Are the Japanese now TOO powerful??

[ChezDaJez]

To all:
 
In many ways, Japan is stronger later in the game than she was in real life because of things that have little to do with the game mechanics.
 
Both players have benfit of historical hindsight. IRL Japan thought the war would be short and so did not adequately plan for a war of attrition. The Japnese player knows that the war will be long and so begins planning for attritiion by immediately beginning to increase aircraft production and accelerating aircraft RDs.
 
IRL, Japan lost two crucial campaigns during 1942: Midway and Guadalcanal. Both of these campaigns inflicted heavy losses on the Japanese that they could not easily absorb. But even with the RL losses, the alied juggernaut was slow to start. Lae didn't fall until September 1943 and Tarawa wasn't invaded unitl November 1943 yet we see multiple major allied invasions in 1942 and early 1943.
 
The Japanese player knows he must avoid these types of defeat in 1942 if he is to be even remotely successful in slowing the allied advance. So he keeps KB intact to ward off those pesky allied carriers. He refuses to risk his surface fleet except when the payoff warrants it. He bombards airfields that threaten his advance.
 
The allied player knows that he can let the Japanese player run wild in 1942 because no matter what, he will be stronger than Japan by the end of 1943. And given the fact that the player on offense has the advantage, the allied can choose those areas that are weakest to invade. Japan, as IRL, can only wait for the hammer to fall somewhere. The allied player knows what airfields and ports throughout the Pacific can be made into major bases to support his advances. IRL the Allied player had little knowledge of the hundreds of islands and atolls. Ulithi? Tinian? Peleliu? Allied commanders had no knowledge of these places before the war. Look at Peleliu especially. Despite all the recon over that island in the weeks leading to invasion, the intel wienies thought it was relatively flat. They didn't realize that it was actually quite rugged until they invaded.
 
The allied player also knows Japan's Achilles Heel... her ability to ship resources and oil. In the game, many players attempt to interdict the sea lanes from the start while IRL the US didn't begin the submarine war in ernest until June 1943.
 
Yes. Both sides benefit from historical hindsight. Its what allows Japan to remain strong and to know where the best places for alllied invasion is so plans accordingly. It also allows the allies to begin operations earlier rather than later because the Allies know that the Japanese airforces will have generally inferior aircraft after 1942.
 
The uncertainty with which the real life opponents fought has been removed from the game because of historical hindsight. And that produces ahistorical benefits for each player.
 
Chez
 

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

With the new disband to pool ability at Tokyo per the latest patch

The "Disband to Pool" is being removed in 1.802. This was announced by the developers some time back.

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

To all:...

<stuff that I mainly agree with>

...The uncertainty with which the real life opponents fought has been removed from the game because of historical hindsight. And that produces ahistorical benefits for each player.

Chez

1st: Anyone basing their position on the current state of affairs in the PzB-AMac AAR is starting from a .....let's say fallacious position. Without the pressures of the other fronts, that allows the IJ to be stronger than historical, if those fronts were restored to operation, this wouldn't be the case.

2nd: The allies did NOT attrit the IJ air groups using just naval air; it took a long campaign in the Solomons/PNG to wear down the fighting capability of the IJ air groups. If there is no campaign like this, due to either/both players avoiding it, why would we expect the IJ air forces to magically wither away?

3rd: goes with 2nd, the Marianas were invaded in mid 44, after many campaigns that rendered the IJN air a shadow of it's former self, and IJAAF additionally. American Naval air groups had not suffered much in the the way of losses and were able to stand alone for the FIRST time without being under some cover of landbased air for the first time in the Pacific War. If the IJ air groups are not worn down as they were in history, I don't think that the Marianas would have been as easy as it was.

Other than the Marianas landing, every landing by American forces in the war was in range of some landbased bomber (if not fighter), and I think that even the Marianas were barely in range of Eniwetok in RL. Peilieu (Palau in game) has been used in some quotes; it was invaded as it was thought to be necessary for a base there vs. the Phillipines intially, though it should have been cancelled in hindsight....Leyte was invaded 2 months early due to IJ weakness in area that was exposed thru carrier raiding operations throughout the PI/Formosa area in the post Marianas period; if there had not been such weakness, then Leyte would have waited for bases in Palaus/Morotai/Northern PNG and possibly Mindanao to be invaded and developed.

I guess the final point that I am trying to convey is that you can't look at just one aspect in and of itself; many things are interrelated and are different in everyone's personal "Universe" that their game(s) are being played in. Personally, I think that if you had a non-PDU game where PM and Lunga campaign started in mid/late 42 and India/China in proper play that you would NEVER hear this statement being uttered.

