Hordes of Tonys

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Suspect as in, not doubting Dude's AAR but; as much as I love the heavies, even I will conceed, "No f_cking way."

31 level-bombers, scoring 20 hits.

Within the described WitP model, a level-bomber cannot get more than one hit, since all the bombs are dropped in a stick. That means 66% of those bombers successfully hit the target. I'm sure they are experienced crews, but 66% hit rate makes even me shake my head.

I'd say it appears to be rolling a hit chance for EACH bomb on the bombers, until one hits, and then moves on to the next bomber. Rather flawed, since the bombs are supposed to reprsent a "stick", with ONE hit chance. With B-24s having 8 or 12 bombs (whatever it is), that's 8 - 12 rolls for a hit for each bomber, which would dramatically inflate the probability of actually scoring a hit compared to a single hit roll per plane.

And while I also squawk about not being able to scratch the paint on IJN BBs, constant and sustained "plinking" will run up damage quickly thru the fire damage. I'd bet Kongo and Yamato not are not in a happy place. No where near going down, but from my own tests, it -is- possible to plink a large ship to death.

Regards,
-F-

Yes, I can see the level bombers landings hits 65% of the time against slow moving transports without any air cover. In this case it is difficult to believe it was possible, even with great bomber pilots/targeting officers.

[IS2m]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: DDLAfan

And as far as keeping a dutch base alive in the rear as a training ground for pilots, some people might consider that gamey.

Anyone that would consider it gamey has no clue of history. Allies did it on the "by-passed islands" all along. Why shouldnt the Jap be allowed to do it? If both sides are restricted to doing only what their real-life counter-parts did, then why play at all? Pick up a book and read it.

I was a paratrooper in the army. The mission of the airborne (in ALL armies) is to secure bridges and block retreats. I drop troopers on bases to the rear to do just that, block retreats. Trying to delay down the Malaya Pen usually results in Singapore falling in mid-Jan 42 against me. I catch a lot of people trying to hold Lingayan Gulf by blocking their retreat to Clark field. A lot of people consider that gamey. Why? That is their mission, and has been from the begining of airborne time. Just because RL commanders didnt understand the capibility of the troops under their command, doesnt mean that they shouldnt be allowed to use tactics that were entirely viable.

Edit:
As for rear area training academies, personally I use Bataan. I dont bother assulting it, Manilia isnt that important until '44 anyway. Clark Field starts at level 8. It makes a great air force training academy.

I concur.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Along Pry's lines, i did reduce P-38 production for my own mod to help curb things.

So - was it reduced to 1/6 production (per Brady's claim) or what?

Hi rtrapasso,

Right.

P38G has a replacement rate of 20 and production of 50
J 50 50

Other one's to note:

B17E 8 8
B17G 10 10

Nik - So far so good. I'm firing up our first PBEM turn right now.

[rtrapasso]

Hi rtrapasso,
Right.

P38G has a replacement rate of 20 and production of 50
J 50 50

Other one's to note:

B17E 8 8
B17G 10 10

Nik - So far so good. I'm firing up our first PBEM turn right now.

OK - not having ever gotten to Oct 1942 without a restart, what are the current production rates? (Sorry - not at my game computer for c. 6 more hours).

[doktorblood]

Be careful what you wish for.

Japan's total airplane production is limited to roughly historical levels or LESS.

If the Allied production was implemented in a similar manner, you might end up with a lot less airplanes overall.

There is an advantage of being able to tailer your production to your strategy/needs, so it is more efficient.

[Nikademus]

With the 17 your basically looking at 192 B-17E's for 1942 (+ whatever 17's exist on the map at start), which is not far off from how many 17's served in the Pacific in total according to Salecker's Fortress Against the Sun.

B-24 production wont start till 11/42 which according to Salacker was around the time they started replacing the Forts giving the Japanese a breathing window in 42 before they start seeing mass 4E's in multiple places. LB-30 production was slashed and is a distinctively inferior varient of the B-24 in comparison to the real deal.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Be careful what you wish for.

Japan's total airplane production is limited to roughly historical levels or LESS.

If the Allied production was implemented in a similar manner, you might end up with a lot less airplanes overall.

There is an advantage of being able to tailer your production to your strategy/needs, so it is more efficient.

Not sure who you are addressing here: 'twas not ME who was advocating the decreased production!! I was just quoting Brady's claim that there was 600% more P-38s in stock WITP than in real life (a claim i dispute).

