Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 5:12:02 AM   
rominet


Posts: 523
Joined: 10/23/2007
From: Paris
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Whatever the devs decide to do they had better not break human play just to fix AI play.



So, instead of having 3 big scenarii for GC, the 1 for historical, the 2 for enhanced jap and the 3 Ironman (the last 2 being "what if" scenarii),
why don't ask for one for Allies against AI, one for Jap against AI and the last for PBEM??

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 151
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 8:06:14 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad
Case 1:


Try a Case 3 :

30 days of strafing helpless bases in China for experience's sake.

And then 30 days of air to air combat training for air combat rating's sake.

Or vice versa. Might be that the strafing should be done last, if training is less effective the more experienced they already are.


I didn't run a full 30 days but I pulled 6 green pilots into a nate unit in China and did low level attacks against an empty base for 9 days of turns; the planes flew 6 of the 9 turns. At the end of the 9 days, the exp of the newbies was 27 to 45, only a point or two higher than they started. Two of the six hadn't budged from their starting "40".

Remember, this isn't Witp-classic. Strafing empty bases will help your strafing skill some, but isn't a miracle tonic to make fighter aces.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 152
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 11:18:01 AM   
Arimus

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been playing WITP and AE for over 5 years and I can assure you - I have never seen the Allies run out of aircraft!!!



I believe several people have stated that they have indeed run out of aircraft. In my own game, my carriers have to sit at Pearl for several months because I suffered some losses during an early raid on the Marshall's. Historical enough except for the fact that the AI is currently conducting an operation to take the Ellice Islands.
Luckily, the KB has been stuck in the DEI for 3 weeks.

You have a Japanese player (or AI) capable of conducting ahistorical campaigns leading to ahistorical combat and ahistorical losses. However, the Allied player is limited to the historical airframe ALLOCATION (not historical production) which limits his options to historical responses. Note that the airframes are available, just not allocated to the PTO.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 153
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 11:35:21 AM   
EUBanana


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

ORIGINAL: Arimus
You have a Japanese player (or AI) capable of conducting ahistorical campaigns leading to ahistorical combat and ahistorical losses. However, the Allied player is limited to the historical airframe ALLOCATION (not historical production) which limits his options to historical responses. Note that the airframes are available, just not allocated to the PTO.


I'm not bothered about the Japanese being able to change their production, focus in a different area, maybe leverage resources that in reality they did not have due to a better run of conquests in 1942, etc. Sounds all good stuff.

However if the production system is producing results an order of magnitude from reality something is wrong. Imagine if Buffaloes produced results an order of magnitude from reality, or US dud torpedoes, or Allied radar sets, or for that matter Zero kill ratios. No end of argument. I don't think factories deserve a free pass. I'm not saying they should be fixed to constant production values, or that the Allies should get to tailor their production. I'm saying that 10x as many Betties as they had in reality is insane. As insane as Buffaloes getting 10 to 1 against Zeroes.

Pilot limits, airgroup limits, thats all smoke, different issues. If it wasn't smoke you could give the Allies 200 P40s a month, they have limited airgroups too after all. You think it'd make no difference?

_____________________________


(in reply to Arimus)
Post #: 154
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:04:17 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I wonder if the computer can keep track of how many of each type of plane it has created?

If so, maybe an editor could be enhanced to include a variable "numbers built" box, so if we knew only 100 f4f-2's were built, the computer would know to only build 100 of them?

If this were variable for the player, we could alter this number ourselves(in the editor) ourselves, based on historical production numbers, sci fi, whatever?

Just thinkin' out loud guys.

_____________________________




(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 155
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:51:12 PM   
Arimus

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline 		I think the ahistorical campaigns that the AI is capable of is great. A "buffed" AI opponent with ahistorical production capacity (within reason!) is also a good idea.
With the Ironman scenario, the developers are basically making two sets of scenarios. One for head to head(PBEM) and one for human vs AI. Another good idea and pretty common in military games that attempt to provide an AI.

However, the historical accuracy of allied airframe allotment in the PTO may have to be modified for the sake of gameplay.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 156
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 1:39:51 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've been playing WITP and AE for over 5 years and I can assure you - I have never seen the Allies run out of aircraft!!!



I believe several people have stated that they have indeed run out of aircraft. In my own game, my carriers have to sit at Pearl for several months because I suffered some losses during an early raid on the Marshall's. Historical enough except for the fact that the AI is currently conducting an operation to take the Ellice Islands.
Luckily, the KB has been stuck in the DEI for 3 weeks.