[Nikademus]

Another i've yet seen (nor expect to see) any IJN player do is repeat the grevious error of using Japan's highly limited pool of carrier qualified pilots as ersatz replacements for the attrited naval land units that fought in the Solomons. No Operation "I" for any of those folks. [:D]

[Andy Mac]

I agree with tabpub's no 1. using my game as the sole basis for this debate would be wrong as it is an outlier but it does raise some interesting points .

In 2 I did do this tabpub but my inability to interfere with Chinese training in this specific game because of no SEAC has led to a never ending stream of trained pilots

3. You are quite correct my Midway preceded the Marianas op by a bare 3 months on the other hand my pilots pools and pool strengths were in great shape before it

On the Hellcat airframe issue I stand firm the allies are seriously hurt by the under representation of historic US production for this specific aircraft.

In a stock game with stock map and no PDU's I suspect the pilot issue will not be that critical (I could be wrong but I suspect not)

In PDU's (I am hypothesising) I fear the worst

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I agree with tabpub's no 1. using my game as the sole basis for this debate would be wrong as it is an outlier but it does raise some interesting points .

In 2 I did do this tabpub but my inability to interfere with Chinese training in this specific game because of no SEAC has led to a never ending stream of trained pilots

3. You are quite correct my Midway preceded the Marianas op by a bare 3 months on the other hand my pilots pools and pool strengths were in great shape before it

On the Hellcat airframe issue I stand firm the allies are seriously hurt by the under representation of historic US production for this specific aircraft.

In a stock game with stock map and no PDU's I suspect the pilot issue will not be that critical (I could be wrong but I suspect not)

In PDU's (I am hypothesising) I fear the worst

Andy:

First off, kudos to you for taking on something that put two other players off their lunch, it was such a dogs dinner; but, that said, don't use it for a basis for a "realistic" discussion, it's morelike the worst-case scenario. If this is harsh sounding, I don't know another way to put it. You have at least one other game going on out there, how does that one look? I am sure that it looks better than the "Clash of Steel" game.

Now, back to the #'s: yes, there does appear to be somewhat of a shortfall in the Hellcat production. Seems total run should be around 12k presumed to end in Fall '45. Based on that ending date, Allies should get around 8200+ in the same approximate time frame. This is based on an Aug 45 ending; should the war go the "distance" add about 2300 more, for a total of 10500 or so. A shortfall, yes; glaring, slightly. Workaroundable....yes, if you are aware of it; though it would perhaps be nice to have this bumped up a bit to get closer to the desired totals, or just send some Corsairs out to replace the shot up groups and leave them ashore.....in '44....

I think the main thing to remember in most of these situations is to be aware of your upcoming requirements ahead of time and avoid getting in a bind. I don't switch over air groups unless I have a reserve of frames, usually equal to 50 % of the new total that I would have of such a/c. Such as Privateers in my game; I have about 240 on the map and 180 in the pool, so I am now looking at upgrading some Venturas that I have laying about, but only about 40-50 or so, so I don't get into a shortfall position.

Now, speaking of the F6F in non PDU games, I would be careful of new upgrades, probably sticking to just the fleet size carriers when they were heading to upgrade/repair damage. Only change CV(L) to F6F when accumulated in large #'s. Regarding the "sucking" by F6F CVE replenishment groups, set them to no replacement and refill them by hand. I (after some different experience) would probably avoid using CVE replenishment unless a real emergency; I prefer the traditional go back to port, as it seems the named pilots work better off that method (recently had Essex replace almost entirely with named pilots.....woohoo).
And/or later in the war, strip off the replenishment squadrons and send out the Navy landbased Hellcats and Marine Hellcats on them; also note that some of the later war CV have an empty slot on them, perhaps a Marine 24 plane sqdrn would fit on there for the moment.

Discussions like these are important, but we need to look at the whole spectrum, not just one wavelength.

[Andy Mac]

Absoulutely with hindsight I would never have upgraded all my fleet carriers to F6F's given the fragility in my Hellcat pool and you are correct I would not evn be attempting to use CVR's in the historical fashion again they are a liability if used en masse because they allow the alllied fleet to operate and sufffer the massive attiritional losses which the Hellcat and navy pilot pool cannot sustain.
&nbsp;
The only answer I can see to the Hellcat issue is to use Corsairs on carriers which is somethig almost no one wants to see.

