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: .02 worth on the DEI

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: .02 worth on the DEI Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 3:28:14 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		11/07/43 to 11/09/43
 
Operation Fort Morris:  The Allied invasion of Ambon is going well and appears to have achieved complete surprise - no opposition by LBA nor combat ships.  The invasion ships encountered mines and shore guns.  Some light ships - primarily AM, SC, and a DD or two - suffered damage.  Overall, though, the landings are going great.  The defense consists of a Guards Division, CD unit, and two base forces - a total of maybe 500 AV.  The Allies already have 900+ AV ashore (all 75%+ prepped) after one day.

The next two-day turn should be more difficult.  Japanese LBA and combat ships should be more active.  I'll withdraw my BBs (since they don't do well in surface combat) and leave behind a good CA/CL force to provide cover.  LRCAP is provided by P-47 and P-38 from Boela.  I don't think there's much doubt about the outcome now.

Other Action in the DEI:  The Sorong TBFs scored at least three bomb hits against CL Oi near Pelelieu; Lautem SBDs badly damaged or sank four PB at Koepang.

Next DEI Targets:  Nearby bases that will be under Allied LBA umbrellas will be next - Koepang and Namlea in particular.  But neither will taken place for awhile.  Reinforcing the effort to take Manikwari is also likely, and that fairly soon.

Sudden Darwin Supply Change:  I think the recent patch changed the supply pipeline to Darwin.  I've had 400k supply there for more than a year.  Now I have 30k and Sydney has 2 million supply.  I'm scrambling to set up more cargo convoys from Sydney to Darwin, but for the next few weeks the supply situation is going to be tough at Darwin and the DEI bases.  This ratchets up the importance of Milne Bay, so that may be the next invasion.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1141
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 3:40:54 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		As for those latter comments about the purpose of the game, I don't agree.  I don't think the game should allow radical departures from historic OOB or capabilities (except where the players select a Scenario Two or Juan's mod, of course).

I think the purpose is to reasonably simulate the capabilities of both sides and then let the commanders select their strategies and vectors of attack and defense.

Neither side should have the ability to develop radically better ships or aircraft or pilots or artillery or subs or ASW.  Permitting such totally changes the game from a simulation to science fiction.

Sure, performance in the game should have an impact.  If the Japanese win some early carrier battles and preserve their pilots, then they should have better pilots later into the war.  But for the Japanese to be able to replace massive pilot and aircraft losses and remain equal to or better than the Allies late into '43 is...silly.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 3/11/2010 3:41:35 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1142
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 4:58:45 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		First, the Coral Sea/Midway comment is inapposite. Shattered Sword has shown conclusively through Japanese sources that the pilot loss at Midway was not that great - certainly the pilots that were lost were the ones lost through A-A combat, not very many were lost with the destruction of the ships. And this AAR has certainly has had comparable pilot losses to RL, though later in time.

quote:

I agree. Indeed, I am not sure why so many AFB's want the Japanese to suffer from the exact same problems as the Japanese did historically. What is the point of a wargame if not to try to correct what you perceive to be your historical counterpart's mistakes? Should the Japanese not be allowed to accelerate CVs because until Midway they were still married to the concept of decisive battle with ships of the line? What if my perception is that this was a mistake and I want to change things to focus on CVs? Should I not be allowed to influence how the war is fought? Why a wargame at all then?


I'm less concerned about the pilot training per se than knowing/suspecting the logistics are off with the Japanese air forces. The part I know is that based on Lundstrom's work, the Japanese have way more ability to maintain their aricraft on the front line than in real life. You just don't have them sidelining and abandoning hundred's of aircraft as took place in the Solomons through maintainence issue. Perhaps later I will find the time to cite the appropriate sections of Lundstrom's work.

The other issue I admit I haven't checked out is a logistical suspicion. This game flies planes on general supplies. This works fine in modelling the Allied side. But I know what did in the German training programs was a lack of avgas. I'm unsure how that worked in the Japanese economy, but I strongly suspect that, whether or not avgas was a constraint at the level of operations IRL, at levels of training done by AE players, avgas would have been a severe constraint.

