RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates

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 A/C prodcution rates

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 A/C prodcution rates

Page: << < prev 53 54 [55] 56 57 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 5:18:14 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Could we please have an authoritative comment on Allied A/C production rates? See the "Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate" thread). I can understand that for AI play balance reasons Japanese A/C production could be boosted. That isn't what concerns me.�I am concerned that the Allied A/C production rates are way off,�by more than an order of magnitude.

For F4F (3s 3as and 4s) I get about 7000+ total production.�I am a little�uncertain as to how many were lend lease but I don't recall hearing that the majority went to Canada nor British units in the Far East. I am pretty sure 90% of them didn't go to the ETO. �That "7000" could be 7500 or 7700 or so. But that is only a 10% error.

At 53/month (counting the recon models in the total to get to 53) that number can be built in 136 months ie by about August 1954.

For total production I get a ratio of about 7700 F4Fs (not to mention about 12,000 F6Fs) to about 11,000 A6M (_all_ A6M models 2>8). That isn't a ratio of 6:1 in favor of the Japanese economy.

I keep being told the Allied A/C prodcution is carefully researched and spot on. How do the Allies get to�7000+ F4Fs?

The problem with this is that with those allied production rates a war of attrition is a winning strategy for Japan and that doesn't seem all correct.

When you did your calculations did you factor in the:

FM-2 - 128 frames per month for 20 months = 2560
FM-1 - 30 frames per month for 10 months = 300
Martlet II - 9 Frames per month for 6 months = 54
Martlet IV - 6 Frames per month for 9 months = 54
F4F-4 - 45 frames per month for 15 months = 675
F4F-3 - 8 Frames per month for 4 months = 32
F4F-3A - 4 frames per month for 4 months = 16
Wildcat V - 9 frames per month for 16 months = 144
Wildcat VI - 12 frames per month till the end lets say 4 = 48

Plus the 229 FM-1s that arrive with units
Plus the 468 FM-2s that arrive with units
Plus the 40 Martlet IIs that arrive with units
Plus the 24 Martlet IVs that arrive with units
Plus the 18 Wildcat V's that arrive with units
Plus the 24 Wilcat VIs that arrive with units
Plus the 94 F4F-3s that start with units
Plus the 33 F4F-3As that arrive with units
Plus the 290 F4F-4s that arrive with units

All of that totals about 5103 frames the player sees in the game.

Add in an additional 800 frames that went to the British - that takes the total to 5900 frames accounted for....

Only 2,000 more frames to account for.... where could these have gone -

Ranger fielded 54 F4Fs for Torch in VF-41 and VF-9, but lost 12 presumably these were replaced...

Later VF-4 on Ranger was equipped with 27 F4F's

VGF-29 on Santee fielded 12 F4F's for Torch but lost 10, presumably these were replaced....

VGF-26 on Sangamon field 12 F4F-s for Torch

...then we have a number of training squadrons on Lake Michigan using F4Fs.

I'll have to lookup additional navy Squadrons in the Atlantic.....I imagine if I try long enough I can account for a fair percentage of the Wildcat production...And if you are truly industrious you can pour through the weekly allocation of US Naval Aircraft on all fronts with the exception of Training - at this website -

http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww-ii/loc-ac/loc-ac.htm

< Message edited by treespider -- 9/10/2009 5:55:57 AM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1621

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 12:41:48 PM

RevRick

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

A most detailed and cogent explication of the question asked, Brother Forest. I recognize that level of detail can become more time consuming than imagined by virtually any of the amateur historians or occasional researchers, or even the most detail oriented auditor, usually resident here. And your presented evidence only concerns one variety of airframe. Neither have I read all of the threads, or messages in the threads about the determination of the level of production/replacement allocated in the game. I simply do not have that kind of time.

