Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/27/2009 3:47:03 AM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

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.

Post #: 1

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/27/2009 5:26:01 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

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..

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 2

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/27/2009 8:25:24 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

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?

Or is it a typo and you mean 42?

_____________________________

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 3

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/27/2009 12:21:15 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 4

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 12:40:16 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 5

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 4:01:34 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 6

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 7:41:05 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

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!

] 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.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 7

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 8:03:27 PM

LeeChard

Posts: 1099
Joined: 9/12/2007
From: Michigan
Status: offline

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)

< Message edited by Ranger5355 -- 8/29/2009 8:05:20 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 8

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 8:45:01 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

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

(in reply to LeeChard)

Post #: 9

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 9:19:09 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 10

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 9:46:32 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

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 reply to witpqs)

Post #: 11

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 10:12:00 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

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...

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 12

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 10:21:09 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

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.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 13

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/29/2009 10:21:38 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 14

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 12:27:41 AM

jimh009

Posts: 368
Joined: 5/15/2005
Status: offline

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!

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 15

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 12:46:04 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to jimh009)

Post #: 16

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 12:49:19 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

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!

< Message edited by tigercub -- 8/30/2009 12:51:19 AM >

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to jimh009)

Post #: 17

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 12:53:24 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 18

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 1:09:28 AM

Sheytan

Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline

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

quote:

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!

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 19

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 1:18:39 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

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

Tiger!

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Sheytan)

Post #: 20

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 1:21:29 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

quote:

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 fully ) 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!

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 21

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 1:56:24 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

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 to 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.

Actually he's quite correct. About 10% of all aircraft actually "in service" (from training to transfer to theatre to front line) were lost EVERY MONTH during the war by ALL participants. Non-Combat losses virtually always exceeded combat losses by a significant margin. For the Japanese non-combat losses were several percentage points higher than for the US.

None of which changes the fact that Allied A/C production massively exceeded Japan's..., and if anyone in the game should be having shortages of replacement A/C it isn't the Allies.

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 22

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 3:30:16 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

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.

I did not question anything he commented on. In fact, the vast majority of my post seems to support what he wrote. My question concerns an area he did not touch - the various USN PBY search plane ops losses. I'm not even questioning the PBY production/availability provided. I'm just curious if the ops losses I (and from their posts, I think others) are experiencing are on the money or off the mark.

Scenario 1 as as 42-09-26:

Plane Model #-- Tot-A2A-Flk-Grd-Ops

PBY-4- Catalina 026 005 000 007 014

PBY-5- Catalina 124 007 000 031 086

PBY-5A Catalina 040 000 000 000 040

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 23

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 8:00:10 AM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

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

As a question for The Managment:

Are the units that show up equipped with F4F-4s (and everything else) "free" or are the A/C to fill those units taken from the pools?

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 24

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 12:24:07 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
None of which changes the fact that Allied A/C production massively exceeded Japan's..., and if anyone in the game should be having shortages of replacement A/C it isn't the Allies.

Part of the problem in PBEM at least is the Godlike control over the economy that the Japs enjoy. (Granted, its also the reason I don't play the Japs, but for those who master it, it does let the Japanese leverage a huge advantage). It wasn't abnormal in the slightest for Japanese fighter production to be five or six times the front line fighter production of the US and the UK in mid 1942 in WITP. It wasn't abnormal in the slightest for the Allied fighter pools to be on virtually 0 across the board until 1943, with the exception of Wildcats sometimes.

Allied production levels are about the same as they were in WITP. From my readings of Japanese production plans, I think the Japs are not hugely curtailed over what they had before. 200 Zeroes a month still very feasible I imagine, no?

I always thought this was completely whacked. I think it's a bit less of an issue in AE as the air combat is less bloody and you dont get through 40 P40s in a day anymore.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 25

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 12:44:28 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
None of which changes the fact that Allied A/C production massively exceeded Japan's..., and if anyone in the game should be having shortages of replacement A/C it isn't the Allies.

Part of the problem in PBEM at least is the Godlike control over the economy that the Japs enjoy. (Granted, its also the reason I don't play the Japs, but for those who master it, it does let the Japanese leverage a huge advantage). It wasn't abnormal in the slightest for Japanese fighter production to be five or six times the front line fighter production of the US and the UK in mid 1942 in WITP. It wasn't abnormal in the slightest for the Allied fighter pools to be on virtually 0 across the board until 1943, with the exception of Wildcats sometimes.

Allied production levels are about the same as they were in WITP. From my readings of Japanese production plans, I think the Japs are not hugely curtailed over what they had before. 200 Zeroes a month still very feasible I imagine, no?

I always thought this was completely whacked. I think it's a bit less of an issue in AE as the air combat is less bloody and you dont get through 40 P40s in a day anymore.

By Jove..., I think he's got it!

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 26

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 1:34:33 PM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

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

As a question for The Managment:

Are the units that show up equipped with F4F-4s (and everything else) "free" or are the A/C to fill those units taken from the pools?

If the group is to arrive with some planes, then the planes are not taken from the pool.
Only groups with no planes defined in the editor take planes from the pool to fill out the group.
Reformed or withdrawn groups generally arrive with no planes so they come from the pool. Unless the group is 'a return as' group, then it depends on if any plane numbers were defined in editor.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 27

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 7:15:52 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
- breaking that down by what went to the Pacific is a bit tougher -

And here is where the problem begins. The idea of using draconian replacement pool limits for the allies based on historical numbers is plain and simply a BAD idea. As an example let's look at Japan.

Assume Japan has 100 planes operating in the south Pacific. Now assume a huge air battle is fought and Japan loses 90 of those planes. What will Japan do? Leave only 10 planes operating down there because that's all Japan had sent historically and no new airframes arrived for another 2 months? No, Japan is going to find airframes from somewhere else to send down as replacements.

