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: Long Term Aircraft Plan

 
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: Long Term Aircraft Plan Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 12:42:54 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

2 months of the B29 without having the Nick D and those squadrons for coverage. You can use FB, the Dinah fighter is good too at night, but not ideal.



B-29 arrives in 2/44 ? Since I have never played into 44 I have no idea when the big boys arrive...

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 331
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:03:50 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		So I have all these air units in Kwangtung and Japan training my pilot with obsolete models and as few aircraft as possible in the unit. Should I be slowly upgrading these and filling them out with newer models ? or should I leave them alone until late 43 then fill them up ?

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 332
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:10:03 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
So I have all these air units in Kwangtung and Japan training my pilot with obsolete models and as few aircraft as possible in the unit. Should I be slowly upgrading these and filling them out with newer models ? or should I leave them alone until late 43 then fill them up ?

Fill them up as soon as frames are available. Whatever frames. The myth of training not needing frames is long debunked, the speed of training is proportional to the numberf of airftames in a unit

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 333
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:28:58 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
So I have all these air units in Kwangtung and Japan training my pilot with obsolete models and as few aircraft as possible in the unit. Should I be slowly upgrading these and filling them out with newer models ? or should I leave them alone until late 43 then fill them up ?

Fill them up as soon as frames are available. Whatever frames. The myth of training not needing frames is long debunked, the speed of training is proportional to the numberf of airftames in a unit

Michael stated that the experience gained during training is influenced by the number of aircraft. IIRC the other skills either not or less influenced. So fill them when you can, but at least put in as many as practicable.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 334
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:41:34 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline 		Skill gains are influenced by the number of planes in a unit, and the number of pilots. If you have more pilots than planes, the probability of each pilot gaining a skill rank, experience, and defense drops significantly.

Fill out your training squadrons with planes and pilots, but I think it is best not to put reserve pilots in the squadrons. Pilot training is so important to Japan. Every opportunity to train should be used: not just the squadrons in Korea and on Honshu, but squadrons in theaters that have gone quiet for a few days, once all of aircraft in the squadron have been serviced.

The allies eventually can rely on speed, numbers, and altitude to gain the initiative in most engagements. They do not need superb pilots. They need to build a large pool of good pilots. The Japanese must have superb pilots.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 335
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:43:09 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
So I have all these air units in Kwangtung and Japan training my pilot with obsolete models and as few aircraft as possible in the unit. Should I be slowly upgrading these and filling them out with newer models ? or should I leave them alone until late 43 then fill them up ?

Fill them up as soon as frames are available. Whatever frames. The myth of training not needing frames is long debunked, the speed of training is proportional to the numberf of airftames in a unit


I consistently get widespread daily training increases in units with 0, 1 or only 2 airframes in them. Below is a screenshot of a unit with 1 airframe only in it which last turn had 11 pilots showing up green.

Alfred




Attachment (1)

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 336
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:54:02 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


I consistently get widespread daily training increases in units with 0, 1 or only 2 airframes in them. Below is a screenshot of a unit with 1 airframe only in it which last turn had 11 pilots showing up green.

Alfred





This would go with what witpqs said above about experience gain - as you have a lot of skill gain but no experience gains along with it. I wonder if anyone has done testing to verify?

Xargun

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 337
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 2:58:06 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
So I have all these air units in Kwangtung and Japan training my pilot with obsolete models and as few aircraft as possible in the unit. Should I be slowly upgrading these and filling them out with newer models ? or should I leave them alone until late 43 then fill them up ?

Fill them up as soon as frames are available. Whatever frames. The myth of training not needing frames is long debunked, the speed of training is proportional to the numberf of airftames in a unit


I consistently get widespread daily training increases in units with 0, 1 or only 2 airframes in them. Below is a screenshot of a unit with 1 airframe only in it which last turn had 11 pilots showing up green.

Alfred






Yes, but at those ranks and at that experience level, if the squadron were fully equipped with planes, nearly every pilot would be in the green every day provided they had acceptable leadership and supply.

Also, that is for allies, who often do not have airframes to fill out some squadrons. It is not as critically important to the allied effort to maximize training. For Japan, there is no reason not to have all squadrons filled out in 1942.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 5/9/2017 3:00:05 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 338
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 3:01:12 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		I have many units with 1-2 planes. I will fill one with aircraft and leave one alone and give them some time and see what I get. Will post results.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 339
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 3:04:28 PM   
Yakface


Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline 		I ran some tests of training over the course of 1 month of game time. Put 5 groups with 1 plane (and 25 pilots) and 5 groups with 25 planes and 25 pilots. Executive summary - groups with the 25 planes trained to much higher levels than those with just 1. It is not eay to quantify exactly how much as training follows a curve rather than line (takes very little time to take a skill from 30 to 40 but a great deal to go from 60 to 70).

