left with no choice but to downgrade to obsolete models while Japans production easily replaces their losses giving them a decidedly decisive advantage due solely to their being able to OUT PRODUCE the allies.

I don’t care if PDU’s are on or not, fixed replacement pools are easily defeated by the unlimited Japanese production system. (unlimited in the sense all factories can upgrade to the best air frames throughout the entire war.

Couple all this with a measly 60 US naval pilots a month and the outcome is inevitable no matter how well or bad the Japanese player is doing in the land war.

Hell the US CVE’s alone will suck up 2 full years of naval replacements just by arriving on map as reinforcements, so I wouldn’t even credit the US navy with the equivalent of 60 pilots a month.

Jim

I do not contest your conclusions. But I do ask again, where in hell did you get all the supply points to do these conversions? Japan 'can' do many things but NONE of them w/o supply.

I am sorry the needed supply simply is NOT there.

Where did it come from?

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
You completely miss the point. You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath. I don’t care what your or others arguments are, they’re simply specious arguments and have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the allied production model is borked beyond any semblance of reality. No set of in-game conditions or circumstances can possibly justify the neutered allied production model.

I don't disagree that the production for the Allies is low. But it is simply one of the myriad of things in the game that is not, and will not, be exactly like reality until they can charge a price for the game that will justify all the programmer hours needed to put together a near perfect game. Should it be corrected, yes. Can we make suggestions, abolutely. Was the title of the thread "How can Allied production be fixed?", no.

The thread was titled "Are the Japanese too powerful?". I take this to be a macro question, and no, I don't think they are too powerful. When I see 90% of the games ending in 1946 then maybe it we could say that. As is, I think there are plenty of Japanese players that have surrendered because the HI were being bombed and the writing was on the wall. If the Allies can 'win' (in WITP terms) around half the time then Japan isn't too strong.

[mogami]

Hi, Every new airgroup that arrives in the game comes in with trained pilots that do not come out of our pools. So to even start couting trained pilots players get in WITP add up all the pilots that arrive with these airgroups. This is why Japan only gets 10 per month. (in stock) these 10 per month are in addition to all the pilots that come into game already trained and in addition to all the pilots Japan can train on map from scratch.  Before anyone can claim WITP does not provide enough Japanese pilots I suggest they actually conduct the intended training and count the pilots that arrive with new groups. Those 440 other pilots are just icing on the cake they never have been claimed to be Japans pilot training. (they are just the 440 "super" pilots that seem to come from thin air.

ALL JAPANESE pilot training should occur on map. But instead ALL new groups arrive with magic trained pilots. In WITP the Japanese player will have almost 3x as many air groups as Japan maintained during war. (because human players never disband them without having them return) Japan built groups to replace lost groups. Players don't lose near as many so they end up with more. (and still refuse to use any of them for training)
If Japan uses 1/4 to 1/3 of total groups for training they will train far more pilots then Japan did during the war. (I mean use the training mission not the bomb empty base crap)

The Allied player is allowed to set groups on training. There is nothing gamey about this.  No one ever said the Allied player could not train pilots on map.  Any Allied player who is using 30 experiance pilots in 1944/45 is a knucklehead.

If the Japanese player wants to control his aircraft production then set all the RD factories to size 0 on Dec 7 1941 and let him have at it.

[Andy Mac]

Absoulutely Mogami I will be using the training function on map so I am not a "knucklehead" but when I am losing 200+ pilots a day on operations and receiving roughly 120 a month (mostly in escort carrier gps) and 60 per month into my pool (not even sure that training works for the CVRE Gps as they cannot fly on operations even training ones as the carriers are so overloaded) then then you can see how my pool is quickly exhausted. So at a time when IRL the USN was operating at sea continuosly I will need to turn round send my fleet to dry dock and spend 6 months training my pilots to get them to 60 xp which will result (assuming no losses whatsover in my fleet having enough trained pilots for a 2 or 3 day battle at the current brn rate so the USN carriers become a one shot weapon for the game is that really what was intended ?
 
Nemo ok here is the list of allied carrier capable fighters able to be used
 
Hellcat 144
F4U 150
F4U1 - D 100
FM - 2 120
F4 F4 90
 
Total 604 per month.
 
Ignore LB Fighters from this because no one is saying that the allies dont have enough land based fighters in 43 or 44.
 
Now in a PDU game you are quite correct I would be downgrading like mad at present and I would be using FM2's and F4F's on my carriers as I dont have enough F6F's so the allies would be reverting to obselete types on fleet carriers in order to compensate is that what you mean ? its braodly equivalent to the Japanese reverting to Claudes onto KB in 44 because they dont have enough Zekes !!!!.
 
Of the 604 394 per month are front line types but of these 250 are Corsairs that 90% of Japanese players would howl as unfair if used on USN Carriers in late 43/44. (all of my games have houserules to stop corsairs on carriers but this was designed to stop them in 43 and will have huge knock on implications in 44)
 
So basically the allies are left in the un enviable position of using the Wildcat as the main carrier fighter as there are not enough Hellcats and despite PDU's being on most games have houserules for Corsairs
 
The proposition you are making Nemo regarding enough allied fighters only applies if in a PDU environment the allies are free to place Corsairs on carriers from the moment the Hellcat becomes operational this is not a house rule that 90% of game have at present because of the current reaction (that I agree with) to avoid having Corsairs on carriers in early 43.
 
All I am saying is that PDU's will Force the allies to use corsairs on carriers earlier and in greater numbers than History.
 
Now a note of caution my game with PZB is an OUTLIER I suspect but dont know that it will be worse in a PDU game we almost have to wait and see what happens.
 