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: IS2m

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: DDLAfan

And as far as keeping a dutch base alive in the rear as a training ground for pilots, some people might consider that gamey.

Anyone that would consider it gamey has no clue of history. Allies did it on the "by-passed islands" all along. Why shouldnt the Jap be allowed to do it? If both sides are restricted to doing only what their real-life counter-parts did, then why play at all? Pick up a book and read it.

I was a paratrooper in the army. The mission of the airborne (in ALL armies) is to secure bridges and block retreats. I drop troopers on bases to the rear to do just that, block retreats. Trying to delay down the Malaya Pen usually results in Singapore falling in mid-Jan 42 against me. I catch a lot of people trying to hold Lingayan Gulf by blocking their retreat to Clark field. A lot of people consider that gamey. Why? That is their mission, and has been from the begining of airborne time. Just because RL commanders didnt understand the capibility of the troops under their command, doesnt mean that they shouldnt be allowed to use tactics that were entirely viable.

Edit:
As for rear area training academies, personally I use Bataan. I dont bother assulting it, Manilia isnt that important until '44 anyway. Clark Field starts at level 8. It makes a great air force training academy.

I concur.

Read your history a bit more. There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference from 1941 Bataan and 1944 Truk. And, taking Bataan is like cake compared to taking Truk, Rabaul, or any other island fortress. Bataan can be marched to. Any allied island base in 1941 is not difficult to take via amphib ops (not including Columbo and Pearl).

Saving a 1941 allied base so you can train your bombers is extremely gamey. Bombing Truk/Rabaul into submission so you protect your supply lines without having to invade the base is historical. I would say that saving a japanese base like Munda for allied bomber training is also gamey, provided Munda is not a Japanese fortress like Rabaul and Truk would be.

Basically here's what I think. Bypassing a strategic fortress type base and bombing it to neutralize it is historical. Bypassing a small, non-offensive base so you can train your air groups is just about as gamey as you can get. These rules would apply to either side, at any point in the game.

[Tom Hunter]

Mostly this is additional data for the comparison with Jim's game.

First I have to apoligize I miss read the date on the loss stat I posted above, it is June 8th 1942 not May 8th. I have not actually played the game since Blackwatch got sick in August, so I was not keep close track.

These are the in pool/ used/ and lost figures for key fighter types in that game. at the bottom I will try to explain why.

F4F4 229/310/184
F4F3 72/57/127
Hurricane II 226/128/112
Mohawk 106/12/12
P36 63/65/41
Buffalo I 35/88/133
Brewester 0/115/146
Demon 13/102/96
P40B 0/57/161
P40E 0/243/262
P39 D 0/267/306
Wirraway 19/292/332

The Wirraway, Brewster and Demon casualties were often taken in shipping strike, though a fair number are also from air superiority battles. In may the P40E started to appear in the pool but then we ended up in big battles for air superiority over Soerbaja and I had to throw in a P40 group that I had carefully rebuilt to full strength. I won the air battle but the P40 pool went back to 0.

The Japanese have completely abandoned the air over Burma, the British casualties are either from early in the game, or from the one Hurricane group that is now located in Timor.

F4s of various types are as engaged as it is possible to be with only 2.5 VMF groups in the early part of the game. As you can see they have absorbed a substantial portion of the total loss.

I had to bring P36s into the battle to keep up with the loss rates.

Over all my P40 and P39 groups seldom at full strength but all my other groups are strong. There are indications that Blackwatch has the same problem with his Oscar groups, and occasionally with Zero groups as well. In any case there is no question of the Allies running out of combat capable aircraft.

There are a few big differences in the losses between the Imperialism game and Jim's game. First there is the maginitude, twice as many planes are gone in Imperialism.

Second there is the loss structure. The top 5 losses in Imperialism are Japanese, and 8 of the top 17 are Japanese. This reflects the concentration in Japanese production, Allied losses are spread among many types. In Jim's game 3 of the top 5 losses are Allied, showing a tendency to rely heavily on certain types of good quality aircraft. It is likely that this reflects play styles. Jim is trying to win battles, so he is using superior equipement to gain an edge. I am trying to fight battles, so I use everything.

