Page 1 of 4
Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:13 pm
by caslug
Ok, 10 pilot/mo for carrier trained is maybe right. BUT in the game, the 10 pilot/mo INCLUDES Jap Naval Air (ie, landbase zeros, vals, kate, search planes, etc.,). Maybe I'm wrong about this, but in my latest game (Mar 42) I had 300-400 JAAF replacement pilot in pool and 40 JNAF pilots in pool. I turned ALL NAVAL plane units(units on carrier & ships) OFF replacment, BUT all Land based air on Accept replacement. So what happens, my JNAF pilot pools goes down to zero. Which is OK, because I had couple of carrier units offload on based. The land base air units gets regular pilot replacement(65 exp) for oscars, bettys, nates, etc., (again OK), BUT the carrier "capable" units get the untrain pilots(35-40 exp). Maybe there should be a separate pool for carrier pilots, versus regular naval pilots(seaplane, land base zeros, vals, kates, & land base patrol/float plane). I think the allied sides gets that(US Naval separate from Air Corp& marine pilots).
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:37 pm
by rogueusmc
I think the allied sides gets that(US Naval separate from Air Corp& marine pilots).
But Navy pilot pool includes pilots for the Catalinas, Coronados, etc. too...same pool that supplies the Navy Wilcat pilots...it's basically the same on both sides.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:54 pm
by caslug
JNAF gets a TOTAL of 10 pilot/mo for carrier, land base fighter/attack pls, float planes, & patrol planes. I think that way too low, while the JAAF operate on land and gets much more replacement. Land base naval pilot(JNAF) doesn't need as many training hours as carrier based, so why can't we get mor of them, like the army(JAAF). I guess the question.. is the 10 pilot a month(JNAF) was ALL the entire jap navy graduated? Or was this ONLY Carrier pilots? Genda said at the start of the war JNAF had 4000 trained pilots of those only 1500 were carrier pilots, the rest were land based, float planes, etc.,
That would mean at rate of 120 pilot/yr it would have taken 33 yrs to train 4000 pilots. which is obviously no true. They had 4000 pilots on Dec 7th. Maybe what would fair would be 10 carrier pilots/mo and 25-30 land based naval pilots/mo.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:56 pm
by Mr.Frag
These are *replacements* only, you will notice that all your air groups arrive full of pilots.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:21 pm
by Oleg Mastruko
10 pilots per month is only *trained* pilots. You can draw as many pilots as you want from the pool, but these will be untrained (exp 20-30).
Also, lets not forget you have one HUGE advantage over historical Japanese. You can use IJAAF to defend "navy" bases on the islands (you know, Zoomie's favorite fantasy, IJA and IJN commanders sharing hot showers together [:D] - gave me creeps whenever I read it [X(])
Oleg
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:25 pm
by DrewMatrix
Zoomie's favorite fantasy, IJA and IJN commanders sharing hot showers together
See, once again you are exagerrating and not sticking to historical fact. The IJA and IJN leaders never shared hot
showers.
Everybody knows they just all got in those wooden Japanese
Hot Tub things together.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:34 pm
by Brady
Ya it is a bit insane how low the trained piolets leveal is for the Japaense each month, even doubling the present 10 to 20 would still be low, given the numbers they trained.
"Also, lets not forget you have one HUGE advantage over historical Japanese. You can use IJAAF to defend "navy" bases on the islands"
While it is true that teh Navy and Army had their own private war going on, on the side they did coperate withone another on ocashion, the Peggy's from both services forming a joint atack unit would be one example, and Army and Navy planes were stationed in the same areas, such as Rabaul as an example of Joint Fighter ops in one area.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:46 pm
by mogami
Hi, Once again go back and count all the IJN units that arrive as reinforcements. These units arrive fully trained. now divide this total by the number of months before each unit arrives and you'll find IJN training levels to be much higher then just 10 pilots per month.
I'll show you how.
At start there are 4xIJN fighter Datai 129 days out. 4x27 pilots= 108 pilots 129/30=4 months. Just in fighter pilots the Japanese month training is shown not to be a mere 10 per month but 37 pilots per month. During this period there are 63 Betty pilots arriving. Total per month goes to 52. 18 Mavis pilots total at around 56 18 float plane fighter total 60 per month
So please use your brain before you complain.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:16 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: caslug
That would mean at rate of 120 pilot/yr it would have taken 33 yrs to train 4000 pilots. which is obviously no true. They had 4000 pilots on Dec 7th. Maybe what would fair would be 10 carrier pilots/mo and 25-30 land based naval pilots/mo.