Pilots will still train even with no planes available to them. However fewer will see gains and those gains will be smaller.

Experience is difficult to train except by putting pilots on CAP (100%, 0 range). I routinely transfer by bomber pilots to fighters/float planes in order to do this (once they have achieved desired level in their appropriate skill/defence).


(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 340
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 3:11:49 PM   
Yakface


Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
So I have all these air units in Kwangtung and Japan training my pilot with obsolete models and as few aircraft as possible in the unit. Should I be slowly upgrading these and filling them out with newer models ? or should I leave them alone until late 43 then fill them up ?

Fill them up as soon as frames are available. Whatever frames. The myth of training not needing frames is long debunked, the speed of training is proportional to the numberf of airftames in a unit


I consistently get widespread daily training increases in units with 0, 1 or only 2 airframes in them. Below is a screenshot of a unit with 1 airframe only in it which last turn had 11 pilots showing up green.

Alfred






Yes, but at those ranks and at that experience level, if the squadron were fully equipped with planes, nearly every pilot would be in the green every day provided they had acceptable leadership and supply.

Also, that is for allies, who often do not have airframes to fill out some squadrons. It is not as critically important to the allied effort to maximize training. For Japan, there is no reason not to have all squadrons filled out in 1942.


Aurorus is essentially correct, thought I would qualify it somewhat. When pilots (with sufficient planes) have low skill levels (30-50) in the skill being trained you will often see all or almost all make a skill gain in a day of training. As skill levels rise, so frequency and size of gains go down. A fully planed group with pilots in the sixties will probably only see sub 20% of the pilots make a gain in a day. High sixties - even less. A group without planes with skills in the sixties will see far fewer gains

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 341
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 3:14:48 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

I have many units with 1-2 planes. I will fill one with aircraft and leave one alone and give them some time and see what I get. Will post results.




For every fighter squadron, be sure to have one pilot with 81+ experience in the squadron. This is not possible, most of the time, for bomber units, except for a few large torpedo bomber training squadrons. Also try to find a decent squadron leader with good leadership. You can sometimes use a random pilot leader, who always seem to have high leadership, but very low air and aggression. These leaders will slowly gain skill ranks in their leadership attributes and can become very good squadron leaders much later in the game (after a year or so of leading a training squadron).

One last thing, a base will sometimes just stop, or greatly reduce, training for every squadron based there. This can happen for a variety of reasons. The most common reason is because the base is trying to maintain a fixed supply level, while expanding industry, the airfield, the port, or fortifications. In these cases, rebase the aircraft until the base returns to a normal state.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 342
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 3:35:27 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		Looks like I have some training cleanup and adjustments to make this evening...

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 343
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 3:43:51 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun


This would go with what witpqs said above about experience gain - as you have a lot of skill gain but no experience gains along with it. I wonder if anyone has done testing to verify?

Xargun




I do not have any hard numbers to support my case, but in my experience, pilot experience will increase more rapidly in a squadron with an 81+ exp. pilot embedded in the squadron as an "instructor." Embedding these "instructors" in the squadron has little effect on early skill gains: i.e. up to level 50. After that, however, squadrons with an embedded instructor will gain ranks more quickly... i.e. 60 to 70 than those without an instructor. Again, this is just based on my trials and errors playing the AI and a couple of PBEMs that did not get into the late years of the war.

One great advantage of playing the Ironman AIs is that it demands that a player develop "best practices" for pilot training, because the airwar is so intense.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 344
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 5:09:38 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		Since I cannot cut and paste into Paint I typed up my current R&D setup - comments please.