Perhaps my primary concern is that from what scant evidence I have seen from running a computer to computer continuous game to reach beyond the initial stages of the Japanese expansion into the Pacific, it appears that the computer gamer (which I virtually exclusively play, also because of time limitations) can manipulate the production level of the game to reach a virtually unlimited supply of whatever airframe desired. On one such date, when I interrupted the game, the computer showed, on Dec 23, 1073 P-40E airframes present for allocation to the allied side of the equation. The USN ships had full complements of all airframes present on their flight decks. Bomber squadrons were almost completely filled out. The IJN side already had 212 A6M2s in production per month, with 260 some odd already allocated for that month or in the pool. At the beginning of the scenarios, the production value was 56, with some 30 in the pool. The Vals were in good shape, nothing to report extraordinary there. But surprisingly, the Kates, with zero production and zero replacement rates, had already produced some 180 completed aircraft ex nihilo. I won't even mention what the dreaded Betty production had grown to, but with initial production of 26/mo., the IJA had 42 in the pool, and had used 114 in the 16 days from the time of Pearl Harbor until 23Dec41.

My question evolves around whether this is what the AI does in a game with me, or is it just a result of the Computer vs. Computer setting, or is it the result of some modifications I made to production values of aircraft on the Allied side? I never touched the IJA side of production, just changed some dates and production values on the USN/USAAF side. By the way, I never changed production of P-40Es to the point that over 1000 aircraft were produced in basically two weeks. But the AI did something, to produce those beastly numbers.. And I wish I had 1000 P-40Es to play with at that early a date.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1622

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 1:53:35 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

A most detailed and cogent explication of the question asked, Brother Forest. I recognize that level of detail can become more time consuming than imagined by virtually any of the amateur historians or occasional researchers, or even the most detail oriented auditor, usually resident here. And your presented evidence only concerns one variety of airframe. Neither have I read all of the threads, or messages in the threads about the determination of the level of production/replacement allocated in the game. I simply do not have that kind of time.

Perhaps my primary concern is that from what scant evidence I have seen from running a computer to computer continuous game to reach beyond the initial stages of the Japanese expansion into the Pacific, it appears that the computer gamer (which I virtually exclusively play, also because of time limitations) can manipulate the production level of the game to reach a virtually unlimited supply of whatever airframe desired. On one such date, when I interrupted the game, the computer showed, on Dec 23, 1073 P-40E airframes present for allocation to the allied side of the equation. The USN ships had full complements of all airframes present on their flight decks. Bomber squadrons were almost completely filled out. The IJN side already had 212 A6M2s in production per month, with 260 some odd already allocated for that month or in the pool. At the beginning of the scenarios, the production value was 56, with some 30 in the pool. The Vals were in good shape, nothing to report extraordinary there. But surprisingly, the Kates, with zero production and zero replacement rates, had already produced some 180 completed aircraft ex nihilo. I won't even mention what the dreaded Betty production had grown to, but with initial production of 26/mo., the IJA had 42 in the pool, and had used 114 in the 16 days from the time of Pearl Harbor until 23Dec41.

My question evolves around whether this is what the AI does in a game with me, or is it just a result of the Computer vs. Computer setting, or is it the result of some modifications I made to production values of aircraft on the Allied side? I never touched the IJA side of production, just changed some dates and production values on the USN/USAAF side. By the way, I never changed production of P-40Es to the point that over 1000 aircraft were produced in basically two weeks. But the AI did something, to produce those beastly numbers.. And I wish I had 1000 P-40Es to play with at that early a date.

Bottomline - a number of assists were provided to the AI...the details of which I do not possess....but needless to say one was in airframe production.

Human players do not receive the assists. I imagine that as various games play themselves out a determination will be made as to whether to further boost or deflate any particular AI assist.

Now as to the hue and cry about human players and Japanese airframe production vs Allied production -

AE is not WitP

The Japanese Human Player in AE will be far more constrained in their industrial expansion simply by the mere fact that they have to feed the industrial beast. In order to feed the beast they need ships to transport resources and oil/ fuel. In order to move the resources and oil/fuel, Ships themselves will need fuel. So any expansion in airframes will necessitate more and more ships running to and fro to feed the beast.This fuel consumption will in turn create a further constriction on Japanese operational capability. IMO its best to let the game play out and see where the experiences of WitP are no longer relevant....rather than simply looking at one narrow aspect and trying to apply experiences to it that no longer apply.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 1623

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 3:03:27 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Treespider for Torch:

Ranger VF-9,VF-41: 27+27 F4F
Sangamon VGF-26: 12 F4F
Santee VGF-29: 14 F4F
Suwanee VGF-27,VGF-28,VGS-30: 11+12+6 F4F

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1624

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 3:11:04 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Treespider for Torch:

Ranger VF-9,VF-41: 27+27 F4F
Sangamon VGF-26: 12 F4F
Santee VGF-29: 14 F4F
Suwanee VGF-27,VGF-28,VGS-30: 11+12+6 F4F

Thanks Dili...but I'm not going to spend the time trying to account for every last Wildcat frame.... I'm going to rely on the fact that we had a fairly top-notch research team and the numbers they came up with will get the human player into the ballpark of what was available for combat units in the Pacific theater.

< Message edited by treespider -- 9/10/2009 3:13:16 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 1625

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 3:34:06 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Well i had just this at hand because of my Witm search...

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1626

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 4:19:10 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Treespider,

Are you saying that the Japanese AI does not have to worry about "feeding the industrial beast" when you point out the Japanese Player does? I'm aware that airframe production was nerfed to give the AI an edge, but if industry in general is not a concern I wonder if I need to rethink my defense strategy.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 1627

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 5:38:57 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Treespider,

Are you saying that the Japanese AI does not have to worry about "feeding the industrial beast" when you point out the Japanese Player does?�

No...I'm saying the Human Player is smarter so doesn't receive some of the assist in certain areas that the AI does (depending on setting)

quote:

I'm aware that airframe production was nerfed to give the AI an edge,

How exactly was it nerfed?

quote:

but if industry in general is not a concern

You shouldn't make that assumption...

quote:

I wonder if I need to rethink my defense strategy.

Why is that? The AI still needs Fuel and Supplies and Resources, and it still needs to move that stuff around.

< Message edited by treespider -- 9/10/2009 5:40:44 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 1628

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 6:09:55 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

It's my understanding that the # of airframes being produced by the Japanese AI is much higher than what Japan produced IRL. The explanation I've read indicates this was done to "help" the AI survive longer in a campaign game.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1629

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/11/2009 1:51:59 PM

RevRick

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

After all the recent discussions, I really hate to be the one to bring this up, HOWEVER, being full of either bravery, brilliance, or bovine scatology, I noticed that on the update, in only one scenario (#1) did the F4F-4 (ducks, looks around, pokes head back up) monthly production/replacement level increase to 45. The rest of the scenarios in my install still have production of 35. I have tried a reinstall, but the song remains the same. (I'll put on my romex suit now!)

< Message edited by RevRick -- 9/11/2009 1:53:56 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 1630

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/11/2009 2:11:51 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

After all the recent discussions, I really hate to be the one to bring this up, HOWEVER, being full of either bravery, brilliance, or bovine scatology, I noticed that on the update, in only one scenario (#1) did the F4F-4 (ducks, looks around, pokes head back up) monthly production/replacement level increase to 45. The rest of the scenarios in my install still have production of 35. I have tried a reinstall, but the song remains the same. (I'll put on my romex suit now!)

Probably an oversight on the part of the person making all of the other database updates included in the Patch.

Won't do you any good for ongoing games - but for new games against the AI - simply make the adjustment in the editor until corrected in Patch 2.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 1631

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/11/2009 3:46:13 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

OUCH. Now you tell. me.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1632

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/11/2009 10:55:27 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

With patch 01 Japanese have 4 different versions for Ki-48 Lily.

Ki-48-Ib as level bomber
Ki-48-IIa as level bomber
Ki-48-IIb as dive bomber
Ki-48-IIc as dive bomber

Seems to be always an upgrade of the same A/C. Is this WAD?

_____________________________

(in reply to rockmedic109)

Post #: 1633

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/11/2009 11:08:22 PM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

Should the Wirraway be classified as a FB instead of a LB? It wasn't very good but just a stop gap measure until more planes were available but did perform cap functions along w/ bombing mission.

(in reply to invernomuto)

Post #: 1634

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/12/2009 11:49:52 AM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

In Scen 6 or 9 why is 488 Squadron still upgradeing to Dutch Hurricanes!