[Andy Mac]

Tabpub just for compasion of the scale of the Hellcat Issue of the 10,500 to use your number the allies actually recieve 24 months at 144 and roughly 400 on newly arriving carriers.
&nbsp;
So about 40% of Historic Hellcat production sorry but that is unsustainable the Hellcat number needs to be c 300 per month not 144

[tabpub]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Tabpub just for compasion of the scale of the Hellcat Issue of the 10,500 to use your number the allies actually recieve 24 months at 144 and roughly 400 on newly arriving carriers.

So about 40% of Historic Hellcat production sorry but that is unsustainable the Hellcat number needs to be c 300 per month not 144

Sorry, if I was not clear; I went and looked ahead in my game and did a quick tally to base the #'s on. I am in June '43, so the Hellcat is just sticking it's nose out on some newly arrived decks.

You will recieve about 750 on American carriers; another 108 in 3 LB Navy Squadrons;
around 110 on British Carriers; around 190 in 8 Marine Squadrons with NF capability.
3500 F6F replacements thru summer of 45
1200 Hellcat II.............thru summer of 45
2600 F6F5N .................thru summer of 45

Now, before you say that you don't have the British in your one game, that is not part of the problem for the general populace. And some of those carriers get the Corsair IV (one has theirs right now, for instance).

I do have to agree that there is an apparent shortfall as I mentioned before; the above #'s equal about 8000+. Most quickie sources have 12000 as the #, but I believe that some discount can be taken on this for training, training losses, etc; I think that the target # should be around 10,000, which bumping up to 200 per month would achieve that total by Fall 45. Ideally, use a production #of say...70 for this and start it producing near the end of '43. That way if the war goes long you have them,but you don't get them in 43 as much as 44-5.

I certainly agree that hindsight is a wonderful thing, and that in a way you do a service to all us that "follow" you by bringing such points to light....[&o]...hehe...but, seriously I think that just a small change in production/replacement needs to be made, along with a reallocation of the NF replacements to regular ones..( seriously, 2400 replacements for 8 squadrons of 24 planes each? That's like a 1000% loss rate!! JEEBUS, what were they thinking?) Of course, PDU way, you can get at them to use them...but PDU stinks out of the crate, said it before and still do. But enough on that subject...

I guess (barring any changes in the future) we ALL have to look forward to possibly needing to "manage" our naval pilot pool in the future, filling out squadrons by hand and if we have to accept untrained pilots keeping those carriers either in the rear with the gear or beating on Truk,Rabaul, etc. with them before sending them forward.[;)]

[Andy Mac]

Even in PDU's those Noightfighter variants are useless to the allies as they are NF's and cannot be upgraded to from normal sqns

The only Hellcat I am interested in is the day fighter variant.

And I disagree with your numbers Tabpub as for me its the Day fighter variant thats important

F6F-3 4,402 First production variant.
Subvariants
included:

- 18 conversions to F6F-3E evaluation night fighters.
- 149 (some sources say 205) F6F-3N night fighters.
- Unknown number of F6F-3P reconnaissance conversions.
- 1 temporarily converted to XF6F-2 with turbocharged
R-2800-21. Some sources give 4,403 F6F-3s,
apparently due to "double counting" this machine.

252 fighters were provided to the British FAA as the
Hellcat I.

so c 3900 day fighter variants for the USN alone

F6F-5 7,870 Second production variant (some sources give 7,868).
Subvariants included:

- 1,434 (some sources say 1,529) F6F-5N night fighters.
- Several hundred F6F-5P reconnaissance conversions.
- Several hundred F6F-5K drone conversions.
- A number of F6F-5D drone controller conversions.
- Two converted to XF6F-6 with R-2800-18W and
four-bladed propeller.

930 of total F6F-5 production was supplied to the
British FAA as the "Hellcat II". Most were
"Hellcat F.II" fighters but 70 (some sources give 80
or 85 or 95) were F6F-5N night fighters and designated
"Hellcat NF.II". Some were converted to a
reconnaissance configuration and designated "Hellcat
PR.II" (unarmed) or "Hellcat FR.II" (armed).

So about 5,000 DAY Fighter versions of the Hellcat forthe USN

Over a 24 month production run the allies should be recieving about 8900 day fighter variants for the USN alone or about 340 per month

Now allowing for training, drones, wastage etc a rate of c 300 per month seems reasonable not 144 as we have now. For my game this would be very significant as I would not have pulled off the Marianas with that kind of strength in depth

Andy

[AmiralLaurent]

At least 15-20% of any aircraft type never saw combat, being used for training or lost before the unit was operationnal, so a target number of 10 000 Hellcats in the period considered seems OK to me.