Base Aircraft Size
Hiroshima A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Maebashi A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Nagoya A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Tsu A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Yokohama A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Maebashi A7M2 Sam 2(11)-rd(6/45)
Okayama A7M2 Sam 2(2)-rd(6/45)
Okayama A7M2 Sam 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Tsu A7M2 Sam 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Tsu A7M2 Sam 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Hiroshima B6N1 Jill 1(1)-rd(3/43)
Maebashi B6N1 Jill 13(1)-rd(3/43)
Maebashi B6N1 Jill 4(1)-rd(3/43)
Nagasaki B6N1 Jill 4(2)-rd(3/43)
Hiroshima D4Y1 Judy 9(1)-rd(1/43)
Nagoya D4Y1 Judy 12(8)-rd(1/43)
Okayama D4Y1 Judy 8(2)-rd(1/43)
Tsu D4Y1 Judy 8(2)-rd(1/43)
Tsu D4Y1 Judy 5(5)-rd(1/43)
Kobe J7W1 Shinden 1(1)-rd(12/45)
Maebashi J7W1 Shinden 1(6)-rd(12/45)
Tsu J7W1 Shinden 1(1)-rd(12/45)
Yokohama J7W1 Shinden 1(6)-rd(12/45)
Gifu Ki-100-I Tony 30(0)-rd(3/45)
Hamamatsu Ki-115a Tsurugi 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Nagaoka Ki-115a Tsurugi 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Utsonomiya Ki-115a Tsurugi 1(1)-rd(6/45)
Hachinohe Ki-115a Tsurugi 6(25)-rd(6/45)
Hamamatsu Ki-44-IIc Tojo 30(0)-rd(10/43)
Kobe Ki-44-IIc Tojo 30(0)-rd(10/43)
Maebashi Ki-44-IIc Tojo 30(0)-rd(10/43)
Hamamatsu Ki-46-III KAI Dinah 0(2)-rd(10/44)
Maebashi Ki-46-III KAI Dinah 0(2)-rd(10/44)
Toyama Ki-46-III KAI Dinah 0(2)-rd(10/44)
Tokyo Ki-49-IIb Helen 30(0)-rd(5/43)
Tokyo Ki-49-IIb Helen 30(0)-rd(5/43)
Yokohama Ki-49-IIb Helen 30(0)-rd(5/43)
Nagasaki Ki-61-Ia Tony 18(2)-rd(11/42)
Tokyo Ki-61-Ia Tony 11(9)-rd(11/42)
Tsu Ki-61-Ia Tony 7(3)-rd(11/42)
Gifu Ki-61-Ia Tony 14(6)-rd(11/42)
Nagoya Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy 2(8)-rd(5/44)
Tsu Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy 4(6)-rd(5/44)
Hamatsu Ki-83 0(2)-rd(10/45)
Sendai Ki-83 0(2)-rd(10/45)
Tokyo Ki-83 1(5)-rd(10/45)
Tokyo Ki-83 0(2)-rd(10/45)
Hamatsu Ki-84a Frank 0(2)-rd(1/44)
Maebashi Ki-84a Frank 18(37)-rd(1/44)
Maebashi Ki-84a Frank 5(5)-rd(1/44)
Utsonomiya Ki-84a Frank 1(1)-rd(1/44)
Utsonomiya Ki-84a Frank 0(2)-rd(1/44)
Gifu Ki-84a Frank 0(6)-rd(1/44)
Kobe N1K1-J George 5(5)-rd(7/43)
Kobe N1K1-J George 1(9)-rd(7/43)
Okayama N1K1-J George 0(10)-rd(7/43)
Osaka N1K1-J George 4(6)-rd(7/43)
Osaka N1K1-J George 6(4)-rd(7/43)
Yokohama N1K1-J George 1(9)-rd(7/43)
Gifu N1K1-J George 1(9)-rd(7/43)
Maebashi P1Y1 Frances 7(4)-rd(8/43)
Osaka P1Y1 Frances 0(10)-rd(8/43)
Nagaoka P1Y2-S Frances 0(2)-rd(11/44)
Osaka P1Y2-S Frances 0(3)-rd(11/44)

Formatting looks so nice in edit mode, but when I save it all the spaces are removed :(

< Message edited by Xargun -- 5/9/2017 5:10:27 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 345
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 5:18:51 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
This would go with what witpqs said above about experience gain - as you have a lot of skill gain but no experience gains along with it. I wonder if anyone has done testing to verify?

Lots testing done, and different people too
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4215656

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
I consistently get widespread daily training increases in units with 0, 1 or only 2 airframes in them. Below is a screenshot of a unit with 1 airframe only in it which last turn had 11 pilots showing up green.
Alfred

Pilot Addendum, InfiniteMonkey's research and my observations to some extent all hint at several different factors contributing to that daily +1 in skill. "Proportional" increase in speed I used is only applied to the part dependent on pilots flying, not on other bonuses like from a leader. I should've mentioned that to avoid confusion, yes

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 5/9/2017 5:28:00 PM >

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 346
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 5:53:51 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Pilot Addendum, InfiniteMonkey's research and my observations to some extent all hint at several different factors contributing to that daily +1 in skill. "Proportional" increase in speed I used is only applied to the part dependent on pilots flying, not on other bonuses like from a leader. I should've mentioned that to avoid confusion, yes



Basically, in my less-than-scientific experience, everything that InfiniteMonkey posts in this thread is correct. What concerns me, more than pilot experience, however, is defense.