In other words, if planes flew using rice and bullets as fuel (or perhaps potatoes and bullets for the Germans), I bet the Axis powers would have done a great deal more training than they did IRL.

Unless these factors could be modelled differently in different scenarios (say by a scenario where the service levels of Jap planes is higher), I don't know that I arguing that the changes should be made in the game engine. I'm quite aware that if the Japanese player's armed forces automatically comes to a sputtering halt by mid-1943 you're going to have trouble recruiting Japanese players who just have to sit and take it until the kamikazes come. But I strongly suspect that the making of Japanese air forces into durable tools with long lasting superiority in pilots and airframes is not a historical simulation, but a magical fantasy, like Lords of the Ring.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1143
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 5:56:29 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline 		Well we get the usual debate. Even in AE the Japs are doomed to be defeated eventually, and rightfully so, but if we were to enact too efficiently the conditions of WWII, they would be obliterated by a good player by late 1943...

Clearly the Jap airforce is too powerful, but the game makes the allies too strong as well by letting them set a high tempo to their operations regardless of cost. IRL, the Allies decided that the pacific wasn't that a priority and that they had time on their side.. Had they had to rush to win it, they could have done it, but they took their time, ensuring slow methodical destruction of the japanese while minimising their costs...

Players that conquer the DEI fast but lose tens of thousands of soldiers and sailors doing so see it as a success, IRL it would have been a disaster...

The jap airforce is borked, but if we wanted a proper simulation we would have to have the allies pay some sort of PPs for each loss of capital ship or life resulting in an imposed slowdown in operation..

In the end we have to give the game some leeway. That said I would try to make Airframe production a bit harder to develop for japanese (ie reduce the odds factories can get repaired each turn for example) and slow down pilot training again.


_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 1144
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:08:29 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It makes for a better game if you're looking for non-historic balance. If you want something that resembles WWII - in particular the marked superiority of Allied pilots and aircraft by mid or late '43 - you're out of luck.

Don't overlook IRL that JAP had lost Coral Sea and Midway - your game did not. I do not think it a stretch at all to think that JAP is still holding her own in '43 without those losses.

Just my opinion though ....


Very good point. If, in WWII, Japan had won those two engagements this could have led to the same "delayed" situation that you are experiencing now, Canorebel.
The advantage of having a highly mobile air superiority potential can change a lot from a grand strategic point of view.


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 1145
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:12:29 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		You're right about this delving into the "same old argument," but permit me to say one more thing.  Rather than giving either side "science fiction" advantages, the vanilla game should stick to historic OOB and capabilities.  The game will deviate from history due to the choices made by the players and the effect of luck.  The challenge should be for the Japanese and Allied players to do better than their sides did historically.   Points should be adjusted so that a Japanese player that does better than Japan did wins.  If that's the case the Japanese player doesn't toss in the towel in '43.  He remains energized and focused on the effort to slow the Allied onslaught as much as possible, even though the tides of war have turned.

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 1146
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:31:15 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		11/10/43 and 11/12/43
 
Ambon:  Japanese LBA sorties in big numbers against the Allied shipping at Ambon and puts two TT into CA Astoria and one TT into CLAA San Juan.  However, considering the number of aircraft that came in and the number that were splashed, these strikes were highly ineffective.  Shore guns chewed up more ships.  The initial Allied attack came off at 1:2, forts four, with the Japanese suffering 700 casualties and the Allies 600.  Hmmm, I had expected a little better.  My bombers haven't been doing much, so I'll have to increase the ante.  But unless Miller can reinforce the campaign should end in an Allied victory.  I believe most of the remaining ships can retire now.

Eastern New Guinea:  I think Miller may be evacuating Port Moresby (by land) and Milne Bay (by sea).  Suits me.  Four CVEs making the journey from Noumea to Darwin roughed up a handful of Japanese transports at Milne Bay.  The big U.S. Cavalry Division that will spearhead the Milne Bay landings will arrive at Townsville in just a few days.