You have a Japanese player (or AI) capable of conducting ahistorical campaigns leading to ahistorical combat and ahistorical losses. However, the Allied player is limited to the historical airframe ALLOCATION (not historical production) which limits his options to historical responses. Note that the airframes are available, just not allocated to the PTO.



... this is exactly my point... I HAVE run out of aircraft... part of the the problem is the ahistorical results for both sides. By the end of '42 I've only lost 1 carrier the rest are still operational but with very limited aircraft. Without these "extra" carriers that the US did not have historically (since Lex, Hornet, Yorktown, Wasp all sunk in '42) there were plenty of planes for the Enterprise since Saratoga spent a lot of time under repairs (Jan -June, Sept - Nov). So "historically" the build numbers are great if you just have one carrier to supply.

This needs to be accounted for. The only way I can see playing this game at this point is to lose a few carriers so you can keep one fully supplied with aircraft. Had the US Navy been able to keep all it's flat tops I'm sure they would have also found a way to keep them supplied with aircraft. The game imposes a limit for playing well!



< Message edited by dude -- 9/2/2009 1:43:22 PM >

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to Arimus)
Post #: 157
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 2:07:35 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		What about using PP to increase a certain months' worth of production / allocation. Wouldn't this mimic the 'political cost' of going directly to the JCS and screaming about PTO fighter allocation? Want another 50 F4Fs in the replacement pool three months from now? Is it worth 500 political points to ya?

Just thinking aloud.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 158
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 2:14:25 PM   
Arimus

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline 		Historically, the US built about 570 F4F-3's and 3A's. 191 went to the Brits, 100 show up in the game with units and 39 show up as replacements.
That leaves 240 in the US somewhere (probable at Grumman's airfield waiting for the Navy to take delivery!). Even with 30% loss due to all causes, that leaves 168 somewhere in the US (training units, Atlantic carriers?). I think it is safe to assume that many of these airframes would have been made available to the PTO if needed.
This is probable common for most US airframes.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 159
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 2:49:15 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

What about using PP to increase a certain months' worth of production / allocation. Wouldn't this mimic the 'political cost' of going directly to the JCS and screaming about PTO fighter allocation? Want another 50 F4Fs in the replacement pool three months from now? Is it worth 500 political points to ya?

Just thinking aloud.


... I suggested the same thing a few pages back and I still think it's a good solution to the problem... I mean if they let us use PP to reasign units that were supposed to be stationed in certain places and not moved then why not let us spend the PP's on extra airframes? It might actually slow me down moving all the forces in India and taking Bangkok by June '42 if I had to spend some of those PP on replacement planes for my carriers that didn't sink historically...

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 160
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:08:46 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline 		Well, I have now read this thread from end-to-end twice now and I would swear that I am not playing the same game being discussed here.

I have only played the Allies against the AI (apparently like most here) and I have to say I have had serious fighter shortages in the early months, just as in real life. I also have to say that by Jun42 I have so many excess P40s that I am converting and re-flagging rear area units in order to bring them forward into the fight. I find, just like in real life, that I am sending 1-6 fighters into the air to counter 20 Betties and ten Zeroes (strangely enough, my AI oppenent virtually never sends in his bombers unescorted, unlike that other game people keep talking about); however I also find that I usually shoot down a couple in exchange for a damaged P40. FOW perhaps, but my overall A2A kill ratio is two-to-one in the Allies favor and that includes the early slaughter of a lot of P26s and others flown by semi-trained pilots.

While I am certainly not qualified to debate how many F2A-3d a/c were produced by Brewster in their satellite assembly plant in Rochester in March of 1942, I can say that in my experience with the game to date as the Allies the fighter production rates "feel right" based upon 55 years of casual reading of history

Now with all that said, I do have to add the caveat that I did not attempt to equip my semi-trained pilots with precious P40s (or F4Fs either) and send them into the Japanese blast furnace to be promptly melted down to scrap. I pretty much let the pilots in the PI and Malaya die in place in what they had, withdrawing them when each unit was reduced to a few good pilots with crummy planes. As new units came on the map I kept them on the edge and trained. And then trained some more. And only when I had uniformly good air skills did I commit them defensively. This probably cost me more LCUs then I would lose otherwise and it certainly cost me a few ships. Just different play styles and strategies.