Whenever a plane is engaged by an enemy, that plane makes a defense check. I read this somewhere, but cannot find the thread at this point. It confirms my experience watching combat replays, where pilots often "avoid" an initial attack. I think it is in one of the new player threads. This is very important for Japan, because Japanese players should be giving the allies altitude advantage often. It is not as important for the allies.

Again, I have no hard numbers to verify my experience, but defense gains are affected by the same things that affect experience gains. Each time a pilot has a chance to gain a skill (even if they fail the roll to gain the skill point), they also have a chance to gain a point of defense. There seems to be a bonus to this roll at altitudes below 5K. So I often set up some remedial training programs for fighter pilots who reach 55 exp. or so, 65+ air, 60+ Strafe, and a low bombing skill without reaching 70 defense. Training above 70 defense is very difficult and not worth pursuing. Unlike experience, defense rarely increases after the pilot is out of training an in service.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 347
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 6:05:46 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Since I cannot cut and paste into Paint I typed up my current R&D setup - comments please.

Base Aircraft Size
Hiroshima A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Maebashi A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Nagoya A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Tsu A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Yokohama A6M5c Zero 30(0)-rd(7/43)
Maebashi A7M2 Sam 2(11)-rd(6/45)
Okayama A7M2 Sam 2(2)-rd(6/45)
Okayama A7M2 Sam 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Tsu A7M2 Sam 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Tsu A7M2 Sam 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Hiroshima B6N1 Jill 1(1)-rd(3/43)
Maebashi B6N1 Jill 13(1)-rd(3/43)
Maebashi B6N1 Jill 4(1)-rd(3/43)
Nagasaki B6N1 Jill 4(2)-rd(3/43)
Hiroshima D4Y1 Judy 9(1)-rd(1/43)
Nagoya D4Y1 Judy 12(8)-rd(1/43)
Okayama D4Y1 Judy 8(2)-rd(1/43)
Tsu D4Y1 Judy 8(2)-rd(1/43)
Tsu D4Y1 Judy 5(5)-rd(1/43)
Kobe J7W1 Shinden 1(1)-rd(12/45)
Maebashi J7W1 Shinden 1(6)-rd(12/45)
Tsu J7W1 Shinden 1(1)-rd(12/45)
Yokohama J7W1 Shinden 1(6)-rd(12/45)
Gifu Ki-100-I Tony 30(0)-rd(3/45)
Hamamatsu Ki-115a Tsurugi 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Nagaoka Ki-115a Tsurugi 0(2)-rd(6/45)
Utsonomiya Ki-115a Tsurugi 1(1)-rd(6/45)
Hachinohe Ki-115a Tsurugi 6(25)-rd(6/45)
Hamamatsu Ki-44-IIc Tojo 30(0)-rd(10/43)
Kobe Ki-44-IIc Tojo 30(0)-rd(10/43)
Maebashi Ki-44-IIc Tojo 30(0)-rd(10/43)
Hamamatsu Ki-46-III KAI Dinah 0(2)-rd(10/44)
Maebashi Ki-46-III KAI Dinah 0(2)-rd(10/44)
Toyama Ki-46-III KAI Dinah 0(2)-rd(10/44)
Tokyo Ki-49-IIb Helen 30(0)-rd(5/43)
Tokyo Ki-49-IIb Helen 30(0)-rd(5/43)
Yokohama Ki-49-IIb Helen 30(0)-rd(5/43)
Nagasaki Ki-61-Ia Tony 18(2)-rd(11/42)
Tokyo Ki-61-Ia Tony 11(9)-rd(11/42)
Tsu Ki-61-Ia Tony 7(3)-rd(11/42)
Gifu Ki-61-Ia Tony 14(6)-rd(11/42)
Nagoya Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy 2(8)-rd(5/44)
Tsu Ki-67-Ia (T) Peggy 4(6)-rd(5/44)
Hamatsu Ki-83 0(2)-rd(10/45)
Sendai Ki-83 0(2)-rd(10/45)
Tokyo Ki-83 1(5)-rd(10/45)
Tokyo Ki-83 0(2)-rd(10/45)
Hamatsu Ki-84a Frank 0(2)-rd(1/44)
Maebashi Ki-84a Frank 18(37)-rd(1/44)
Maebashi Ki-84a Frank 5(5)-rd(1/44)
Utsonomiya Ki-84a Frank 1(1)-rd(1/44)
Utsonomiya Ki-84a Frank 0(2)-rd(1/44)
Gifu Ki-84a Frank 0(6)-rd(1/44)
Kobe N1K1-J George 5(5)-rd(7/43)
Kobe N1K1-J George 1(9)-rd(7/43)
Okayama N1K1-J George 0(10)-rd(7/43)
Osaka N1K1-J George 4(6)-rd(7/43)
Osaka N1K1-J George 6(4)-rd(7/43)
Yokohama N1K1-J George 1(9)-rd(7/43)
Gifu N1K1-J George 1(9)-rd(7/43)
Maebashi P1Y1 Frances 7(4)-rd(8/43)
Osaka P1Y1 Frances 0(10)-rd(8/43)
Nagaoka P1Y2-S Frances 0(2)-rd(11/44)
Osaka P1Y2-S Frances 0(3)-rd(11/44)