Burma:  The RAF shut down Rangoon airfield and the Allies are positioning units on the two roads - one leading to Rangoon, one to Pegu.  If Miller thinks the Allies can take Pegu he might elect to evacuate Rangoon (because the fall of Pegu would isolated Rangoon and cut off his only land route of retreat).  I don't have enough to really force the issue at either base, but there's a chance that a simultaneous move en masse on both bases will appear so ominous that Miller will retreat.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1147
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:40:44 PM   
veji1

 

Posts: 1019
Joined: 7/9/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right about this delving into the "same old argument," but permit me to say one more thing.  Rather than giving either side "science fiction" advantages, the vanilla game should stick to historic OOB and capabilities.  The game will deviate from history due to the choices made by the players and the effect of luck.  The challenge should be for the Japanese and Allied players to do better than their sides did historically.   Points should be adjusted so that a Japanese player that does better than Japan did wins.  If that's the case the Japanese player doesn't toss in the towel in '43.  He remains energized and focused on the effort to slow the Allied onslaught as much as possible, even though the tides of war have turned.


The problem with pure historical OOB is that an allied player will press on so much harder than irl because he knows he can, and doesn't mind that much about the losses... If you stick to purely historical forces the allies will force Japan to commit to a decisive battle or series of battles in early 1943 knowing that they cannot get up after that, and than it's done..

_____________________________

Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1148
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:55:19 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline 		We have the option of playing the "pure historical scenario".

It's scenario one, with PDU off, and reinforcements set to "no variable".

That's the "game" that needs to be played, to compare WITP AE to history.  As long as we engage in fantasies, like Scenario 2, PDU on, reinforcements variable... the comparison is no longer valid.

WE can't say AE is "borked" compared to history when using a non-historical scenario as our basis of comparison.

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 1149
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:55:58 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		I don't believe we can draw any meaningful conclusions about the A2A model and Japanese sustainability from a game in which the Allied player is choosing not to conduct optimised training while his Japanese opponent is undoubtedly doing his very best to optimise training.

It'd be like saying a marathon training regime is brilliant because a marathon runner who followed it beat a couch potato when running a marathon.


Maybe the Japanese are overpowered and excessively sustainable in Scenario 2.... but we can't tell that from a game in which we are comparing one player who trains and another who, frankly, doesn't train his forces sufficiently. That's your choice Canoerebel and that's fine but it also means we can't use your game to tell anything other than the fact that a player who doesn't optimise training will end up with poorer pilots than a player who does.... big surprise!!!

(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 1150
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 6:57:59 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: veji1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

You're right about this delving into the "same old argument," but permit me to say one more thing.  Rather than giving either side "science fiction" advantages, the vanilla game should stick to historic OOB and capabilities.  The game will deviate from history due to the choices made by the players and the effect of luck.  The challenge should be for the Japanese and Allied players to do better than their sides did historically.   Points should be adjusted so that a Japanese player that does better than Japan did wins.  If that's the case the Japanese player doesn't toss in the towel in '43.  He remains energized and focused on the effort to slow the Allied onslaught as much as possible, even though the tides of war have turned.


The problem with pure historical OOB is that an allied player will press on so much harder than irl because he knows he can, and doesn't mind that much about the losses... If you stick to purely historical forces the allies will force Japan to commit to a decisive battle or series of battles in early 1943 knowing that they cannot get up after that, and than it's done..


Exactly! This works both ways, however. Witness the Japanese pushing that much harder - ala "Take PM in late December, because you can" because they exactly how many troops are necessary to invade PM in Dec 41, ETC.

_____________________________


(in reply to veji1)
Post #: 1151
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 7:07:00 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

We have the option of playing the "pure historical scenario".

It's scenario one, with PDU off, and reinforcements set to "no variable".


I disagree with this part. The commanders had great freedom in the use of their airframes. If the various situations were different, they would have made some different choices. For example, if circumstances made P-40's overly scarce, one or more squadrons would have upgraded to P-39's instead of upgrading to P-40's. Locking the players in via PDU Off places an UNhistorical restriction on them.

(in reply to AcePylut)
Post #: 1152
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 7:21:04 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

I don't believe we can draw any meaningful conclusions about the A2A model and Japanese sustainability from a game in which the Allied player is choosing not to conduct optimised training while his Japanese opponent is undoubtedly doing his very best to optimise training.