(in reply to Arimus)
Post #: 161
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:17:51 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		To me it seems some people are saying that no matter how badly allied player is beaten or how many planes allied player lose, all carriers should always have full of planes...

That would be very playable "game" indeed.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 162
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:48:58 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Although I am not sure I can trust a warrior with a fuzzy albeit cute dog, I think pompack is dead-on. The game is forcing you to do what the Allies did, husband your resources and live to fight another day. It's not Sir Robin, but it is assessing where you can cause damage and where you should fold and fight another day.

I am sure as the game progresses, JFB's will struggle with production, pilot quality, and overall trying to keep the Empire together.

It's difficult as the Allies to see immediate results. Keep shooting down first-line pilots, and keep sinking AKs, and eventually you'll see the worm start to turn. IRL, the US did not see a dropoff in pilot quality until a month or two into the Solomons campaign, and it didn't fall off a cliff until after Santa Cruz. Probably same in AE.

_____________________________


(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 163
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:52:41 PM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline 		I've NEVER had full carriers.  I usially end up with 8-10 planes in my attack units after being in port for a few weeks.  It's a little better in the fighter units, maybe 75% of nominal strength.  Then, something happens and I have to committ a carrier or two and I'm back down to 25% strength in all units, if that.  I just can't get in better shape than that.

They've upped the fighter replacement rate a little in the patch.  Maybe that will help some.  But, I find the greatest problem is with the dive bombers.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 164
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 4:11:29 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

I've NEVER had full carriers.  I usially end up with 8-10 planes in my attack units after being in port for a few weeks.  It's a little better in the fighter units, maybe 75% of nominal strength.  Then, something happens and I have to committ a carrier or two and I'm back down to 25% strength in all units, if that.  I just can't get in better shape than that.

They've upped the fighter replacement rate a little in the patch.  Maybe that will help some.  But, I find the greatest problem is with the dive bombers.



Well if you still have plane shortage in 1943, then there might be a problem. But in 1942 that sounds ok to me. IRL US or japanese didn't have full carriers in Coral sea or Midway.

I play as Japan, and I don't have full carriers. But then again, I'm not a good player...

< Message edited by Puhis -- 9/2/2009 4:27:46 PM >

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 165
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 4:22:16 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline 		I have to admit that I love those cute little biplane dive bombers. By converting or withdrawing every land based dive bomber (USMC flavor) I have been able to maintain at least two SBDs (of some flavor, not necessarily the good ones) in the pool at all times. I don't believe that I ever had more than one unit at less than full strength when I started a raid.

Also I carefully avoided sending my carriers anywhere there might be real opposition (defined as more than 8-10 land-based fighters and never in the same ocean as KB) until May42. I never attacked air bases more than once unless I knew that there were a/c trapped on the ground on damaged bases; flak and ops losses will cripple you quickly. What it comes down to is all the US can afford is about one raid a month against trivial opposition before late summer 42.

Also I found that flying 80% search with the scouts and 0% search with the bombers is a bad idea. I had significantly fewer ops losses when I put up the same number of scouts with 40% search on each; of course it is a lot more work to set up your searches since you have to have each unit search a different short arc compared to a single unit on search.

EDIT: just went back and checked and through 17jun42 my SBD losses (three types) are 40 ops, 14 flak, 0 A2A, 2 ground total 56. Just living is dangerous enough (75%!!), you can't afford to lose any in what is basically pointless raiding (but like most people I feel that I ought to go out and DO SOMETHING in early 42)

< Message edited by pompack -- 9/2/2009 4:27:56 PM >

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 166
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 4:31:17 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Although I am not sure I can trust a warrior with a fuzzy albeit cute dog, ...



I used to have four of them but now I am down to only two (aged ten and twelve) and the Cavalier Spaniel. In fact that was the origin of "Pompack" since I was the leader of a Pack of Pomeranian Puppies.

< Message edited by pompack -- 9/2/2009 4:32:19 PM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 167
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 5:30:45 PM   
Arimus

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline 		Staying out of harm's way will definetly preserve your aircraft. But what if the KB shows up in the Coral Sea in Jan '42? Or Canton Island? Or Suva? And why wouldn't 4 Jap carriers operate in the central or south pacific when 2 is more than enough for the SRA? Especially knowing that the allies have very little reserve.