Third there is the junk, or actually the lack of it. The only bad plane on Jim's top 17 is the Brewster, in the Imperialism list the Wirraway tops the Allied loss statistic, and the P39 is not far behind. Allied losses of Demons (96) Buffalo Is (133) and Brewsters (146) would get them onto Jim's list but not on the Imperialism list. The Allies also have 300 casualties among the F4 types that don't exist in Jims game. Again this is a strategy issue, I know I must spread losses so I make a big effort to get the F4s into action. All told the Allied fighters that are not on Jim's list F4s, Wirraways, Buffalo's, P39s, and Demons have lost over 1,100 aircraft. Those are the planes that were traded for Japanese aircraft in large numbers, and that is why the Allies still have good frontline fighters in large numbers today.

My point is not so much that one play style is better than another, I have no proof that what I was doing in the Imperialism game actaully works, I have never played past September. But it does change the nature of the big picture problem faced by the Japanese, the relative value of planes and pilots moves closer (pilots worth a bit less, planes worth a bit more) and the game plays differently. I also did want to show that this style does not result in running out of planes for the Allies. The Allies have more planes, if you can spread the losses out the Japanese will run out first. 75% of the Japanese losses are concentrated in the 9 types on the list.


I agree completely that the combat model is broken, its frankly bizzare that airplanes have unlimited ammunition in this game and battleships don't. (Before you all go nuts, they both should have limited ammo.) [:)]

It's always interesting comparing data with Robs game, because the two are so different. I am also very curious to see if I can pull of something similar against Mogami who is already playing more intelligently than several of my previous opponents.

Finally I hope this provides more data to support my thesis that the cloud of deadly Tonys exists largely because of decisions made by the Allied and Japanese players, not because it is really easy, or even optimal, to build the cloud in the first place.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
There are a few big differences in the losses between the Imperialism game and Jim's game. First there is the maginitude, twice as many planes are gone in Imperialism.

I think you miss one vital factor Tom, it doesn’t matter, Japan has easily replaced all these additional losses you’ve caused.

Taking from the below image’s production numbers which I clipped from Gen. Hoepner’s Italian Job AAR (thnx Gen.) for Japan, by June 8 of your game you’ve had 6 full months of production. So assuming Gen. Hoepners numbers are close to the mark without major modifications to normal Japanese production numbers, Japan has produced roughly 810 Oscars, 1428 zeroes, 636 Sallys, 432 Bettys and I don’t know how many Nells.



So you’ve killed 588 of 810 Oscars, 583 of 1428 Zeroes, 542 of 636 Sallys and 508 of 432 Bettys. So in fighter terms you have barely managed to kill half his total production run. Only his bombers are suffering and there his production has so far kept up with casualties for the most part.

But you’ve lost far more aircraft than I have in my game and with another full month of operations you’re still 200,000 sorties behind my game. If we say you fly an average of 3,000 a day at these air frame levels, that’s 90,000 more a month earlier for a total of 290,000 less sorties than me due to losses you can’t replace that Japan always can.

I’m not condoning one play style over another here, I’m just pointing out that you’ve done pretty much everything possible that the allies can do and succeeded beyond most peoples expectations for the most part, yet still you lose the attrition war because of the basically unlimited Japanese aircraft production that lets them replace all of their losses.

Which is fine, because the game engine demands equipment to feed it because of those non-historically high losses it produces. But the allies need the same ability to feed the engine equipment, that or the engine needs tweaking so casualties are more in line with history.

In this very thread people are happily going about restricting allied air frames to historical numbers as if the engine didn’t have horrific loss numbers. But they make no mention or attempt to restrict the Japanese, why is that?

Jim

[Feinder]

At least as far as between you and Tom, it's an intelligent discussion, and in interesting read.

[;)]

-F-

[WiTP_Dude]

I don't think the production/loss numbers from the early months of 1942 should be used as a benchmark for what will happen in 1943, 1944, and 1945. Yes, the Japanese can replace their Zero losses early on while the Allies won't have enough P-40Es to go around. Though I'm not sure what that means in regards to what is going to happen 18-24 months down the line. Just because Zero losses in 1942 are less than production doesn't hold that Zero losses in 1944 will be less than production.

Even so, I went over the early Allied fighter production numbers and they are higher than expected:

30 F2A Buffalo
20 Mohawk IV
20 Hawk 75A
20 CW-21B Demon
20 Brewster 339D
20 P-36A Mohawk
55 Wirraway
60 Hurricane II
20 Fulmar
20 Buffalo
10 P-40B
40 P-40E
90 F4F-4 Wildcat
50 P-39D (January 42)
50 Kittyhawk (March 42)
50 Spitfire (June 42)
100 P-38G (October 42)

Total: 675 per month by October 42 (I left out a number of fighters too, maybe someone could fill them in as I don't know them all).

