The Armchair General's Tale -IJ SURRENDERS- (dontra85 (IJ) vs modrow (A)) - no dontra85, please

[Bif1961]

Not sure what the game mechanics are for giving experience points for being shot down. However the Japanese management of their pilots was similar to the Germans and almost every multiple ace was shot down multiple times. Since the Japanese planes are not as well armed or armored nor self-sealing fuel tanks, count it a blessing they survive being shot down.

[RangerJoe]

Pilots lose experience when they are shot down. Somehow they develop emotional problems and get, as the say, nervous in the service. [;)]

[modrow]

… in this specific game?

Gentlemen,

I am curious to hear your views on the above question. But please do not rush blindly to the standard answer (which is valid in most cases and in the long run - but will there be a long run?) that DEI is of course crucial for IJ and any further thought can be dismissed as a fool's errand without further consideration.

One of the peculiarities of the Allied position in this game is that they still control essentially all of Timor and Ceram including a mostly intact Dutch army (This is one of the reasons to which I alluded in my response to BIF1961's question in post #76). Potentially this is a great jumpoff position to cause massive trouble in the DEI/SRA region more quickly than usual. So naturally, IJ has to take care of that,a threat to that region is something that forces IJ to react and/or eliminate it – or not?

I currently still cannot fathom my opponent properly – unfortunately, he is not very communicative in his mails and in the forums. But the longer I play against him, the stronger gets my impression that the Portland invasion may be part of a plan developed to attempt to get an early IJ autovictory by the beginning of 43. And if this is the case, is the DEI/SRA truly a region where IJ has to get active (especially as my opponent does have use of its oil and resources currently and my curtail some of his industry expenditures in an optimized pursuit of this strategy)?

We have a 2.8:1 VP ratio right now, with only 7000 Allied points (which can be kept low by denying plane and ship VPs, this is why I think the lack of action can be part of a plan and why I am actually trying to get into more contact).
For comparison, I dug out the data for the same game date in my latest PBEM game as Allied: 1.6:1 with about 11600 Allied points. You see that a lot of the difference is explained by the low VP denominator in this game, which is why I feel I have to look for ways to add VPs.

(In view of the previous “welcome” early active Allied air war discussion, let me add that in said other game 2511 of those VPs are for destroyed IJ planes, wheras I lost 1779 planes in return; as for the issue of sustainability in that game we are in mid November 42 now with 6900 IJ and 4500 Allied planes destroyed).

If, however, I were to pursue this early autovictory strategy as IJ, I would next look hard at the victory points to be gained in the Pacific. Check the big VP multiplier bases, most of which can still be taken and expanded – Luganville, Effate, Suva, Johnston Isl, Palmyra,… Full expansion of these bases will give you a bunch of additional points. Take Noumea to induce another notable VP loss (currently 300 IIRC) for Allied, complete buildup of high multiplier bases already in IJ hands, make use of China as a VP generation engine. If necessary, do one more late invasion, triggering another emergency package with a timing that it does not arrive in time to affect things significantly, chosen in a way that allows you to get strat bombing points.

With sufficient concentration of assets and under KB cover, in my experience throughout 42 Allied strongpoints can still be destroyed and will provide not only base points and potential base points when expanded if they have a good VP multiplier, but also additional points for LCU destruction.

So… from IJ's point of view maybe I could just look at anything happening in the DEI in a relaxed way as IJ and actually be glad about any activity/use of Allied assets in this area, because my Allied opponent is moving his reinforcements to an area that is of no real interest to me, fueled by hopes that this may be a way to avoid feeling the dire consequences of the Portland raid in 1944?

Am I just paranoid, or do you think this may be a real possibility?

Thanks for your views

Hartwig

(edited for clarification, more editing for spelling)

[RangerJoe]

Don't forget NorPac with the base modifiers there. If he takes a base on the Canadian mainland or an island, he can strat bomb the US for points.

He could also take the islands off Southern California and build them up for strat bombing. So try to keep track of the KB and consider hitting him where he is not. Even the Omaha class cruisers with DDs can wreck his convoy system if you can see where his search planes operate. I read where Nemo did that with his subs to see the detection, then ran in cruisers with guns blazing, avoiding the naval search areas on his way in.