It'd be like saying a marathon training regime is brilliant because a marathon runner who followed it beat a couch potato when running a marathon.


Maybe the Japanese are overpowered and excessively sustainable in Scenario 2.... but we can't tell that from a game in which we are comparing one player who trains and another who, frankly, doesn't train his forces sufficiently. That's your choice Canoerebel and that's fine but it also means we can't use your game to tell anything other than the fact that a player who doesn't optimise training will end up with poorer pilots than a player who does.... big surprise!!!


A very reasonable point about hasty conclusions on balance.

Nevertheless, to be able to turn around and replace the pilot losses sustained in the Battle of Darwin in 3.5 months with comparable pilots (along with a constant IJA pilot drain) seems way off. I think we know enough to make some conclusions about Japanese air force sustainability. Apparently, it's easy enough that Chickenboy was able to anticipate it based on other AAR's.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1153
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 7:53:17 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

As for those latter comments about the purpose of the game, I don't agree.  I don't think the game should allow radical departures from historic OOB or capabilities (except where the players select a Scenario Two or Juan's mod, of course).

I think the purpose is to reasonably simulate the capabilities of both sides and then let the commanders select their strategies and vectors of attack and defense.

Neither side should have the ability to develop radically better ships or aircraft or pilots or artillery or subs or ASW.  Permitting such totally changes the game from a simulation to science fiction.

Sure, performance in the game should have an impact.  If the Japanese win some early carrier battles and preserve their pilots, then they should have better pilots later into the war.  But for the Japanese to be able to replace massive pilot and aircraft losses and remain equal to or better than the Allies late into '43 is...silly.



Agreed. I want a historical simulation that reflects the realities and limitations faced by both sides in the Pacific. I want both sides to have options but forget the fantasy stuff. Any inbalances can always be corrected by adjusting VPs.



_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1154
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 7:55:04 PM   
jrlans


Posts: 180
Joined: 8/27/2005
From: Los Angeles, CA
Status: offline 		The thing is, it is quite possible to be training replacements from 12/8/41 and just throwing them in to the reserve pool. If you assume 4 months per green pilot to train to 70 how many possible replacements pilots can be trained in 2 years. I would say more than enough to cover the losses of a major battle perhaps even two.
The only "solution" i see to this is to increase op losses from training. At least make the Japanese economy feel some of the cruch of pilot training. As it is now i can train a full batch of pilots for maybe a plane.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 1155
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 7:56:59 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		wpurdom, sure we can say the Japanese pilot base is sustainable IF they commit a large majority of their forces to training on-map.... In reality if Japan had really done this / been allowed to do this by a single axis advance then they might have achieved the same results.

You can't fight Japan along a single axis. To do so is to court this sort of outcome. You may have a primary axis of resistance but it must be supported by judiciously applied attrition etc along other axes.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1156
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/11/2010 8:01:48 PM   
AcePylut


Posts: 1494
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

We have the option of playing the "pure historical scenario".

It's scenario one, with PDU off, and reinforcements set to "no variable".


I disagree with this part. The commanders had great freedom in the use of their airframes. If the various situations were different, they would have made some different choices. For example, if circumstances made P-40's overly scarce, one or more squadrons would have upgraded to P-39's instead of upgrading to P-40's. Locking the players in via PDU Off places an UNhistorical restriction on them.


Flip side: Prevents 200 Zeros/Oscars/Tojo's and no Tony's. Just like "you" can't say "oh damn, lost all my DD's and it's 1942, well oh well, I'll just click on this button and make another 100 of them", you shouldn't be able to -- in a match comparing AE to history -- be able to do it with aircraft WITP. Leave it off, pay more attention to "your" assets. If "you" put your P40's in the front line until you use up all airframes in existance, that's "your" problem created by "your" choice to run your P40's into the ground.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1157
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/11/2010 8:06:00 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Just sent this email to Miller:

"Scenario Two means that the Japanese are at least equal in power to the Allies in late '43 (and how far into '44 I don't know).  In ships, in aircraft, in pilot quality, and in ground troops the Japanese can match or exceed the Allies.  That makes for a balanced game, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to World War II."