MJT

(in reply to jcjordan)

Post #: 1635

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/12/2009 12:39:24 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

In Scen 6 or 9 why is 488 Squadron still upgradeing to Dutch Hurricanes!

MJT

Probably because they did. A number of aircraft built for the Dutch were taken over by other allied nations. They remain as Dutch aircraft in the game so that a player who doesn't lose the DEI as quickly has the option to use them to upgrade Dutch units instead. (If PDU is enabled)

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1636

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/12/2009 2:17:22 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

In Scen 6 or 9 why is 488 Squadron still upgradeing to Dutch Hurricanes!

MJT

Probably because they did. A number of aircraft built for the Dutch were taken over by other allied nations. They remain as Dutch aircraft in the game so that a player who doesn't lose the DEI as quickly has the option to use them to upgrade Dutch units instead. (If PDU is enabled)

When Pappy Gunn swiped those Dutch B 25's...I wonder if he realized he was simply "upgrading"..?

_____________________________

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 1637

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/12/2009 8:38:30 PM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

Thankyou for your reply.

I would like to know where you get your information since only 2-V1G-IV flew the Hurricane in dutch service (in the far east) and the dutch only had 12 Hurricanes.

My information would suggest that the Hurricanes that 488 Squadron flew were came from HMT sussex unload at Singapore on the 13th January 1942. Therefore they should have British markings.

Many Thanks again

MJT

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 1638

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/12/2009 9:28:59 PM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

The Dutch only received 12 Hurricanes. A quick websearch shows the Dutch ordered 72-100 Hurricanes; most were never delivered to them. This wasn't unusual. The Americans in the Philippines used "Swedish" P-35s in the Philippines. If Swedish forces were in the game the P-35s would be Swedish P-35s even though they were never in Swedish service in real life.

AE was designed by committee and the air team, according to Tim-Tom, decided to make Dutch purchased aircraft Dutch aircraft even if most were IRL delivered elsewhere, because they could have wound up in Dutch service. I don't have any source to prove such was the case with 288 sqn. But just because they were delivered to Singapore doesn't mean that they weren't part of the Dutch order. I was just trying to save the developers from having to answer the 5927th iteration of FAQ #143. If you have firm sources that indicate the Dutch only ordered 12 Hurricanes, by all means feel free to ignore me. I do not pretend to be the final authority, and apologize if I've wasted your time.

Note: If in any way that reply reads offensively, it's really not meant to.

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1639

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/13/2009 12:16:25 AM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

The level of detail in this game boggles the mind. In no other game would or will there be any differentiation of whether an airframe was ordered by one country and used by another. Much appreciated. This is truly the holy grail of wargamers.

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 1640

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/13/2009 10:05:25 AM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The Dutch only received 12 Hurricanes. A quick websearch shows the Dutch ordered 72-100 Hurricanes; most were never delivered to them. This wasn't unusual. The Americans in the Philippines used "Swedish" P-35s in the Philippines. If Swedish forces were in the game the P-35s would be Swedish P-35s even though they were never in Swedish service in real life.

AE was designed by committee and the air team, according to Tim-Tom, decided to make Dutch purchased aircraft Dutch aircraft even if most were IRL delivered elsewhere, because they could have wound up in Dutch service. I don't have any source to prove such was the case with 288 sqn. But just because they were delivered to Singapore doesn't mean that they weren't part of the Dutch order. I was just trying to save the developers from having to answer the 5927th iteration of FAQ #143. If you have firm sources that indicate the Dutch only ordered 12 Hurricanes, by all means feel free to ignore me. I do not pretend to be the final authority, and apologize if I've wasted your time.

Note: If in any way that reply reads offensively, it's really not meant to.

Thanks for coming back to me.
Just so you know please do not think I take Offensive from your comments and yes I am may be wrong.

I have got my information from the Bloody Shambles book1 and Hurricanes over Singapore. I can see no sign in these books that these aircraft were to be used by the Dutch. When I first said about this you will see that they changed the artwork in scen1 to the British Version.

Many Thanks for your Time.