IMOO the F6F production should be increased a bit and as Tabpub said had least half of the F6F5N redirected to normal model.

[tabpub]

Ok, well it's late (early) here; so to recapitulate I would think that merging the "night fighter" replacement rate into the regular F6F replacement rate would get the dayfighter replacement rate to a more correct level and reducing the nightfighter replacement to something on the order of 30-50 would be more sensible.

Though, I wouldn't discount the Marine NF groups entirely; they should be carrier capable and they could at least be assigned to carriers with empty slots and be used for daylight CAP at the very least, freeing up regular fighter units for the escort job in an emergency situation.

Though, I will reiterate, that the naval air really cannot be expected to perform to real-life levels without the prior attrition of the IJN/IJAAF groups by land based air forces. Only they have the frames and bodies to grind down the enemy over a long period. In RL, it was the Solomons/PNG that broke them; in the game, it could be elsewhere and might have to be. It is up to the Allied player to force the issue and find a place to engage that the IJ player feels they MUST fight for versus LBA. If it's not in one place, go elsewhere; if it's not the Solomons, then move on Eastern DEI, or Malaya, I dunno anymore. We need some more statistics from some other games before anyone can say for certain whether something is merely slightly off or grossly off. I mean some would say that it is off in my June 43 game where I have over 10 divisions prepped and ready to jump off for various locations across the Pacific, with 2000 Army pilots in the pool ready to replace losses and 1000 B24D there also and 500 Corsairs for the 1000 Marine pilots and 200 NZ pilots....different circumstances make for different POV's.

The only real constant is the fact that every single game goes differently right from Day 1; that, and it would be nice to have somewhat consistent numbers for the units/planes/ships involved; most are pretty right, but some are still a bit off; that is correct as we are agreeing.

[Honda]

So, if USN pilot pool and Hellcat replacement rate seem too low for the Allies maybe that will make players more carefull in planing and operating USN operations. And I really don't see how a Jap player fighting on both fronts can inflict serios losses to USN...
P.S.
Were any Hellcats used in ETO?

[aztez]

The funny thing about all of these discussions are that allied side are restricted to historical production and The Japanese can grow their production in the game. That is the "problem" where these are all coming from. [;)]

Definately those Hellcat numbers in Andy's game just don't sound right. Someone said that he should have had PDU's ON so he could have downgraded some of them. I seriously doubt that is the solution. Some fighter replacement numbers need to tweaked.

The best solution would be to make Japanese similiar to allies. No production tweaking than and problem solved. Maybe in Witp2 if it will ever be published. (Propably not)

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: aztez

The funny thing about all of these discussions are that allied side are restricted to historical production and The Japanese can grow their production in the game. That is the "problem" where these are all coming from. [;)]

Definately those Hellcat numbers in Andy's game just don't sound right. Someone said that he should have had PDU's ON so he could have downgraded some of them. I seriously doubt that is the solution. Some fighter replacement numbers need to tweaked.

The best solution would be to make Japanese similiar to allies. No production tweaking than and problem solved. Maybe in Witp2 if it will ever be published. (Propably not)

Can't say that i agree here 100%. While you and others are right that Allied are limited to the historical level and Japan can produce more fighters than it was possible, it seems that we all sometimes forget one fact (i stated that more than once).

This is not 100% historical simulation because devs started from the one premise (and that was clearly stated long time ago from officials, IIRC):

#1. Japan is allowed to do limited changes in their war industry to simulate that Japan could turn their production to the total war production

#2. Allies are already on total war production and these numbers represent that (are these numbers are 100 % correct that's another story)

Lots of Allied players forgeting one thing - #1. is only allowed if Japan capture oilfields and resources intact (if their production is only halved just he needed 2 million of supply to repair them - and this will take a looooooong time).

I should say that quite a lot players don't play attention on that strategic point of war (early in the game) and they are suprised (i can understand that) when they found that Japan is much more stronger than it should be in RL - but, their own actions caused this, IMHO.

I do have ideas how to prevent #1. but hey, didn't you expect that JFB would give you advices for free-[:'(][;)]...

Before someone jumps in and state that USA would increase certain types of planes and stop older types/versions or changed bomber production to fighter production i will say:

You are right. I'm more than sure that would happend and i agree with you guys.

But, do make yourself a favor: consider scen 15 as scenario 17 (IIRC) in UV where no one complained about that unhistorical scenario.