Yep, as I said before, I am glad to watch your game taking place so far ahead of mine. I am playing scen 2 with one day turns and only have made it to 8/42. But you have shown that I should be playing for a 1946 win. I don't think my air will dominate in 1943, so will plan to be a bit more methodical. Thanks for taking the bullet for all the rest of us.......




_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1158
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/11/2010 8:46:37 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I am doing my best to accurately report the game - the good, the bad, the ugly.  I know my frustrations with certain aspects have been noted.  My hope is that this helps players see what's coming (as crsutton kindly says) and helps present to the developers situations that may need looking at. 

But I don't know if I've done a very good job of conveying how enthralled I am by the game - not ony AE, but the terrific fight that Miller is putting up.  Despite bumps and bruises and woes of various sorts, this game is a BLAST!

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1159
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/11/2010 8:55:48 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline 		Bravo.

That's why I'm a little leery of forcing the IJ player into historic constraints without a lot of careful thought - the game might become a drudge, rather than a blast after mid-1943.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1160
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/11/2010 9:16:19 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		11/13/43 and 11/14/43
 
Ambon:  The Allies wrap up the amphibious phase with a few more shore gun casualties.  No appearance by LBA or combat ships.  This Allied attack comes off at 1:2 but drops forts from 4 to 3 and results in 900 IJA to 500 Allied casualties.  These are good developments and suggest that Ambon may fall within a week.

Manikwari:  Miller is reinforcing, but an IJN fast transport CL/DD force got caught there in daylight hours.  TBF scored hits on CL Yubari, CLAA Tatsuti, CL Kitakami, CL Oyoda.  Most of them took multiple hits and all were seen "afire."  This is further attrition on the IJN CA/CL force that has taken some licks over the past two weeks.  I don't think the Japanese can effectively reinforce Mani given its proximity to Sorong and Babo, but we'll see.

Milne Bay:  The ground troops have arrived at Townsville and the transports are on the way from the recent Ambon invasion.  I want to use APAs because they unload all troops and supplies in a lightning quick two days.  The invasion will be covered by at least four CVEs.  I don't expect to encounter carriers (surely Miller is focused on the DEI, especially after the move on Ambon?).

Battle of Morotai Cripples:  Most of the capital ships are nearing Townsville now and should be out of harm's way barring IJN sub activity.  Alot of heavies will be heading to the west coast.  None of the CVs or BBs have more than moderate damage (on the light side of moderate at that), but it will take some time to get them from here to there.

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 1161
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/12/2010 6:48:07 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I am doing my best to accurately report the game - the good, the bad, the ugly.  I know my frustrations with certain aspects have been noted.  My hope is that this helps players see what's coming (as crsutton kindly says) and helps present to the developers situations that may need looking at. 

But I don't know if I've done a very good job of conveying how enthralled I am by the game - not ony AE, but the terrific fight that Miller is putting up.  Despite bumps and bruises and woes of various sorts, this game is a BLAST!


Your devotion for and fun with the game are obvious and as I said in your "tip to the hat" thread after the CV battle, I really like reading your AAR.

I tend to agree with Nemo121 and PaxMondo though. You cannot draw conclusions to overall pilot quality or compare the game progress to history when the two major
CV battles are missing that favoured the Allied side, and your pilot training program is much less detailed than Miller´s is.

If you look at all the other AAR´s here then we already have a nice collection of "what if" alternate histories.

Aussies vs. Amis with their nasty forward defense were on the countermove from day one and at the moment it looks
as if Japan could be beaten earlier than historical.
Aztez vs. Erstad has witnessed a much larger Japanese expansion than in history and you still have a bloodred map in ´43.
Q-ball vs. Cuttlefish had some major engagements that turned out the other way and now in early ´43 Q-ball has a foothold
in the Celebes.

Not a single of those AAR´s in itself is representative for game balance.

Each AAR, while all players are competent to a level where its a bit hard to decide who is really the stronger player,
had unique situations that turned tides, and either accellerated the Japanese demise or supported its expansion far over historical borders.