I do not have the game open so I can't check any bases for names and sizes but be alert.

Don't forget, even PBYs on night Naval/Search with torpedoes can be deadly. Bombs will work on thin skinned targets as well. Flak is reduced at night and there probably would be no CAP.

Sub laid mines in coastal hexes to damage his ships and force him to sweep them. Do this where in the bottlenecks where his cargo vessels would have to go to avoid the deep water where your subs are waiting.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: modrow

… in this specific game?

Gentlemen,

I am curious to hear your views on the above question. But please do not rush blindly to the standard answer (which is valid in most cases and in the long run - but will there be a long run?) that DEI is of course crucial for IJ and any further thought can be dismissed as a fool's errand without further consideration.

One of the peculiarities of the Allied position in this game is that they still control essentially all of Timor and Ceram including a mostly intact Dutch army (This is one of the reasons to which I alluded in my response to BIF1961's question in post #76). Potentially this is a great jumpoff position to cause massive trouble in the DEI/SRA region more quickly than usual. So naturally, IJ has to take care of that,a threat to that region is something that forces IJ to react and/or eliminate it – or not?

I currently still cannot fathom my opponent properly – unfortunately, he is not very communicative in his mails and in the forums. But the longer I play against him, the stronger gets my impression that the Portland invasion may be part of a plan developed to attempt to get an early IJ autovictory by the beginning of 43. And if this is the case, is the DEI/SRA truly a region where IJ has to get active (especially as my opponent does have use of its oil and resources currently and my curtail some of his industry expenditures in an optimized pursuit of this strategy)?

We have a 2.8:1 VP ratio right now, with only 7000 Allied points (which can be kept low by denying plane and ship VPs, this is why I think the lack of action can be part of a plan and why I am actually trying to get into more contact).
For comparison, I dug out the data for the same game date in my latest PBEM game as Allied: 1.6:1 with about 11600 Allied points. You see that a lot of the difference is explained by the low VP denominator in this game, which is why I feel I have to look for ways to add VPs.

(In view of the previous “welcome” early active Allied air war discussion, let me add that in said other game 2511 of those VPs are for destroyed IJ planes, wheras I lost 1779 planes in return; as for the issue of sustainability in that game we are in mid November 42 now with 6900 IJ and 4500 Allied planes destroyed).

If, however, I were to pursue this early autovictory strategy as IJ, I would next look hard at the victory points to be gained in the Pacific. Check the big VP multiplier bases, most of which can still be taken and expanded – Luganville, Effate, Suva, Johnston Isl, Palmyra,… Full expansion of these bases will give you a bunch of additional points. Take Noumea to induce another notable VP loss (currently 300 IIRC) for Allied, complete buildup of high multiplier bases already in IJ hands, make use of China as a VP generation engine. If necessary, do one more late invasion, triggering another emergency package with a timing that it does not arrive in time to affect things significantly, chosen in a way that allows you to get strat bombing points.

With sufficient concentration of assets and under KB cover, in my experience throughout 42 Allied strongpoints can still be destroyed and will provide not only base points and potential base points when expanded if they have a good VP multiplier, but also additional points for LCU destruction.

So… from IJ's point of view maybe I could just look at anything happening in the DEI in a relaxed way as IJ and actually be glad about any activity/use of Allied assets in this area, because my Allied opponent is moving his reinforcements to an area that is of no real interest to me, fueled by hopes that this may be a way to avoid feeling the dire consequences of the Portland raid in 1944?

Am I just paranoid, or do you think this may be a real possibility?

Thanks for your views

Hartwig

(edited for clarification, more editing for spelling)

Being paranoid is good in war.

The logic of this strategy is to go after Australia rather than the South Pacific. The VP multiplier for Japan is generally much higher on the Australian bases plus the infrastructure is already built there and likely to have been further built up by the end of 1942. This strategy does not allow Japan the time to build up infrastructure which is the main problem with focussing on the few high multiplier South Pacific bases like Noumea et al.