So I think even in 1942 the Allies have enough airframes to go around if they manage it right. Tom's strategy seems best for the Allies in the early part of the game. Use all your aircraft types, even the ones that aren't very good. In 1943 Allied fighter production numbers will grow much larger and then you can easily handle the limited Zero production numbers with your best aircraft.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
Even so, I went over the early Allied fighter production numbers and they are higher than expected:

Well this is a little bit deceptive, well over 200 of those fighters are obsolete and wouldn't stand up to a Nate let alone a zero.

Japan will be producing well over 700 fighters of Oscar class or better by August and the allies less than 500. Problem is casualties are usually so bad for the allies it will take at least till Jan/Feb 43 before they can rebuild the air units that get decimated in 1942.

I don't think anyone can make an historical case that the Japanese out produced the allies in first line fighter production at ANY point during the war after about April of 1942, let alone till 1943.

But again I stress the Japanese need these extra planes as bad as the allies do. The engine demands equipment be destroyed at a MUCH MUCH higher level than historical numbers had to endure, so they need higher production levels too.

Jim

[Nikademus]

I havn't crunched the numbers and i stay away from production as a rule, but i have heard time and again that the Japan player can really turbo charge their production and have say, for example more Zeros than they know what to do with. It at least gives me the "impression" that its rather too easy to accelerate. I actually kind of like hoarding my Zeros as it increases the challenge. (i've yet in one AAR game to have more than 100 Zeros surplus)

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Well this is a little bit deceptive, well over 200 of those fighters are obsolete and wouldn't stand up to a Nate let alone a zero.

Only the Wirraway compares unfavorably to the Nate. While many early Allied fighters have less MVR, they usually have 2-3X the gun value, are often armored, many have greater range, and faster speeds. It doesn't really matter though in regards to WiTP as Tom has shown how the early Allied fighters can be put to use. The bad Allied fighters aren't supposed to win the war in 1942 - just limit the damage Japan can inflict.

Japan will be producing well over 700 fighters of Oscar class or better by August and the allies less than 500. Problem is casualties are usually so bad for the allies it will take at least till Jan/Feb 43 before they can rebuild the air units that get decimated in 1942.

I'm in March 1943 and the Japanese rates are:

211 A6M3a
160 Oscar II
96 Tony
72 A6M3
64 Tojo

Total: 603

With these numbers you can achieve parity with the Allies into early 1943. Then the Allies start to get better planes and pilots in large quantities.

I don't think anyone can make an historical case that the Japanese out produced the allies in first line fighter production at ANY point during the war after about April of 1942, let alone till 1943.

I don't have the statistics on this. Maybe someone could post them.

But again I stress the Japanese need these extra planes as bad as the allies do. The engine demands equipment be destroyed at a MUCH MUCH higher level than historical numbers had to endure, so they need higher production levels too.

I agree. This is probably a logistical issue more than anything.

[Tom Hunter]

I really enjoy the comparisons with Jims game because we both argue the numbers, so there is really something to work with.

Hoepner's data is interesting, and if my memory is correct Blackwatch once told me he was building over 200 Zeros a month, though that might have been in our first game. However the production numbers shown are production as of June 8th (or some date close to it, I hope) not the production numbers of each month of the last 6 months.


At the start of the war production is as follows:

Zero: 104
Oscar: 62
Sally:20
Betty:26
Nell: 20

Adm. Laurent posted his production for February 42 he had 223 Zeros, 59 Oscars, 46 Betties, 20 Sallys, and did not list Nells.

I have no idea how fast the factories expand, but its doubtful that production can be doubled in a month. Even at 110 Oscars a month there are not 810, there are somewhere around 700 and since the factories did not go to 110 a month on December 8th we can be pretty certain there are actually less than this.

On Zero's Hoepner has more than doubled his production numbers. Again it is unlikely that he has 238 times 7 months of Zeros but I will give you that he has enough to keep Zeros in the air, because even without raising production he could match his losses.

On the bombers it looks like he is behind on all of them, he is down well over 100 Betties, even if he brought Nells to 100 he still has fewer planes than he did at start, and it is very likely that Sally production does not equal the losses either. Also my impression is that his bomber attacks in game have weakened and this analysis shows why, the planes are missing.