My suggestion would be that if devs really think that total historical OOB should be included in the game that they fix what they found is incorrect (and take away from Japan capability to interfere in war production, of course) and name that as official stock scenario but at the same time leave current official scenario and move them in another slot so we can play game as it now.....

[Andy Mac]

Ah ok I misunderstood are you saying F6F day fighter should be 288 and night fighter lower at 30 - 50 then we are in violent agreemt

I am moving all of my Nightfighter Sqns toward the fleet as we speak but at lease 2 are actually on Night Cap as I am afraid of a massive night kamikaze raid.

The other 2 are at Rabaul heading north the rendevous with the fleet

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Ok, well it's late (early) here; so to recapitulate I would think that merging the "night fighter" replacement rate into the regular F6F replacement rate would get the dayfighter replacement rate to a more correct level and reducing the nightfighter replacement to something on the order of 30-50 would be more sensible.

Though, I wouldn't discount the Marine NF groups entirely; they should be carrier capable and they could at least be assigned to carriers with empty slots and be used for daylight CAP at the very least, freeing up regular fighter units for the escort job in an emergency situation.

Though, I will reiterate, that the naval air really cannot be expected to perform to real-life levels without the prior attrition of the IJN/IJAAF groups by land based air forces. Only they have the frames and bodies to grind down the enemy over a long period. In RL, it was the Solomons/PNG that broke them; in the game, it could be elsewhere and might have to be. It is up to the Allied player to force the issue and find a place to engage that the IJ player feels they MUST fight for versus LBA. If it's not in one place, go elsewhere; if it's not the Solomons, then move on Eastern DEI, or Malaya, I dunno anymore. We need some more statistics from some other games before anyone can say for certain whether something is merely slightly off or grossly off. I mean some would say that it is off in my June 43 game where I have over 10 divisions prepped and ready to jump off for various locations across the Pacific, with 2000 Army pilots in the pool ready to replace losses and 1000 B24D there also and 500 Corsairs for the 1000 Marine pilots and 200 NZ pilots....different circumstances make for different POV's.

The only real constant is the fact that every single game goes differently right from Day 1; that, and it would be nice to have somewhat consistent numbers for the units/planes/ships involved; most are pretty right, but some are still a bit off; that is correct as we are agreeing.

[Tom Hunter]

Hi,

In answer to the "will you come back" question, no. Though I do feel this is a playable game that can be fun for a lot of people one of the things that makes any historical wargame fun for me is realism and WITP does not have what I consider to be realistic combat.

I've written long analytical posts about this, and so have others, so I will summarize my position by saying that the naval and air combat models only work well if certain mixes and numbers of ships and aircraft are present. Deviate from those mixes and you can get totally a-historical results. If you understand how the engines work then you can use this knowledge to wreck your opponent, and if you don't understand them then you can do things that makes sense given the historical record but which will not work in the game. That wrecked it for me.

Of course if niether player understands what is going on (which I suspect is fairly common) then you can play an enjoyable game. I tend to be very analytical, I would probabley enjoy WitP much more if I were not.

If my memory is correct I wrote long posts about managing aircraft pools in a way that allowed me to gain air parity Vs. Mogami in the latter part of 1942, and gave the Alllies air superiority in Fear and Loathing, and me air superiority in my second game Vs. Blackwatch as well.

Needless to say if I feel that I can gut the Japanese airforce by early 43 then I am not going to believe that the Japanese are too strong. My opinion is that a good Japanese player can slow this process some, and gain large numbers of VP while the program is taking effect, but I do not see any Japanese player ever stopping a reasonably competent Allied player from destroying thier airforce if they play more or less the way I did.

Of course it takes a bloody minded attitude to take the kind of casualties I did Vs. Mogami but the trend was unmistakable by the time I quit the game.

[aztez]

Too bad we are not going to see any of your games than Tom.
&nbsp;
However I think CHS or NIK mod could get you excited since those air to air combat models are totally diffrent than stock.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[spence]

Though no one repair shipyard is as large as San Francisco Japans shipyard capacity as measured in ship repair points is considerably larger than the US/Allies. Japan is also allowed to increase its capacity though I don't know how feasible that is. That doesn't seem right...though the US gets no repair ability on the East coast in the game. I've never seen a British withdrawal come back so I don't know if they repair off board. Is perhaps Japan's ability to repair shipping overstated or is US ability understated significantly?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Honda

Were any Hellcats used in ETO?

Yes... British used them...


Leo "Apollo11"