The more Allied assets forward deployed to counter the standard Japanese expansion operations the less available to defend Sydney/Melbourne from a massed IJA landing in December 1942. Those bases have a 100x multiplier and there are few bases elsewhere with equivalent multipliers. Plus there are many other Australian bases with excellent multipliers which exist outside of the Australian LOD.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Pilots lose experience when they are shot down. Somehow they develop emotional problems and get, as the say, nervous in the service. [;)]

I've started to see this claim being made. Where is the evidence that this actually occurs, that the code imposes this penalty on the pilot.

Alfred

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Pilots lose experience when they are shot down. Somehow they develop emotional problems and get, as the say, nervous in the service. [;)]

I've started to see this claim being made. Where is the evidence that this actually occurs, that the code imposes this penalty on the pilot.

Alfred

Could be the pilot going to a new aircraft type after being shot down that changes the experience level?

[Alfred]

Hartwig,
 
Just to add to your paranoia ... [:)]
 
If your opponent is not pursuing a 1 Jan 1943 Auto Victory objective but instead the Portland operation was meant to facilitate long term survival, an alternative Japanese strategy would be to take advantage of the great loss of Allied carrier plane platforms by capturing  bases which can only be approached by sea.  The obvious focus for this strategy is not the North Pacific or the South Pacific, both being theatres which the Allies can approach by land, but to go for the whole of Hawaii.
 
Whilst, with the exception of Pearl Harbor, the Hawaiian VP multipliers are no where near as good as those for the Australian bases (see post #85), an Allied return is only possible via carrier support.  The loss of all those CVEs and other ships at Portland makes an Allied return so much more difficult.
 
Once the whole of Hawaii is captured by Japan, there is no need to maintain the islands fully supplied.  All that Japan needs are a few xAKs to shuttle Resources from Hilo to feed the Light Industry of Pearl Harbor.  The occasional xAK from outlying Resource producing islands (eg Nauru) carrying Resources (or supply and fuel in the cargo hold) will top up the limited supply/fuel requirements.  Then when the numerator has to be maximised (perhaps for Auto Victory purposes) or to anticipate an Allied counter move, full supply convoys can be sent out from Japan.  The point is that there is no combat malus endured by Japanese forces if they are not in touch with the enemy.  Don't overlook that the Pearl Harbor shipyard would be a very valuable asset for Japan to acquire for any future operations.
 
Plus with Hawaii, Japan still retains the interior lines for operations whilst forcing the Allies to even more distant exterior lines.  Again more strain on the reduced Allied naval resources.
 
If this is indeed your opponents strategy then it makes sense to implement it after the Philippine and Solomon operations conclude.  Then substantial Japanese assets become available to overcome what ever Allied reinforcements have been sent to Hawaii in the interim.  In fact if Hawaii has been reinforced and subsequently those units are destroyed, that will push back even further any Allied return to Hawaii.
 
The nature of your musings on this AAR clearly confirm that you are not concurrently playing WitG(arden):AE.  Anyway no need to thank me, we on the red Chesterfields with our cognacs are in an excellent position to feed your paranoia.[;)]
 
Alfred 

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Pilots lose experience when they are shot down. Somehow they develop emotional problems and get, as the say, nervous in the service. [;)]

I've started to see this claim being made. Where is the evidence that this actually occurs, that the code imposes this penalty on the pilot.

Alfred

Could be the pilot going to a new aircraft type after being shot down that changes the experience level?

Ah, but that is a well known game mechanic which has nothing to do with the pilot being shot down. Any pilot with experience 50 and above suffers an experience level drop when assigned to an aircraft type which is different from his last aircraft type, irrespective if he is moved directly between aircraft types or indirectly via the Pilot Reserve Pool.

In fact if the game were to have a mechanic whereby shot down pilots lost experience it would also need to include a mechanic whereby a shot down pilot actually gained experience. A level 40 experience pilot who is shot down by an enemy level 90 experience pilot and who survives, is in fact likely to have learnt a great deal from the encounter.

Of course it is the A2A skill levels of the respective pilots which do figure prominently in the aerial fight. The Defence skill is also important. Both are more likely to improve as a result of surviving combat. Combat never reduces pilot skills.