Even on the Oscars the fact that most of his production has already been shot down is limiting. You cant' upgrade units with planes that you do not have. I don't know if there are Nates waiting for new aircraft but under these circumstances it would not suprise me.

Aside from the somewhat inflated assumptions about production it is also very important to remember that the Allies are bringing new production on line as well. Kittyhawks don't appear on my list, and I forgot to go looking for them in my first post, but 124 Kittyhawks have been lost as of June 8th and 37 are in the pool. They replace 50 per month. Spitfires are coming at 50 a month, and Lightings at 100 month.

At Game start the Japanese are producing 236 front line fighters per month, Nates, Oscars and Zeros. The Allies are building 50 P40s, 60 Hurricanes and 110 F4s which is 220 aircraft a month, plus over 100 Demons, Buffalos, I16s and other fighters that can fight the Nates and maybe the Oscars. So at the start of the game the Allies have a quantity advantage and the Japanese have a quality edge, especially the pilots, but also the planes.

Using Hoepner's production as a baseline for Japan aircraft production shifts in Japans favor over the course of 1942 (how is that for a historical crock?) By August the Japanese are producing 720 fighters a month, the Allies (I counted) are building 440 frontline fighters (F4s, P40 variants, P38s, British Spits and Hurricanes) and another 210 low quality fighters. One take away from this is that the Allies need to keep their Hawk, Demon and Buffalo units flying, don't lose them.

The Allies come back in 1943 when the new FM-2 Wildcat and the Corsair add 270 new planes a month and then additional new types come on line and things go to hell for Japan until the game adds planes the Japanese could not make or fly like the Shinden.

After doing this analysis I am going to mellow my statements about pilot quality mattering less and production more in a very attrition oriented game such as the one I played against Blackwatch. It still matters, the Japanese bomber production is not keeping up with losses and this is reducing the ability of the Japanese to shut down Allied air bases in the Imperialism game.

However the production of fighters is so high that the only explaination for my gradual progress in the air war has to be the pilot quality. I don't have as many planes as Blackwatch, and I don't build as many but I still have the upper hand in the air. I can only assume that my superior pilots are chasing his inferior pilots away.

So it does seem the Japanese can fight an air war of numbers with thier fighters.

But when it comes to bombers they cannot. The Allies are building 385 twin engine bombers, (not counting Dutch and Chinese) 170 4 engine bombers and over 300 single engine bombers of various types by Summer of 42. Hoepner is building about 200 twin engine bombers, and maybe 100 single engine types a turn, and no 4 engine at all.

I don't see the Allies running out of planes, as you suggest. Doing all this math has given me a much better understanding of what is going on in my games, and I think I can fine tune my play as a result.

I can't say why my sortie rate is so much lower than yours Jim, it's a mystery to me. I might argue that if I had 700k sorties there would not be a Japanese airforce, but I think that is really just silly.

It looks to me as if the attrition strategy is sustainable, you get a bloody stalement in the fighter war, and the Allies pull ahead with the bombers. At least that is what I think is happening in my games. Time will tell, interesting discussion anyway. Much like our discussion about China I learn a lot from it. And by the way I do have opponents who are going after Chinese supply in a more organized way than Blackwatch ever did. But our discussion helped me figure out what they were doing, and at least partially counter thier strategy.

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I havn't crunched the numbers and i stay away from production as a rule, but i have heard time and again that the Japan player can really turbo charge their production and have say, for example more Zeros than they know what to do with. It at least gives me the "impression" that its rather too easy to accelerate. I actually kind of like hoarding my Zeros as it increases the challenge. (i've yet in one AAR game to have more than 100 Zeros surplus)

You can click the "expand" button for as many factories as you want. Doesn't mean the supply and heavy industry will be available 12 months down the line to build your 600 Zeros per month.

[Gen.Hoepner]

It's an interesting discussion.