I ran a little test and it costs 120 PP's to move a unit with 30 planes (1 ready, 2 pilots and 29 reserve) to a non (R) HQ.
200 PP's for a unit of 50 planes.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 168
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 5:35:07 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Whatever the devs decide to do they had better not break human play just to fix AI play.



So, instead of having 3 big scenarii for GC, the 1 for historical, the 2 for enhanced jap and the 3 Ironman (the last 2 being "what if" scenarii),
why don't ask for one for Allies against AI, one for Jap against AI and the last for PBEM??


No need to ask. You can do that right now with the editor.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to rominet)
Post #: 169
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 7:51:09 PM   
pmelheck1

 

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline 		earlier theelf stated that

"Unfortunately that is not how this game was designed. You can complain to the high heavens and it won't change the fact that what you are talking about is a major code rewrite and not only outside the scope of the AE project, but also outside the scope of Gary Grigsby's original design concept.

To those that feel the Allies are treated unfairly in this aspect of the game I will reuse my age old response.

"WitP was designed, much like Bombing the Reich before it and despite the title, to explore the losers of WWII. In both cases the side with the most flexibility, or options such as production, or economy, or whatever is in fact the Axis side. Why?

I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.

I am not advocating one design or another. That ship has sailed, long before AE was born. The point is moot.

If this idea offends your sensibilities, sorry. "

"

This pretty much ends this discussion.  I view this as Japan is going to win per design unless you goof as Japan.  If Japan is producing more aircraft in a couple of months than she did in real life that's working as intended.  At some point we might even see more Japanese CV's added to the OOB because it's unfair Japan has fewer ships.  If we pitch out correct production numbers for aircraft why not for ships?  Alternately we can just eliminate those ships on the allied side that are above what Japan has.  If the stats for a allied ship is better we can set it's stats to the same or slightly inferior to it's Japanese counterpart.  Then we'll have a perfect game in that Japan will have the same units and have an equal chance to win!  Remember this is a game people if you want history go read a book.


_____________________________


(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 170
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 8:02:46 PM   
dude

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: Fairfax Virginia
Status: offline 		The problem is that the people here that are saying that there is no problem and looking at only the historical record keep missing a major point…


Lexington: Sunk May 1942
Yorktown: Sunk June 1942
Wasp : Sunk Sept 1942
Hornet: Sunk Oct 1942

Saratoga: Repairs (Jan – Jun, Sept – Dec 42)

Enterprise – Only CV operational for the entire period

So the problem is if you fight the war with 6 CV’s in 42 you won’t have enough aircraft for replacements. Which is why the game works if I keep most of my carriers docked through most of 42 and don’t use them. But be careful if you dare try something the Allies didn’t do like actually use all your carriers and keep them afloat… Again I wouldn’t complain either if the AI behaved as the Japs did in WWII… but when you’ve got an AI that now sends wave after wave of TF’s deep behind your lines to take places like Bora Bora, I’ve got to use my Carriers to stop them… something the Allies didn’t have to contend with in reality.




< Message edited by dude -- 9/2/2009 8:05:15 PM >

_____________________________

“Ifs defeated the Confederates…” U.S.Grant

(in reply to pmelheck1)
Post #: 171
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 8:51:36 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline 		In my game, Singapore fell in January, The PI fell in Feb, Burma was steamrolled in a couple of weeks. The AI has no trouble outperforming the historical advances. While this human player, has struggled to get bases built up and fortified that historically weren't even seriously threatened. I'm not complaining about the AI, I think it's great.

It's true that the Allies operated on a shoestring in the Pacific in '42 but they also managed to succesfully counter every new move the Japanese made in their direction. I shouldn't have to pay political points for US assets just to defend US territory adequately. How about every time the Japanese attacks a US base in the Central/South Pacific we get an influx of PPs to be used to release what we need?

I can understand why Axis players wouldn't like this because it essentially punishes victory for them but OTOH I can't see Nimitz being told he can't have what he needs when it's just sitting in the US.

When it comes to the replacement pool, if the AC numbers going into the pool allow the US to have what they did historically at the end of May, then I'm basically OK with it. But I'd like to at least see more older AC available should the pool run dry of the newer stuff.