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

In attacking the IJ fights over the Allied territory. Without armor and with fragile planes, losing the pre-war 70-80 experience pilots becomes all too regular even with apparent superiority. The Allied pilots, even when shot down, often live to fight another day. While those that are shot down lose experience from being wounded, the group as a whole gains skill and kills. In looking at the CR Sutton thread asking for pilot losses recently Allied players had decidedly fewer pilots lost at ALL stages of the game. One P-38 sweep in late 42 can wipe out half your 'expert' group flying the A6M.

pilots lose experience from being shot down and wounded

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

In attacking the IJ fights over the Allied territory. Without armor and with fragile planes, losing the pre-war 70-80 experience pilots becomes all too regular even with apparent superiority. The Allied pilots, even when shot down, often live to fight another day. While those that are shot down lose experience from being wounded, the group as a whole gains skill and kills. In looking at the CR Sutton thread asking for pilot losses recently Allied players had decidedly fewer pilots lost at ALL stages of the game. One P-38 sweep in late 42 can wipe out half your 'expert' group flying the A6M.

pilots lose experience from being shot down and wounded

If you are relying upon page 14 of that AAR then you are very badly mistaken as to what constitutes evidence for the claim. No dev posted on that page. Nor did any of the then experienced players who had had relevant "off air" feedback from the relevant devs, post on that page.

AARs are particularly prone to the creation of AE urban myths. Devs rarely posted in them and many anecdotal claims are made by individuals who fail to rigorously assess before posting. Far too often the anecdotal "evidence" is quite contaminated by the presence of multi variables which are not properly quarantined in any so called "corobative testing" by the poster. These "testing" posters usually mistake degree of effort with quality of setting up proper test parameters.

There is still no evidence for the claim that pilots shot down lose experience.

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

Well, since I have seen where I had pilots that experience over 80 and I was going to pull them out for Tracom had dropped to under 80, my game must be messed up. I am sure that if someone had a utility that tracked pilot experience, then checked the experience after a pilot was shot down and possible wounded and determined that the experience was lower, then they could reasonable claim that being shot down reduced their experience.

Since you have the code and know exactly what goes on in the game mechanics, whether or not the developers have said anything about it and wanted to keep it a secret, I will now log out and never post on anything again.

Come to think of it, I might just log in to edit all of my posts to state that they were not approved by you.

[modrow]

Alfred,

even without need thank you, I feel better doing so - thus many thanks for the cultivation of my paranoia and the helpful remarks [:)].

Hartwig

[zuluhour]

I am a more than a little surprised to see how "huffy" some can get over a simple and concise response from Alfred.
Not only is he revealing how a pilot may lose experience and why he is adding more information for you.

[RangerJoe]

One last post for my evidence:

1LT Tapner A

He went from 86 experience to 77 experience.
Exp = 86
Air = 71
Defn = 48

From the aoperationsreport for 28 April 1942:

1LT Tapner A. of 34th PS is credited with kill number 16
1LT Tapner A. of 34th PS bails out with WOUNDS but is RESCUED

Still listed as WIA on May 10. Shows up on the squadron pilot list on 11 May 1942 with a 1 day delay.

Exp = 77
Air = 71
Defn = 48

So if he got 1 experience point for the combat or kill to go to 87, then loses 10 points or 10% for being shot down, that would explain the drop.

The reason why I noticed is that the 34th PS is in the Philippines with the other squadrons that start there and they are controlling the area over Manila and Clark. They are based in Manila with a current 50% CAP, altitude of 20,000 feet and a range of 2. When those squadrons disband, those top pilots are going to be trainers.

On May 11, the unit had 189 kills with a total loss of 20 aircraft. 0 Ops, 9 WOff, 10 A2A, 0 Flak, and 1 ground. They are not the best squadron there. The other two squadrons there have shot down 564 aircraft.

More checking with other pilots would be useful if someone were to bother to keep track of such things. The developers may not have told everything about the game otherwise somebody could just take their work and write a new and possibly better program that would also add new things.

********************************************************************

It is easier to prove a positive than a negative. It would be a lot easier to prove that someone went to a store if there were witnesses and/or video there. It is hard to prove something that no one has seen or detected. For instance, prove that someone actually has an organic brain and not an electromechanical device controlling them. Unless someone has actually seen, felt, and/or touched said organic brain, it would be difficult to prove that they have an actual organic brain.