Though I understand that its hard to develop this point of view when you are directly involved into the campaign.


_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1162
We're Not In Kansas Any More - 3/12/2010 1:51:02 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		There have been carrier air battles in our game equivalent to Coral Sea and Midway - at least four of them over the last five months.  No, the Japanese didn't lose six carriers, but they did lose well over 1,000 aircraft in the few months before the recent engagement - 200+ at Adak Island (6/43), 500+ at Darwin (7/ or 8/43), and 200+ in the DEI (10/43).  All of these were raids over distant Allied ports or carriers, so I *assume* most of those pilots were lost too.

Then the Japanese lost something between 500 and 1,000 aircraft in the recent engagement, though I'm not sure the pilot mortality would be as high since the battle took place near Japanese carriers and bases.

I'm saying that there should be no way for the Japanese to replace very high pilot losses over a few months and still maintain high pilot quality, but that's what's happening.

It's not Scenario Two that's causing this.  Miller says he began the game with higher pilot quality, but that those guys have long since died.  He says pilot experience and training has been the same as in Scenario One for most of the game.

He says he's able to quickly train new pilots to high skill levels.

So you guys tell me:  Is it reasonable for the Japanese to lose about 1,000 carrier pilots over four or five months and still maintain high pilot quality? 


< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 3/12/2010 2:02:41 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 1163
RE: We're Not In Kansas Any More - 3/12/2010 2:01:43 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		I admit, however, that I am puzzled about Allied pilot quality. I am really having trouble in this regard and would appreciate comments or suggestions.  A few points:

1)  Allied fighter pilots are mostly in good shape - LBA fighter pilots in the eastern DEI are mostly in the high 60s and low 70s, so that seems acceptable.

2)  Fighter pilots seem to gain decent experience at frontline bases just by flying CAP and perhaps dealing with the occasional enemy recon or patrol aircraft.

3)  Experience increases for fighter pilots training in rear areas is agonizlingly slow.  I've had two USAAF squadrons training at Charters Towers for well over six months and pilots in both are still in the 40s.

4)  Unopposed, low-risk bombing runs do not seem to help train bomber crews.  I've had B-25 and B-26 squadrons flying unopposed raids against Port Moresby and Milne Bay for a year now.  Pilot experience in those crews is in the high 40s to high 50s (one squadron is in the high 30s, but it's possible it hasn't been on the front lines long). Am I right that unopposed combat doesn't seem to train bomber crews well?

5)  Training for bomber squadrons is also agonizlingly slow.

6)  Nearly all of my front line bomber squadrons - even the big 4EB that have seen action regularly for a year - have crew experience ranging from the 30s to the 50s.  None of these are higher than that.

7)  To summarize - I am using both training, "milk run" raids, and "real combat" to train pilots.  None of these works very well for bomber crews and only front line duty seems to work for fighter crews.

8)  To my knowledge the only thing I haven't been doing is utilizing the Traning Command feature.  I have recently transferred a few high experience fighter pilots to training command.  Not sure yet if I really want to commit to that level of micromanagement.

9)  Is there anything else I'm overlooking?  If not is the failure to use training command enough to account for my pilot experience woes?

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1164
RE: .02 worth on the DEI - 3/12/2010 2:15:50 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
You can't fight Japan along a single axis. To do so is to court this sort of outcome. You may have a primary axis of resistance but it must be supported by judiciously applied attrition etc along other axes.


This is an example of a generality that has many exceptions.

I fought along a single axis of advance in both of my WitP games and won both - one in August '44 and the second in December '44.

In this game I'm largely confined to a single access of advance and the Allies are doing decently, I'd say. Holding most of the eastern DEI by the end of 1943 isn't that bad. And I feel pretty confident about the future.

Of course, no game is entirely singe axis. There are always side missions and commitments elsewhere to one degree or another. In this game, for instance, I committed to a major axis of advance through NoPac, but was rebuffed. I'm also doing some smaller things in SoPac (and soon in New Guinea).

But it is certainly possible for the Allies to move on a singe vector. (One of my WitP opponents said he didn't think it was possible until I did so and beat him).