I will say this if I get to the stage where my Hellcat pool is empty in a PDU game I will be talking long and hard to my opponents about Corsairs but my 2 PDU games are a long way from those straights especially as I will be spending every waking moment of SEAC in stoping those pilot training schools.
 
It is now the mission in life of the RAF to kill Japanese training schools they have NO other purpose.
 
Andy

[Andy Mac]

PZB and Andy’s game proves beyond a doubt that allied production is far too low given the horrendously bloody nature of the game. Yes the allies are at a disadvantage because India was wiped out in that game, but Andy hasn’t been overusing his carriers because of that. He has launched the expected carrier operations any allied player would need to launch for his counter-thrusts in 1944 and is now completely out of USN pilots and Hellcats.

You said it well - India is out of the game. But as i see it, Andy still managing to advance faster than historical despite all advantage Japan have (as some of them says). Hey, Allies didn't defeat Japan before 1945 on two theatres, in the mentioned game they doing better than historical on just one theatre without Brits!


Hmm actually I was slightly ahead of schedule in the Marshalls but I am now behind and likely to fall further and further behind. I cannot maintain the operational tempo the allies IRL were able to because of pilot losses

[pauk]

Andy, Andy[:-][;)]

What about SRA?.... well IMHO you are too hasty at the moment in your game against PZB or you just doing propaganda warfare again?[;)]... I will not offer to you any advice, but just let you know it is possible to keep tempo.....

[RETIRED]

ORIGINAL: skrewball

About the Japanese pilot training...

This game is about "WHAT WOULD YOU DO" if you were in command. I can tell you that if I was in command of the Japanese, I would have implemented a strict training regime.

AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE GIVEN UP TO DO IT?. You can't just say "make it so!" If you are going to build all those extra trainers and provide experianced instructors, then you are going to have to give up something. Probably several "active air groups" from the initial set up. Sure you will.....

[Andy Mac]

Um SRA sorry dont understand Pauk.
 
Allies were had taken the Palauas and assaulting the Marianas now IRL this isnt propaganda I am just about on timeline but my Fleet is seriously screwed

[pauk]

eh, aren't you have a some bases in Sulawesi?

anyway, do you have free time for turn? I'm just opened turn and could send it to you in about an hour. If not i won't rush - these days are really intersting and enjoyable!

[Andy Mac]

To Hasty !!!!
 
I spent 6 months prepping the op against the Marianas it was the greatest assemblage of might seen in the game 2 full corps supported by over 50 carriers and every BB I had right on the historical timeline not ahead not behind but right on and I called it off because of lack of pilots and hellcat airframes.
 
Sorry Pauk this is not propaganda, it is not bullshit it is the truth it WAS NOT WORTH 200 pilots to sink 5 fleet carriers.
 
aNDY

[Andy Mac]

No I am at work now so no turns until tonight.
 
OK arguably Sulawesi is ahead of schedule by about 3 months given landings in PI didnt occur until October ish but lets not forget that Allies took Palaus about now so as I said I am behind schedule and I was ahead because Wobbly held onto the Gilberts and PM.
 
 

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: RETIRED


AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE GIVEN UP TO DO IT?. You can't just say "make it so!" If you are going to build all those extra trainers and provide experianced instructors, then you are going to have to give up something. Probably several "active air groups" from the initial set up. Sure you will.....

This is what some (myself included) players do on day 1 (or 2) of Jap turn, disband about 1/3 of the active air units so that in 90days will have training units with low experience pilots. This is standard Mogami method. Japan doesn't need 100% of active air units to advance in 41/early 42, but they will need those extra trained pilots from late 42 on.

[Sneer]

this game is too bloody and units are in bad shape fast
my usual method is to disband 2 50% daitatis into 1 and have reinforcements going in 90 days + 60 days for training if exp level is not satisfying
it means that for 4 months at least I'm short of some units
usually 30% of my units is always in organizing or trainig

i will agree with Mogami when I see unit losing 3-4 pilots / engagements

but I saw too many 80% casualties battles
it is silly to use such argument under this A2A model

i don't see also a justification for non pool japanese pilot exp so low in 43 when my economy is in best shape 
i have supply surpluses
i have withdrawn from combat 750 nates 500+ oscars and some claudes
there are quite a lot of 1st class fighters and bombers in reserve that can be used for training too
I'd like to use them in my training facilities given rate of killed pilots on the front
so at least 2000 planes can be devoted to training any time withg enough supply to let it run
how long training is needed  ?
i'm not expert but as we speak not about theory but about flying time I would say that 50-80 hours of flight should be enough to see exp close to 40-50 area
so every 3 months I should be able to train crews for 2000 planes  with exp 40-50 in game terms  it is 600 per month  - and yes all new units should draw pilots from them - I rarely see more than 200 planes per month in reinforcement so up to 400 pilots / month will be available as loss replacement
their quality will not be great but it is material i can do sth with
with 20+ pilots they can only die !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

costs - obsolete planes are no costs - supply costs ? i assume 1h flight /day so 50-80 hours =50-80 days with 2k sorties and as I don't need to use true bombs for every bomber trained all the time i think 2.5 k supply per day would solve this

I'm ready to pay instead of silly on map bombing in PI/china trainings
most of players are ready to see such system
planes and pilots are priority as WITP is air war for most of the time

notice that so high plane production is not needed as better pilots = lower losses  so ending supply balance would be smaller

but some of forum memebrs can't see this logic
after mid 42  allies decide how we Japanese player play - it is often not purely our choice as most of sorties flown are of  defensive nature

unless sb pick up the idea of managing pilot pools with real planes and supply I refuse to dissuss about gamey pilot training