From my own experience i'd say that without a HUGE number of planes Japan is doomed since Feb 42. The lack of decent pilots and the lack of planes would be a terrible combo.
In my opinion the attrition war is not interesting for Japan, even if its numbers are bigger.
I do produce a lot of fighters because i firmly believe that IJA bombers are useless ( almost )for Japan after june 42.
When the spits come and the number of Wildcats encreases, which AF are you gonna close?!
I tend to use the Navy Bombers only for naval attacks and only with experienced crews, so that's why i simply do not need to produce 200 betties each month, while i tend to throw every single IJA bomber i have into the meatgrinder, no matter the experience.
now, consider that my general strategy is to expand my A/C factories a lot, but then, as soon as they are ready and repaired, i keep the production very controlled. Every day i check my production numbers and switch off or on my industries. The biggest the industry, the easiest to keep the numbers you want and need.
For example: When i reach 300 A6M2s in pool i switch off 150 out of those 238 ...so that i can save those engines and HI points for the future when i probably will need them.
Same for every fighters or bombers. The betty Industries are switched off since March ( and now we're in late July). Same for Sonias and Alfs

[WiTP_Dude]

Another thing. You will need a large Zeke production going by September 1943 if you want to be able to fill out all these reinforcement groups that are set to appear with their trained pilots.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter
I really enjoy the comparisons with Jims game because we both argue the numbers, so there is really something to work with.

I too enjoy these kinds of discussions and also learn quite a bit from them.

I have no idea how fast the factories expand, but its doubtful that production can be doubled in a month.

On Zero's Hoepner has more than doubled his production numbers. Again it is unlikely that he has 238 times 7 months of Zeros but I will give you that he has enough to keep Zeros in the air, because even without raising production he could match his losses.

Well I looked at his actual numbers before I edited the image for the sake of privacy from his opponent’s eyes, and he has 449 zeroes in his pool and has used 1220 by the date of his posting which was July 5th 1942. That’s almost exactly 7 months production and the total 1669 divided by 7 equals 238.42. So I assumed his production numbers hadn’t changed much. Perhaps he simply converted existing factories instead of expanding, I don’t know, but it looked like he’s been producing 238 a month from start to me.

I admit I simply just assumed the same was true for the rest of his production numbers without looking at the math as I did for the zeroes. That’s why I said I thought it was a typical Japanese production sheet without a lot of modifications. I may very well have been wrong.

and Lightings at 100 month.

Yeah but most (if not all) Lightening groups are 72 plane groups, so you’ll only have 3 or 4 groups upgraded by 1943 if you don’t take high losses in the first couple groups while waiting to upgrade more. There are only 2 groups that arrive (mid 43 I think) as reinforcements, the rest need to upgrade after you accumulate 72 planes in your pool. Actually this is true for most allied planes types, the majority need to upgrade slowly over time as you save up replacement aircraft.

One take away from this is that the Allies need to keep their Hawk, Demon and Buffalo units flying, don't lose them.

LOL easier said than done. Especially the short ranged stuff in the SRA. If your Japanese opponent is good he can trap a lot of air in Java/Borneo that you’ll not be able to evacuate.

After doing this analysis I am going to mellow my statements about pilot quality mattering less and production more in a very attrition oriented game such as the one I played against Blackwatch. It still matters, the Japanese bomber production is not keeping up with losses and this is reducing the ability of the Japanese to shut down Allied air bases in the Imperialism game.

However the production of fighters is so high that the only explaination for my gradual progress in the air war has to be the pilot quality. I don't have as many planes as Blackwatch, and I don't build as many but I still have the upper hand in the air. I can only assume that my superior pilots are chasing his inferior pilots away.

I agree in a very high attrition game like yours this is true, but most opponents won’t or at least shouldn’t allow you to gain air superiority anywhere in 1942. The AVG should be decimated ASAP and aggressive fighter sweeps flown against base CAP simply to destroy front line fighter groups as my opponent does. I actually think fighter sweeps are more critical than base bombardments because Japan’s quality edge is so high it litterly wipes out allied fighter opposition completely. Look at his op losses vs. air to air, he’s lost more zeroes to op losses than air to air, but he gained total fighter superiority at the front because of it.

I don't see the Allies running out of planes, as you suggest.

I would very much like to know the total number of air frames you are short of for filling out your air groups. My guess is you’ll need almost a full year to replace the shortfall in a lot of your air groups just because of the numbers you’ve lost to date.

I can't say why my sortie rate is so much lower than yours Jim, it's a mystery to me.

Simple I’ve conserved a lot more air frames than you so my group of 16 racks up 16 sorties while your same group might only have 4 air frames so it only gets 4 sorties.

I might argue that if I had 700k sorties there would not be a Japanese airforce, but I think that is really just silly.

LOL well we see what happens when you fly your planes your way, you can’t get 700,000 sorties out of them because they're dead. [;)]


Jim