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 3/12/2010 2:16:11 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1165
RE: We're Not In Kansas Any More - 3/12/2010 2:37:24 PM   
modrow

 

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline 		Canoerebel,

here's my take on things - to be used with great caution. Actually, if I am mistaken I request to be corrected, so I don't make my mistakes too long...

There's a number of points to bear in mind:

a) what you don't mention is the possibility to train pilots and send them back to the pool when trained. As I understand this so far (which may be wrong, my game is not sufficiently old, anyone who knows the real drill please say so), this is what to do

I) Fill your training squadrons (e.g. the ones permanently restricted to West Coast or other places far away from the frontline) with pilots until the option is greyed out.

II) Train those squadrons

III) Once you reach the desired skill levels for a given pilot, rotate him out of the unit. I think there is a 180 day delay before he is available again, but after those 180 days, you will have a pilot who is trained already. Of course, you refill the unit and go on training...

b) Training on the map was bugged for a while. In general, it works only if your pilot loss rate is sufficiently small. Nemo wrote a post somewhere which outlines this problem in more detail, including downward spirals of quality that may occur, unfortunately I don't recall where and when.

c) There is a difference between the skill and the overall exp values. I think overall exp can reach some levels only by combat missions, but the skill value is honed by training. It is important to have a reasonable skill value to complete the mission.

d) Reportedly (cannot confirm this yet, would be glad to hear other people's take on things) the presence of veterans in the squadron which trains may improve training results. AFAIK, the alternative approach of sending the veterans to TRACOM shortens the time span until the rookies are available as replacement pilots.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I admit, however, that I am puzzled about Allied pilot quality. I am really having trouble in this regard and would appreciate comments or suggestions.  A few points:

1)  Allied fighter pilots are mostly in good shape - LBA fighter pilots in the eastern DEI are mostly in the high 60s and low 70s, so that seems acceptable.

2)  Fighter pilots seem to gain decent experience at frontline bases just by flying CAP and perhaps dealing with the occasional enemy recon or patrol aircraft.

3)  Experience increases for fighter pilots training in rear areas is agonizlingly slow.  I've had two USAAF squadrons training at Charters Towers for well over six months and pilots in both are still in the 40s.

4)  Unopposed, low-risk bombing runs do not seem to help train bomber crews.  I've had B-25 and B-26 squadrons flying unopposed raids against Port Moresby and Milne Bay for a year now.  Pilot experience in those crews is in the high 40s to high 50s (one squadron is in the high 30s, but it's possible it hasn't been on the front lines long). Am I right that unopposed combat doesn't seem to train bomber crews well?

5)  Training for bomber squadrons is also agonizlingly slow.

6)  Nearly all of my front line bomber squadrons - even the big 4EB that have seen action regularly for a year - have crew experience ranging from the 30s to the 50s.  None of these are higher than that.

7)  To summarize - I am using both training, "milk run" raids, and "real combat" to train pilots.  None of these works very well for bomber crews and only front line duty seems to work for fighter crews.

8)  To my knowledge the only thing I haven't been doing is utilizing the Traning Command feature.  I have recently transferred a few high experience fighter pilots to training command.  Not sure yet if I really want to commit to that level of micromanagement.

9)  Is there anything else I'm overlooking?  If not is the failure to use training command enough to account for my pilot experience woes?



< Message edited by hartwig.modrow -- 3/12/2010 2:39:29 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1166
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/12/2010 3:18:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

Bravo.

That's why I'm a little leery of forcing the IJ player into historic constraints without a lot of careful thought - the game might become a drudge, rather than a blast after mid-1943.



Yes, there is a trade off and quite frankly a strictly historical game would mean a game against the AI as nobody would want to play Japan. Hats off to those JFBs out there.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 1167
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/12/2010 3:27:22 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


Battle of Morotai Cripples:  Most of the capital ships are nearing Townsville now and should be out of harm's way barring IJN sub activity.  Alot of heavies will be heading to the west coast.  None of the CVs or BBs have more than moderate damage (on the light side of moderate at that), but it will take some time to get them from here to there.



