Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

[pat.casey]

Is it just me or does the replacement rate on the allied aircraft pools just feel too low? I don't mind feeling like I'm constrained on airframes early in the war, but it smells *too* constrained right now.

Example is that I'm currently in October of 1942 against the AI and my carriers have been docked for over 6 months now replacing their strike groups.

I get 21 SBD dauntless a month.
I have six carriers that embark, between them, about 150 SBD dauntless.

After one large scale engagement where I lost > 100 dive bombers, my carriers are hors-de-combat for six months which just smells too high to me. I mean it takes time to replace losses and allied resoures were not infinite, but I have a hard time believing that an order for additional dive bombers couldn't have been put through and filled in a whole lot less than six months.

For what its worth, I've got similar issues with other aircraft lines as well, but this was just the easiest to point out.

[oldman45]

The patch at least upped the number of F4F-4's. I was getting frustrated just trying to get 3 carriers back in action in Dec 43..

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The patch at least upped the number of F4F-4's. I was getting frustrated just trying to get 3 carriers back in action in Dec 43..

shouldn´t you use Hellcats in Dec 43? And how on Earth did you manage to get that far in such a timeframe? [X(] Or is it a typo and you mean 42? [&:]

[oldman45]

No its march of 43. The Hellcats will be out soon. I don't play like the pro's here do, I am a bit lackadaisical. So I play a lot faster, plus I pretty much ignore China untill the Indians and Brits move thru IndoChina. I already took Rangoon and Bangkok back so another 3 - 4 months I should be in southern China.

Between the slow repair times of damaged planes and even slower production #'s, it has slowed me down quite a bit.

[timtom]

Available up to and including Sep '42 is:
 
56 SBD-1's
77 SBD-2's
341 SBD-3's
 
474 total
 
It's worth remembering that Coral Sea was the first majorly opposed engagement fought by USN carriers, that the USMC partook in exactly two air engagements (Wake, Midway) up until Guadalcanal, that SBD-2's were still present on USN carriers at the time of Midway, and that SBD-1's & -2's as well as SB2U's were present with USMC sqns in numbers until the end of '42 - indeed VMO/VMSB-151 still had SBC-4 on its roster as late as April '43.  
 
The Allied player have to economize with his a/c replacements during the early stages of the game and pick his battles with care.  
 
 

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Available up to and including Sep '42 is:

56 SBD-1's
77 SBD-2's
341 SBD-3's

474 total

It's worth remembering that Coral Sea was the first majorly opposed engagement fought by USN carriers, that the USMC partook in exactly two air engagements (Wake, Midway) up until Guadalcanal, that SBD-2's were still present on USN carriers at the time of Midway, and that SBD-1's & -2's as well as SB2U's were present with USMC sqns in numbers until the end of '42 - indeed VMO/VMSB-151 still had SBC-4 on its roster as late as April '43.  

The Allied player have to economize with his a/c replacements during the early stages of the game and pick his battles with care.  

Thats tough with PDU off though. You cant downgrade say a Marine squadron to be able to use the Navy old planes.

I know you can just turn PDU on, but I play with PDU off against the AI too get used it because I play with it off in PBEM.

[witpqs]

I am in September '42 and very short of dive bombers, touchy on fighters, and finally the torpedo bombers seem to have caught up to being comfortable enough where I can upgrade the last two carriers with Avengers. Two carriers still have F4F-3 Wildcats (not -4's), and one still has two squadrons of SBD-2's. On land I have about 3 squadrons of SBC-4's (biplane DB's), about 2 full/mostly full SBD-1 squadrons, 1 or 2 full SBD-3 squadrons, and several SBD-1, Vindicator, and SBD-3 squadrons that are badly/near totally depleted. Also on land a bunch of squadrons of Buffalos and various blends of Wildcats a few of which are mostly filled but most of which are badly/near totally empty. SBD-3 pool is empty and carriers await a few, SBD-1 pool is empty, Vindicator pool is empty, SBD-2 has some, SBC-4 (yes - biplanes deployed at the front lines attacking enemy invasion forces!) has around 30, F4F-3 has maybe 15, F4F-4 maybe 50, Buffalo's empty. First shore-based group of corsairs has arrived but no spares being received yet. First shore-based group of Avengers has arrived and there are plenty of spares, but boy do they need some training.

There have been around 3 medium or smallish carriers battles, and the medium one was hell on the air groups of two carriers. Mostly the issue is that the AI is keeping me putting out fires [Go Andy! Go Andy! [&o] [&o]] and I simply cannot get the air groups to 'rest' enough to let the pools fill up. The shore-based groups are just too small (meaning depleted but also spread out) to handle the enemy carriers so my carriers have to be involved. And enemy carriers are not the only danger.