[Lowpe]

My God! Ranger, what are you doing?[&:]

How in the world would you let an 86 experience high A2A skill pilot into combat with a 48 Defense?[:(]

[RangerJoe]

My God! Ranger, what are you doing?

How in the world would you let an 86 experience high A2A skill pilot into combat with a 48 Defense?

He started in Manila. The intention was to use the pilots that started there with very few replacements until relief convoys got there. I now have had some convoys come in, bringing in the 18th UK which, with some armor and II Corps assistance, clear out southern Luzon. The 7th Aus with artillery units went into Clark, relieving units there and is grinding down 24 units with two Army HQs, 3 Divs, the 65th brigade and artillery, The two tank regiments are useless. They are surrounded.

So now the plan is to leave those highly trained pilots there until the unit disbands which is soon since it is May 26th. Then those pilots from the disbanded/withdrawn squadrons will go to Tracom/training units. I frequently kill 40+ enemy aircraft for little or no A2A loss. The only carrier from the KB that is left is the Soryu. The Junyo and 4 CVLs are gone along with the Hosho and the Taiyo CVEs. So the best of the naval fighter pilots should be gone or are flown at a distance to attack. Two Oscar I units were over run and 1 Zero unit as well. Airdrops and tank shock attacks. [:D] That one turn, 82 Oscar Is were OP losses.

Joe

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

One last post for my evidence:

1LT Tapner A

He went from 86 experience to 77 experience.
Exp = 86
Air = 71
Defn = 48

From the aoperationsreport for 28 April 1942:

1LT Tapner A. of 34th PS is credited with kill number 16
1LT Tapner A. of 34th PS bails out with WOUNDS but is RESCUED

Still listed as WIA on May 10. Shows up on the squadron pilot list on 11 May 1942 with a 1 day delay.

Exp = 77
Air = 71
Defn = 48

So if he got 1 experience point for the combat or kill to go to 87, then loses 10 points or 10% for being shot down, that would explain the drop.

The reason why I noticed is that the 34th PS is in the Philippines with the other squadrons that start there and they are controlling the area over Manila and Clark. They are based in Manila with a current 50% CAP, altitude of 20,000 feet and a range of 2. When those squadrons disband, those top pilots are going to be trainers.

On May 11, the unit had 189 kills with a total loss of 20 aircraft. 0 Ops, 9 WOff, 10 A2A, 0 Flak, and 1 ground. They are not the best squadron there. The other two squadrons there have shot down 564 aircraft.

More checking with other pilots would be useful if someone were to bother to keep track of such things. The developers may not have told everything about the game otherwise somebody could just take their work and write a new and possibly better program that would also add new things.

********************************************************************

It is easier to prove a positive than a negative. It would be a lot easier to prove that someone went to a store if there were witnesses and/or video there. It is hard to prove something that no one has seen or detected. For instance, prove that someone actually has an organic brain and not an electromechanical device controlling them. Unless someone has actually seen, felt, and/or touched said organic brain, it would be difficult to prove that they have an actual organic brain.

Again, I have to ask, did the squadron change aircraft while the sample pilot was in the hospital tent? If so, that would be the explanation for the Exp. drop.

[RangerJoe]

No upgrades of aircraft for any units in the Philippines, only replacement aircraft. My P-40B squadron is the best with 357 kills while losing 2 Op2, 6 WOff, 11 A2A, and 1 Ground. The best pilot there is T(om?) Jones with 90 Exp, 72 air and 47 Dfen. He only has 23 kills in 143 missions. There are 19 pilots with experience over 80 (81+) in that one unit. It disbands on 1 June so it will only be around for a few more days. [:@] If I were to try and replace all of those pilots now, the replacements would barely make it into the squadron before it disbands.

The only change was Lt Tapner having a kill then being shot down.

The easiest way to get lost? Give the butterbar a map! [:D]

[JeffroK]

I just trawled through Tracker.

Each of my pilots on the WIA list has suffered an experience hit on the turn they were wounded.

I checked over 50 pilots.

Sounds correct, and IMVHO, quite reasonable that a pilot would lose a bit of "touch" while sitting in hospital.

BUT, I kept checking.

It seems to affect ALMOST all fighter pilots. It affects only a minor portion of other pilot types??????