_____________________________


(in reply to dude)
Post #: 172
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 8:55:18 PM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline 		Would the US have sent Wasp to the Pacific if other, better, carriers hadn't been sunk? Perhaps the US player should have to pay PP to buy Hornet and Wasp if they have more than a couple of active carriers. That's probably not doable, but it's something I've wondered about.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 173
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 8:55:49 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

Again I wouldn’t complain either if the AI behaved as the Japs did in WWII… but when you’ve got an AI that now sends wave after wave of TF’s deep behind your lines to take places like Bora Bora, I’ve got to use my Carriers to stop them… something the Allies didn’t have to contend with in reality



I won't argue with that but if it's an AI game, why not just increase the replacement rate to whatever you consider appropriate? Or, for those who argue that it should be unlimited, make them large enough to be effectively infinite? Probably take about 2-3 hours to do. (Most of which would be learning to use the editor for the first time).

To me, this is a more interesting a topic for PBEM. But then the issues like the AI uber-replacement levels aren't relevant.

(in reply to dude)
Post #: 174
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 9:07:57 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		I think the main issue is, it's all or nothing, either you get aircraft replacements or you get nothing! Aircraft replacements should start out small then increase over time, this way you always get a few coming in!



(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 175
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 9:23:02 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I think the main issue is, it's all or nothing, either you get aircraft replacements or you get nothing! Aircraft replacements should start out small then increase over time, this way you always get a few coming in!





As I understand how the editor works, you can do pretty much anything you want to whether it is changing characteristics, adding units or changing rates. For those people who only play the AI, they don't even have to find an opponent who agrees with them to play their mod (and anyway, with this community it's not hard to find a least one person who will agree with any given idea). Basically, if you don't like it just change it and play on against tthe AI. If you don't like it and insist on a PBEM, find someone of like mind, change it, and play on.

EDIT There is another thread around someplace talking about how to have variable rates. The "surefire" method was to create an identical a/c mod (exactly like the old TBF/TBM in WitP) and set a start date and a rate; this will give you a single step increase and (if you want it) a two step decrease. There was some discussion of creating a new rate with the same a/c id but no one was sure it would work (although no one stepped in as said that it wouldn' work either)

< Message edited by pompack -- 9/2/2009 9:28:17 PM >

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 176
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 9:38:26 PM   
pmelheck1

 

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline 		While what the AI does may not be relevant to you I never play anything other than the AI, and I am completely uninterested in a 2 player game. I want to play with historic levels of aircraft replacement on both sides. The research done for production for the allies seems well researched, also for the Japanese fleet but when it cames to Aircraft and ground production "we don't care" seems to be the issue. I know the team does care and wants the best game about the pacific war out their, I wouldn't be here putting my 2 cents in if I didn't think the team is at least listening. To me this isn't a database issue it's an AI issue. When the AI goes to expand industry if it's at historic levels then stop. Perhaps have a sliding scale thrown in for good measure. and no I don't mean if you capture one more island increase production 10 fold. something akin to if Japan has 20% more resources flowing in than it did historically then increase production 20%. Another option for AI play is to remove control of the factory expansion from AI control and set them to expand based upon historic levels. Production would still occur as normal with regard to heavy industry, engines, airframes, guns, navel yards etc. Allied bombing would disrupt this capability as was done historically. I don't think the AI is tweaked with the scenario editor so editing allied production will just make both sides non historic, the opposite of what I'm looking for. We already know the AI ignores all the new rules and systems that AE put into place but unlimited production as well? A lot of very good things were done with the AI as far as play goes. I can't see this being so huge it can't be overcome. A what if could remain for those folks looking for a "level playing field" rather than the almost one sided production affair it was historically.

< Message edited by mullk -- 9/2/2009 9:46:35 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 177
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 10:32:06 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		It sounds too me like the best strategy for the USN would be:
A: Get all six CVs sunk in Dec, 41 or Jan 42, and wait for them to show up as Essex class CV's sometime in 1943-44, or:
B: Park the Navy in either Pearl or San Fran until 1943-44 and fight only for Pearl. Then when the USN has 15 CVs and the CVL, and the new BB's drive down the IJN throat.

A CV with no planes is not a CV, it is a target, and that is all. If the planes aren't there when you need them, or reasonably so, don't you think someone in WASHDC would have contacted Mr.Grumman and gently asked him to pull in some more shifts? Or, if you wish to hold production until 03/42, then according to records, there will be some 1200 F4Fs roll out of there in about 9-10 months. Do the math!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pmelheck1)
Post #: 178
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 11:00:13 PM   
Walloc

 

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

I read the following

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

I have to admit that I love those cute little biplane dive bombers. By converting or withdrawing every land based dive bomber (USMC flavor) I have been able to maintain at least two SBDs (of some flavor, not necessarily the good ones) in the pool at all times. I don't believe that I ever had more than one unit at less than full strength when I started a raid.