By this time in WITP there would be bunches of totally full squadrons on land just begging most enemy fleets to show up, fully upgraded carriers and their air groups, etc. In AE it ain't so. Things are thin, getting firmed up, with the fleet putting out fires as fast as the AI can light them.

Now, having outlined the situation, as long as the replacement rates are realistic, the plane stats are realistic, ops losses are realistic, etc. then I am totally fine with things. The thinness of the situation is due to operations (almost all defensive responses).


The only thing I am wondering is a question that has been posed in several thread but I have yet to see a developer comment on (or maybe Erik can jump in?) is the ops loss rate of USN PBY's. Even with no squadrons at all set above 50% search rate their ops losses are very high. Squadrons can't fill out and I have have had about 3 or 4 newly arrived squadrons on the west coast just stood down to avoid further stressing production. Does this sound appropriate or should their ops losses be reconsidered? Some comments on that would be great.

[LeeChard]

I set my search planes at normal range or less unless I have a specific need for extended range. It seems I read somewhere that longer ranges cause operational losses to go up rather quickly. I don't experience an undue amount of losses. (so far, I've only played 10 weeks)

[Walloc]

Hi,

I was the one orignally sounded this. I've purposely as experienced this reduced my range for many of my squ's exactly cuz of this. Too see if it made a difference. Now my base is pretty small, 4-5 squ flying only some 40-50 planes in all. I cant see i have noticed any noteble difference in significantly lower ops losses. Going down to as "short" as 10 in range.
It seems a few have mention the issue too but not exactly ppl in droves. Ill continue to montinor and see what happens.

Im aware that the pilots start out with "fairly" low xp. So i've purposedly set all the squ i havent as strickly necesarry in providing some NS cover too train. Hoping that as the other squa's are training and pilots get high xp that it might lower the ops losses. Problem u cant start out putting all on training and have no airsearch for the first 6 months blinding you. Not that many other 4E types around early neither. Whether when in time pilots gets more experienced and those squa's that have been training come online that ops losses will decline i cant say yet. Logic would dictate that it would, but that doesnt help until that happens. The problem is getting the training squa's near TO&E. Doesnt help much have 1 unit with 2-4 doing NS since the arc it will cover is pretty small. Since my net gain been 13 planes so far in my game. An option is ofc to disbanding the non training squa to "transfere" the planes. Thats sorta defeats the purpose tho.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[witpqs]

The only thing I am really concerned about is "Is it realistic?" If not, then something requires adjusting. If it is realistic, then it's just one of the challenges that the Allied player is presented with and that's great. That's why I would like to hear a developer comment. [:)]

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The only thing I am really concerned about is "Is it realistic?" If not, then something requires adjusting. If it is realistic, then it's just one of the challenges that the Allied player is presented with and that's great. That's why I would like to hear a developer comment. [:)]

I agree, if we are dealing with true numbers that the allies have to suck it up, even if it doesn't feel right. I am in May of 43 and I have an abundance of F4F-4's and a good stock of F6F's. Funny thing is I cannot make 2 full squadrons of A-20's and the B-25's "seem" to be lacking.

[RevRick]

The trouble is that Grumman produced 1200 or so F4F-4s. At the current production rate of 45/month, assuming the began in 03/42 (which is late by three months as far as the resources I have seen), the would not complete the historical production run until mid June, 1944, which is at least 12 months too long, or 30/month too low for production were Grumman to continue production of the F4F until June '43. I don't think they did since the F6F-3 was starting production in late 1942, and Wildcat production was being cycled over to Eastern Aircraft. If we were to postulate that production of the Wildcat ended when the Hellcat begins according to the game, in April 43, then that raises the raw production value for those 13 months to approx 92/mo., give or take one or two/month.

This is already taking into account the Wildcats produced for the FAA, the French, and the Greeks, by the way, and does not include F4F-3 and F4F-3A production, which from what I have read was substantially complete by 420101 with some 275-285 units complete and delivered. I am still searching for company production records between Grumman and Eastern Aircraft, which I may or may not find in this lifetime, but I will keep plugging along at it.

The only conclusion I can draw from this data, without further corroborating facts concerning operational losses during those time periods, is that the designers have decided for gaming purposes to have a lower production value for the Wildcat for game play purposes. Other than that, it fits into the category of the elephant and the rhinoceros interbred - elefino...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The only thing I am really concerned about is "Is it realistic?" If not, then something requires adjusting. If it is realistic, then it's just one of the challenges that the Allied player is presented with and that's great. That's why I would like to hear a developer comment. [:)]

I agree, if we are dealing with true numbers that the allies have to suck it up, even if it doesn't feel right. I am in May of 43 and I have an abundance of F4F-4's and a good stock of F6F's. Funny thing is I cannot make 2 full squadrons of A-20's and the B-25's "seem" to be lacking.