MJT

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 1641

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/13/2009 12:13:52 PM

Roko

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline

what happend with 4th Kokutai ( g4m ) in scenario 1 & 6 ?
i cant find it

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1642

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/14/2009 6:10:32 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

After all the recent discussions, I really hate to be the one to bring this up, HOWEVER, being full of either bravery, brilliance, or bovine scatology, I noticed that on the update, in only one scenario (#1) did the F4F-4 (ducks, looks around, pokes head back up) monthly production/replacement level increase to 45. The rest of the scenarios in my install still have production of 35. I have tried a reinstall, but the song remains the same. (I'll put on my romex suit now!)

Probably an oversight on the part of the person making all of the other database updates included in the Patch.

Won't do you any good for ongoing games - but for new games against the AI - simply make the adjustment in the editor until corrected in Patch 2.

er which is the correct number 35 or 45?

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 1643

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/15/2009 5:36:19 AM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

The historical pilots in the smaller scenarios were never fixed in the new patch...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 9/15/2009 5:37:27 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 1644

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/15/2009 11:48:02 PM

Cathartes

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

er which is the correct number 35 or 45?

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 1645

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/16/2009 2:10:50 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Air Team,

I have a question regarding the withdrawal versus disband function for some US air groups. I noted that some airgroups have both the withdrawal and disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal date process. These are fine as is. There are some groups though that have only a disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal process. Since you lose planes and pilots when you disband these groups, could the air team discuss the rationale between the two different types of mandatory withdrawal? The only reason I can think of with this variance is that we don't want thos pilots and planes to go back into the pool and still maintain historical accuracy of air groups in the US. Is there any thought about changing either the ability to withdraw or perhaps removing the airgroups as not relevant to the game? Appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

Pete

(in reply to Cathartes)

Post #: 1646

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/17/2009 6:44:46 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

Don't seem to have much success getting an answer in the normal forum, so I'm posting this one here.

In the aircraft database, if I multiply cruise speed times endurance divided by 60, why do I not get the same figure as the maximum range?

Could a WitP AE developer please answer? Thank you.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 1647

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/17/2009 7:20:19 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Tallyman62

I also find this annoying. But I assume these are units which are withdrawn, both planes and pilots for use in the MTO or ETO as against those which are "disbanded" back into the pool.

As to not having them in the game, they provide the USA with a viable defence (along with various LCU like 3 Infantry Div) against a rampant JFB in the early days..

I'm being selective about the units I ship into the Pacific, avoiding those which withdraw in 1942, except that I NEED some of them.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 1648

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/17/2009 1:15:43 PM

PeteG662

Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline

Jeff,

Understand the possible use of them for ETO or Med but I seem to recall that should the Japanese try an assault on the mainland there will be an automatic release of significant forces which presumably would encompass aircraft. The forces for this reaction are supposedly not on the map at present but would magically appear should that assault occur.

Since many of these squadrons cannot have their command changed as well as not be withdrawn, they are basically useless for all intents and purposes. They just sit there in the US and clog up the airbases and eat PPs unless disbanded. Maybe I should just disband all of them and lose the planes and pilots and forget about this but figure the Devs should hear some feedback from the rest of us.

Pete

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 1649

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/17/2009 3:57:33 PM

Cathartes

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Air Team,

I have a question regarding the withdrawal versus disband function for some US air groups. I noted that some airgroups have both the withdrawal and disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal date process. These are fine as is. There are some groups though that have only a disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal process. Since you lose planes and pilots when you disband these groups, could the air team discuss the rationale�between the two different types of mandatory withdrawal? The only reason�I can think of�with this variance is that we don't want thos pilots and planes to go back into the pool and still maintain historical accuracy of air groups in the US. Is there any thought about changing�either the ability to withdraw or perhaps removing the airgroups as not relevant to the game? Appreciate your thoughts on this�issue.

Pete��

TimTom is the person you want to accurately comment on this, but here's my stab:

It's a design decision. The air OOB was very complex and historically lots of groups were withdrawn from service, retired, or reorganized over a long period of time. Some groups just disappeared from the Pacific for a very long time and were totally reorganized after a good chunk of time, or not at all, for a host of reasons. These groups are disbanded.

(in reply to PeteG662)

Post #: 1650