Also I carefully avoided sending my carriers anywhere there might be real opposition (defined as more than 8-10 land-based fighters and never in the same ocean as KB) until May42. I never attacked air bases more than once unless I knew that there were a/c trapped on the ground on damaged bases; flak and ops losses will cripple you quickly. What it comes down to is all the US can afford is about one raid a month against trivial opposition before late summer 42.

Also I found that flying 80% search with the scouts and 0% search with the bombers is a bad idea. I had significantly fewer ops losses when I put up the same number of scouts with 40% search on each; of course it is a lot more work to set up your searches since you have to have each unit search a different short arc compared to a single unit on search.

EDIT: just went back and checked and through 17jun42 my SBD losses (three types) are 40 ops, 14 flak, 0 A2A, 2 ground total 56. Just living is dangerous enough (75%!!), you can't afford to lose any in what is basically pointless raiding (but like most people I feel that I ought to go out and DO SOMETHING in early 42)


Could u give a guestimate on number of sorties ur pilots have flown? aka ops rate and could i use above post in my thread about ops losses.
Ur lost 40 SBD to ops losses and the entire navy SBD ops losses in the war from carriers was 113.
I wana try and point out that the ops loss problem isnt just on catalinas.

Kind regards, and TIA

Rasmus

Edited wrong number

< Message edited by Walloc -- 9/3/2009 12:54:48 AM >

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 179
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/3/2009 12:12:24 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		The AI gets certain bonus' to compensate for it's complete lack of a frontal lobe. In my understanding, these bonus' become more pronouced at higher difficulty settings. Questions pertaining to AI play is for Andymac to answer. However as has been suggested, I'd be careful about transposing vs AI experience onto PBEM play. I would posit that we're yet to see the impact of the various changes to the Japanese situation in AE before a measured assesment can be made.

While always valued, at times players report their findings somewhat in a vacuum, which is understandable. I for my part have a tough enough time understanding the multitude of factors shaping in-game outcomes. However a few lines about a perceived problem (as different from debating broader design issues) can make it difficult to establish causal links. In fact the best thing one could do would probably be to send along a savegame.

Regarding USN replacement levels in particular, as Joe said, the easy part is to establish total production figures and the hard part is to figure out how many of these were allocated to the Pacific theatre. Considering how high-profile this organisation is, at least in the English-speaking world, there's a remarkable dearth of comprehensive, printed OOB data to work from, particularly in regards to carrier
aviation. To my knowledge there's nothing like fx Mauers "World War II Combat Squadrons of the United States Air Force" or the "Army Air Force Statistical Digest World War II" (both available on-line) which together gives one a fairly good insight into the flow of units and a/c to theatre. Apart from Tillman's "U.S.Navy Fighter Squadrons in World War II", I don't know of any single- or multi-volume work covering US non-extant carrier aviation providing the basic "who, what, where, when" of OOB-work.

Hence the present USN/USMC replacement rates, including airframes arriving with units, represents a cautious estimate of aircraft availability to combat units of about 70% of production, but in honesty the only thing I can say with some degree of certainty is that the number would have been less than 100%. Anyone is naturally at liberty to hypothetise a different set of values and/or methodology -
underlying the above is of course the concept of fixed Allied production tied to historical figures, something which as I recall was debated to death several times over on the WitP forum.

Here I might add that the USN carrier air OOB currently in WitP:AE is more or less that of WitP "classic" with a greater emphasis on AI- & user-friendliness than fidelity to history. Once one gets past the first six months or so the OOB bears increasingly little resemblance to history. A historical OOB is (almost) done based on primary documents outlining the location and complement of USN carrier units. It's a
650-odd unit monster with a mess of renaming, resizing, and withdrawals. Leaving aside the question how many players would actually want to wrestle with this thing, the obvious obstacle for implementation is that it would break the AI. However if we where to go down this path the replacement rates would have to be recast to fit the new flow of units.

Whatever the case, in my opinion, and for the sake of argument accepting that there is an non-player related issue, the least desirable path is "arms-race" our way out, being counter to everything we've tried to achieve.

As always, if one has any data that might be helpful in this or any other regard, don't be shy :)

< Message edited by timtom -- 9/3/2009 12:20:33 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.486