In 1942, the US produced almost 40,000 more aircraft than Japan (47,836 to 8,861). In 1943 it was almost 70,000 more A/C (85,898 to 16,693). Even if the majority of these were sent to Europe, it's hard to understand why the Allies should realistically be facing any shortages of A/C.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Other than that, it fits into the category of the elephant and the rhinoceros interbred - elefino...

I wish you would not have wrote that when I am drinking coffee [:D]

[jimh009]

The posts in this thread echoed my thoughts...initially. But then I thought about a few other things.

First, the tempo in the real war was slower (and the losses lighter in terms of aircraft) than most players in the game experience. I'm having the F4 and Dauntless shortages too. But, I've used my carriers a LOT and have had 4 carrier clashes and many naval strikes against BB's (which are hell on attacking aircraft). If I had "sat" my carriers in port and didn't do anything more than what the Allies did in real-life, I wouldn't be suffering these shortages.

Secondly...how many carriers do you have left? I currently have all six...thus requiring more dive bombers and fighters to fill out. In real-life, by the end of 1942, the Allies had lost several carriers and the Saratoga was always stuck in dry dock due to being a weird torpedo magnet for Japanese subs. As such, Allied needs for carrier aircraft were lower since there were fewer carriers to "fill out."

Finally, in regards to "total production," do remember that a significant percentage of aircraft produced never find their way to the front lines. Planes crash in transit, are just plain defective and, most significantly, are used for training. The vast ramp-up in pilot training in 1942 would have sucked up a LOT of planes.

I do agree about one thing...playing with PDU off is hard on the allies. But for that, I probably would have much fuller air wings on my carriers as I could downgrade land-based air I didn't need and use those fighters/bombers on the carriers instead. But oh well...those are the breaks!

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: jimh009

Finally, in regards to "total production," do remember that a significant percentage of aircraft produced never find their way to the front lines. Planes crash in transit, are just plain defective and, most significantly, are used for training. The vast ramp-up in pilot training in 1942 would have sucked up a LOT of planes.

I don't know where you got that info! The problem is getting them too front line units. The problem with aircraft is keeping them flying, it was easier to get a new plane than spare parts. Just read about the flying tigers in China, they would go through planes pretty quick because of all the planes stripped for spare parts to keep some flying.

[tigercub]

The US made around 300,000 planes during the war and 70% of did very little....to fighting the Axis,they were sent to the far parts of the world and made the US a great deal of money lendlease (the russians never payed the US back ) and some 23,000 were lost in the US and in transit(not combat)....and some 25,000 combat losses all causes.(just of the top of my head)

Tiger!

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
That's why I would like to hear a developer comment. [:)]

Thomas (TimTom) would be that "developer". I believe like most of the data in the game - we went with the best sources we could find - if you have better - share 'em out and they will be considered!

Figuring out what the total US production is - is not the hard part - breaking that down by what went to the Pacific is a bit tougher - Thomas has charts of data on this though - i've seen them.

[Sheytan]

program of military and economic aid given by the U.S. to nations warring against the Axis powers in World War II. Despite the proclaimed neutrality of the U.S., Congress by the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 empowered President Franklin D. Roosevelt on behalf “of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States, to sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article” not expressly prohibited. The law originally authorized an appropriation of $1 million. The Office of Lend-Lease Administration, established in October 1941 to administer the act, was incorporated into the Foreign Economic Agency; in 1943 the office was transferred to the Department of State.

In addition to Great Britain, China, and the USSR, 35 other governments received lend-lease aid. They included the Netherlands, Belgium, and the Free French. By the Reciprocal Aid Agreement with Great Britain, the Free French, Australia, and New Zealand, popularly known as reverse lend-lease, American troops stationed overseas in return received material assistance from the signatory nations. By August 1945, when the war ended, lend-lease appropriations totaled about $48 billion. The U.S. had received more than $6 billion in reverse lend-lease. Arrangements for the repayments by the recipient nations were begun shortly after hostilities ceased. Except for the Soviet debt, of which less than one-third was repaid, repayment was virtually complete by the late 1960s. The U.S., in 1972, accepted an offer by the Soviet Union to pay $722 million in installments through 2001 to settle the indebtedness

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The US made around 300,000 planes during the war and 70% of did very little....to fighting the Axis,they were sent to the far parts of the world and made the US a great deal of money lendlease (the russians never payed the US back ) and some 23,000 were lost in the US and in transit(not combat)....and some 25,000 combat losses all causes.(just of the top of my head)

Tiger!

[tigercub]

With inflation they ripped off the US big time.....Thanks for you input Sheytan.


Tiger!