This might be the one major problem with a DEI campaign. Your injured ships are in the worst location repair wise. There might be some good reasons for a Central Pacifc campaign. One is the proximity of supplies and repair. The other is it becomes more of a carrier and ship war as the use of LBA air is more restrictive. The DEI is a great place to get a toe hold but as Miller showed us all, a great place to spring a massive trap with combined land and naval air.

Still, the Allies need more than one front and the DEI in an important one. But perhaps with some serious knocking on the CenPac door, the Japanese player just could not keep his carriers in the DEI.

It really is a chess game, this AE....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 1168
RE: A Non-Historic Luxury - 3/12/2010 3:34:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		Yes, distance to the big shipyards is a consideration.

There are plusses and minuses to a DEI-centered campaign, but I sure like doing it this way! 

As for the hartwig's helpful pilot-training comments, two things:  (1) Yikes at the micromanagement needed, and (2) my green pilots in the west coast squadrons haven't gained much experience even after two years of training.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 3/12/2010 3:35:01 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 1169
RE: We're Not In Kansas Any More - 3/12/2010 3:39:57 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		You've been playing AE longer than me, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but here's my take.

I don't think the failure to use TRACOM alone explains your woes. It certainly would help a bit, and it's not hard to do. It's a no-brainer for high-experience pilots sitting around in rear-area units, such as restricted-command squadrons with lots of high-experience pilots. If you have any units like that, move most (not all) to TRACOM and fill them up with untrained pilots. (Leave a few highly-trained pilots in the squadron to train the untrained pilots joining them.) The guys in TRACOM will train newbies a bit more efficiently, and your squadron will train new pilots who can eventually be moved to general or group reserve, for transfer to other squadrons.

You mentioned slow-learning fighter pilots. Are they at least improving their "Air" skills? Those skills should be rising pretty fast, even if overall experience isn't. Experience is important, as it governs things like the possibility of operational loss or crash landings. But it's not the sole all-important variable as it was in WITP. Also, what % of Training are you using? You should set it pretty high (70-80% maybe), but be prepared to reduce that percentage, or stand them down for a turn, if you see morale or fatigue problems.

I don't know if the Allies have any tiny carrier-capable squadrons that are assigned to rear areas. Japan does, and a standard tactic for us is to expand them by placing them on a CV or CVL for a turn and choosing 'expand to fit ship.' Then we remove them, fill them with rookie pilots, and let them train like crazy.

On combat, I'll have to check my bombers, but I recall seeing experience increases with fighter pilots engaged in sweeps, even for very high-experience fighters. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen experience increases without commensurate skill increases -- the very opposite of what I usually see from training alone. Bombers flying ASW and Search improve those skills steadily, but not so much experience, which increases (by design) more slowly than skills.

One consolation for you about Scenario 2. It certainly does give Japan a bigger pool of pilots -- but that has a hidden cost, one that I wasn't aware of until yesterday. The Japanese player pays a hefty "heavy industry tax" on all those extra pilots -- almost twice what Japan pays in Scenario 1. By 1944, Japan has to fund 111,000 heavy industry a *month* in pilot-training costs, with no apparent way to reduce that cost -- Japan is stuck with thousands of useless pilots she'll never use. I'm still crunching numbers, but my initial take is that the "tax" on all those unused pilots more than cancels out the extra resources/oil/supply/fuel Japan gets at the start of Scenario 2. I'd frankly rather be rid of half of them -- they get me nothing and cost me a ton.

Apart from that, you're right that Scenario 2 gives Japan some more toys. Japan gets a few more air squadrons and aircraft too, though not a huge increase over Scenario 1. I see only a couple minor extra ground units (e.g., militia in Vietnam), and some extra escorts and merchant ships. I guess there's now the possibility of building both Musashi and a Taiho-class version of Shinano, plus some more escorts, but I'm not sure I see any other significant increase in ship availability (but I might be missing something). Still, if Japan can use those extra toys to conquer more than she would have otherwise, then I suppose those conquests will help pay for the higher pilot-training "tax."

_____________________________


(in reply to modrow)
Post #: 1170
Page:   <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: .02 worth on the DEI Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   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

0.953