Just because losses were light for the allies historically, does not mean the allies would not have found more airframe to send if they were in fact needed. Limiting the allies to just what was needed historically is piss-poor game design (I'm sorry but it has to be said). You have to give them their historical capabilities or they aren't actually representative of the actual allies from WWII.

Now if you could find a way of strictly limiting Japan to just what they actually got during the war then I'd have no problem. But Japan has total freedom and a very generous excess of production to boot. The allies need a similar freedom or you just give them an Achilles heel that no amount of good game play can overcome.

So I say give the allies their historical production numbers and get rid of the ridiculously low production pool limits. They don't work when put up against an unlimited Japan.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 28

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 7:44:26 PM

Brady

Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
- breaking that down by what went to the Pacific is a bit tougher -

And here is where the problem begins. The idea of using draconian replacement pool limits for the allies based on historical numbers is plain and simply a BAD idea. As an example let's look at Japan.

Assume Japan has 100 planes operating in the south Pacific. Now assume a huge air battle is fought and Japan loses 90 of those planes. What will Japan do? Leave only 10 planes operating down there because that's all Japan had sent historically and no new airframes arrived for another 2 months? No, Japan is going to find airframes from somewhere else to send down as replacements.

Just because losses were light for the allies historically, does not mean the allies would not have found more airframe to send if they were in fact needed. Limiting the allies to just what was needed historically is piss-poor game design (I'm sorry but it has to be said). You have to give them their historical capabilities or they aren't actually representative of the actual allies from WWII.

Now if you could find a way of strictly limiting Japan to just what they actually got during the war then I'd have no problem. But Japan has total freedom and a very generous excess of production to boot. The allies need a similar freedom or you just give them an Achilles heel that no amount of good game play can overcome.

So I say give the allies their historical production numbers and get rid of the ridiculously low production pool limits. They don't work when put up against an unlimited Japan.

Jim

From my Latest test game (IronMan), numbers like this tend to make me think the Allies dont nead any help agasnt the Ai-

..............

From an Historical Perspective the want of more Aircraft and better ones was definatly high, but their was nothing to be had, this largely do to the Europe first policy:

From Americas Hundread Thousand by Dean:

From the Chronology on the P-40,

"Dec. 41 A total of 74 P-40E's have now been received in the Philipines. (18 P-40b's at clark with the 20th)"

"Dec. 7th Pearl harbor-87P-40B's and 12 P40C's"

"Dec. 26th only 18 P40's remain in service in teh Philipines, the rest were lost from bombing, fighting, and accedents."

"Dec. 31st P40 production of all types come to 2,246 aircraft, for 1941."

"Jan 1942-Fifity P40E's are alocated to the AVG in China, and water shipment will start in Feb. most will be in China by June."

Many P40's are lost in Java or on the way, 120 to 124 are sent their, 32 went down with the Langely, 11 destroyed in an air raid on darwin, 14 others lost in transit, 3 destroyed at Timor, Many were on the Sea Witch and could not be asembled in time and so were tosed over the side, 36 did howeaver make it."

Feb. 25/42 The AVG has only 20 flyable P40's left.

Mar, 42 AVG is sent 30 P40E's from Africa and India.

Mar 18, 42: By this date a total of 337 P40's Reach Austrailia (along with 190 Aircobras). Of these about 125 are lost in Java fighting, other by accedent. 75 are turned over to the RAAF, 74 are being reparied, and 100 awiat assembly. There are 92 P40's in comishion, and about 85 Aircobras.

Aprial 42, The AVG now has 36 flyable P40's, 39 are being repaired and 22 that could be repaired have to be destroyed when a move is made.

May 42, 101 P40's are in service in Hawaii, out of 134 in the area.

July 42, Darwin has about 80 P40's.

July 42, AVG(China Task Force) has 51 operational P-40's (24 are p40E's).

Aug. 42, Port Morsby New Gunie,30 P-40's and two RAAF squarons with around 30 Kittyhawks.

Oct. 42 Centrail Pacific, 319 Fighters all P-40's except one Squadron of P-39's and one of P-70's.

Dec. 42, by this a total of all types of P40's delevered amount to 4453.

Jan 1 1943-In the war aganst Japan the USAAF has a total of 618 P40's out of a total of 1118 fighters.

Aug 31st, 1943: Gen Paul Wirtsmith of the 5th Air Force has 598 fighters of which 118 are P40's But many P40's are in depot, and all are werry, having 300 to 500 combat hours each-equilvent to about 2,000 normal operating hours, Gen. Kenny writes from the Pacific to Hap Arnold- "I dont beleave anyone else, with the posable excpetion of Chennault, is flying stuff as old and worn out as these youngsters out here are."

................

From the P-39 section:

Aug. 42- The fighter situation in the SWP is critical with few reinforcements in sight.

< Message edited by Brady -- 8/30/2009 7:50:11 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 29

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 8/30/2009 8:25:39 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Part of the problem in PBEM at least is the Godlike control over the economy that the Japs enjoy. (Granted, its also the reason I don't play the Japs, but for those who master it, it does let the Japanese leverage a huge advantage). It wasn't abnormal in the slightest for Japanese fighter production to be five or six times the front line fighter production of the US and the UK in mid 1942 in WITP. It wasn't abnormal in the slightest for the Allied fighter pools to be on virtually 0 across the board until 1943, with the exception of Wildcats sometimes.

Exactly! If the Allies had "production" as well, they'd have hoards of P-38's, F4U's, B24's, and B-25's before the end of 1942. But they don't have this option. So they should at least have rather substantial replacements for the menagerie they do recieve. Or we could give BOTH sides only what they actually got historically.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 30