SLUG The Japanese Navy didn't have 4,000 pilots on 12/7/41. In truth, they didn't
have enough pilots to actually man the 2100 or so A/C the Navy possessed. The
replacement rate sucks..., but it's not that inaccurate. Japanese policies on Pilot
Training were woefully out of step with their ambitions.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:24 am
by Brady
Figures posted and quoted in the past for trained Japanese Naval avaitors do not generaly include those aloted for Auxilary units, some do and some dont, most sight only fighter piolets available so again realy the figures listed in past referances are larger in ral life than they apear, do not only to this omishion but those inhearent in the original figures which are not compleatly inclusive of just he fighter figuers do to omishions in the data for them as well. Now having said all that it should be noted that again the system in WitP for creating Japanese air units is not realy historical anyway what this means in this case is that while they arive fullt equiped with trained airmen they do so in an unrealistic maner not so much so during the begining of the war but certainly later in time, these units earler were already in the pipe line the later ones are more fixtishious in their creation. Even sighting Mogamis from the hip figures your way short of Navy piolets. I will grant you it would be nie on imposable to creat a system that was 100% historicaly corect in this regard and the one at present is pretyy darn good realy with the exception of the "pool" fiure witch is realy imo prety darn low.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:38 am
by mogami
Hi, In the first year of the war the Japanese player receives 417 trained pilots in airgroups and 120 pilots in pool for a total of 537 trained IJN pilots. 537/12=44.75 pilots per month.
This number does not include pilots the player can take as untrained and train on map. Nor does it include the 100 trained pilots in the pool at start. (Japan receives in total then 637 trained IJN pilots in first year)
Simply put. If you lose more then 45 pilots per month you are falling behind except for what you train on map your self. Taking just 1 Daitai of each type of aircraft (fighter,divebomber,torpedo,Landbased) you would be able to train another 108 pilots raising your monthy total to 53.75 pilots per month. The Japanese could not replace excessive loss from their groups. You must plan your operations for less loss then you can replace. There is no subsitute for this.
The game provides a reasonable number of trained pilots and allows you to decide how many more you train. The shortage is not because the game miscounted. The game as designed requires the Japanese player to decide if he is going to train new pilots or use untrained pilots. It is completly up to him.
Now since you know you can lose 745 pilots in the first year and be right where you began what are we complaining about? IJN CV will fight perhaps 2 CV battles. Allow half your loss for these (372) and half for landbased aircraft and you see the IJN can replace their CV airgroups almost entirely with trained pilots and still lose 31 pilots per month from their landbased groups. [X(] jeez you act like Japan is hamstrung because of pilots.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:59 am
by Mike Scholl
DEAD ON TARGET, Mogami. The real problem is that number "10". A lot of posters
seem to think that that is ALL the trained replacements the IJN gets.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:59 am
by Brady
I am not having a huge cow over this, it is kinda a pet peave of mine but I do think the number could/should be a tad higher in the pool for replacements each month for the Army and Navy.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:15 am
by mogami
Hi, Brady it's no problem. But just to satisfy my curiosity how many trained pilots do you think Japan should get in the first year of the war?
Just how short is the pools monthly allotment and how many of the pilots the player gets should be his responsibly? Should the Japanese player get all his pilots trained for free or should a good portion of the training be left to him?
Would a good simple solution be to just add a few more Daitai and call them training units so the Japanese player would understand from the start they were strictly training units and if he used them for combat he would lose the abilty to receive future trained pilots.
(Code it so that when the player was happy with the training levels of these specific groups he could move the pilots into his pool and fill the groups up with untrained pilots and begin training them)
Have two choices for each group
1. Trained replacements
2. Untrained replacements
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:29 am
by Mike Scholl
MOGAMI. If Brady says "11.4" we kill him.., right?
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:33 am
by herbieh
ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Brady it's no problem. But just to satisfy my curiosity how many trained pilots do you think Japan should get in the first year of the war?
Just how short is the pools monthly allotment and how many of the pilots the player gets should be his responsibly? Should the Japanese player get all his pilots trained for free or should a good portion of the training be left to him?
Would a good simple solution be to just add a few more Daitai and call them training units so the Japanese player would understand from the start they were strictly training units and if he used them for combat he would lose the abilty to receive future trained pilots.
(Code it so that when the player was happy with the training levels of these specific groups he could move the pilots into his pool and fill the groups up with untrained pilots and begin training them)
Have two choices for each group
1. Trained replacements
2. Untrained replacements
I agree with Mog. Ive had several false starts as Japan against the AI, the 1st turn is so huge!. Part of that is putting some squadrons ect to training, and putting everything to no replacements. I try to withdraw units, then fill up, and begin training.
Because Mogami is far more experienced, how many planes do you normally have training (roughly), how do you go about it?, how low should I let a daiti? get before withdrawing it
Sticking neck tentatively out.....
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:12 am
by mogami
Hi, On turn 1 I begin by moving undersize airgroups (both Army and Navy) to where I can disband 1 into another. I set all groups to "do not receive replacements" ) When I get to where the remainging groups are at or near full strength I have a number of Chutai disbanded and set to return in 90 days. These groups will draw pilots from pool when they retrun but the Navy pool will be at or near 0 by then and the Army pool is large enough that It does not matter (I will have Army trained replacement groups close to the turn these units reform The Navy groups are the ones that will need to be place into actual training)
Since I have not yet been able to get all my Navy Groups into combat I always have a number of groups that are "rear area" I use these as replacement groups. When a front line group gets to where it requires 4 or more pilots I break a Daitai down (3 groups of 9 pilots/ac each) I fly the group to where needed and disband. Now the front line group is brought back to fighting size and I have a group to place untrained pilots into and begin training
I plan my operations with this in mind. For every Daitai in combat I want one of these 9 pilot/AC groups. So I would say I begin operations with a 3 to 1 ratio. 1 reserve Daitai for every front line Daitai. I use the IJN pool for my CV. I augment them by when ever possible disbanding a landgroup into the CV group. (becarefull not to overload your CV)
In one current game the date is 12-29-41 and I only have 11 pilots in my pool. This means I am doing fine because all front line and CV units are at full strength or slightly over strength (excess ac go into reserve in the group and when pilots are assigned daily missions the ones with the higher fatigue sit out the day and rest)
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:50 am
by Oleg Mastruko
Mog what happens when you, according to your training program, disband one third of the "reserve" Daitai that is *only* "carrier capable" (ie land based Zeroes or Vals), into frontline CV Zero or Val Daitai that is "carrier trained"?
I guess nothing special [8D]
O.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:11 am
by rogueusmc
The "air group' is 'carrier capable'...not the pilots....the pilots they draw will be good for the airgroup using them.
RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!!
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:13 am
by mogami
Hi, No nothing happens when I take a trained carrier capable pilot and place him into a carrier trained unit. 90 days later I get a carrier capable unit full of untrained carrier capable but not carrier trained pilots. If I place the entire carrier capable but not carrier trained group on a carrier I risk higher op loss but if I send the entire group in parcels to a carrier trained group there is no increase in Op loss. Are we really going to start sweating the impact of adding trained pilots to carrier groups? It would be better if I could only disband carrier trained groups into carrier trained groups but you cannot disband a group assigned to a CV by the data base. Withdrawing does not work because the pilots of a withdrawn group go with it off map leaving only the aircraft behind.
Since the Japanese player using this mission must still commit a group to replacement and then go through the process of retraining it again before it can be used again I don't see a major issue. Just consider all such groups so used to be carrier trained. The groups used at start of war are all well trained. Groups used later in war will still be among the best pilots available. It's easier then adding still more rules and restrictions that the player would hurdle because in the end the Japanese player will do what he must to have trained pilots for his groups. He will train pilots as long as he is able. Only by running out of supply will he stop training pilots. Carrier training is important but pilots sent to carrier training are already pilots. If the Japanese player can fill up his groups with untrained pilots and conduct missions with them what should stop him from sending fully trained pilots? (If only carrier trained pilots can be sent to carriers then the player should not be allowed to send untrained pilots. Then he would have to move the groups to a shore base and train pilots before sending the group to a CV to carrier train which in the end is the same as just sending trained pilots )