Formatting looks so nice in edit mode, but when I save it all the spaces are removed :(



More Frank. You can safely increase Frank to at least 360, or 12 size 30 factories. Keep in mind that you get a bonus for a "full-size" 30 factory. So expand many of these to size 30 factories, especially Frank and George. What about nightfighters? Lowpe pointed out how I overlooked Irving in my plans. 2 size 30 factories on Irving seems good. 1 to actually produce the first gen Irving, and the other to acclerate the 2nd generation so that it is available shortly after the radar unit becomes available.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 348
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 6:50:59 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Well, you know this isn't my type of RnD plan ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 349
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 7:26:38 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Well, you know this isn't my type of RnD plan ...



Pax says, "more Sam... ." Lol. I actually put some factories on Sam in my game with 821Bobo. It is just very hard to accelerate Sam in a PDU:off game, since Zeros must be accelerated to make any Sam R&D helpful... .

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 5/9/2017 7:29:28 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 350
RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan - 5/9/2017 9:26:54 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Well, you know this isn't my type of RnD plan ...



Pax says, "more Sam... ." Lol. I actually put some factories on Sam in my game with 821Bobo. It is just very hard to accelerate Sam in a PDU:off game, since Zeros must be accelerated to make any Sam R&D helpful... .

Well, yes and no. My plans though tend to focus on a few models; 2, 3, possibly 4. not more. And I would rarely, if ever, have more RnD than I plan to actually build. A7M is generally in the mix, but not if my plan is not to have the KB viable in '44 ... then George/Shinden would likely be the plan ... But again, this is just me ...

Other than that, I can't really comment on the model choices. I've never played this mod, and I am surprised at how much some planes arrival dates have moved. Would take a lot of analysis before I would consider having a plan to offer ....

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 5/9/2017 10:00:08 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 351
Solomons strategy - 5/9/2017 9:35:14 PM   
Trogilus

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 3/1/2017
From: Fairbanks, AK
Status: offline 		You haven't talked about your strategy in the Solomons other than to say you want to fight there. What are your objectives? Hold the whole chain, destroy naval assets, or something else?

I don't disagree with engaging him there, I'm just curious.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 352
RE: Solomons strategy - 5/9/2017 10:57:03 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Trogilus

You haven't talked about your strategy in the Solomons other than to say you want to fight there. What are your objectives? Hold the whole chain, destroy naval assets, or something else?

I don't disagree with engaging him there, I'm just curious.


My overall goal of the Solomon campaign would be to destroy as many allied assets as possible before losing the island chain - which is a forgone conclusion. I would love to destroy some capital naval assets but that will depend on what he sends my way. I am moving base forces there now to provide support for a higher level of air activity but at this point its too early to say.

(in reply to Trogilus)
Post #: 353
RE: Solomons strategy - 5/9/2017 11:08:31 PM   
Trogilus

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 3/1/2017
From: Fairbanks, AK
Status: offline 		Right on. I am reading your side and learning a lot as a new player.

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 354
RE: Solomons strategy - 5/10/2017 12:20:57 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Trogilus

Right on. I am reading your side and learning a lot as a new player.


I'm by far the expert but I appreciate you reading. Feel free to offer suggestions and comments at any time. I have thick skin. Unfortunately I usually learn by doing it wrong at first...

(in reply to Trogilus)
Post #: 355
RE: Solomons strategy - 5/10/2017 12:22:03 AM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trogilus

Right on. I am reading your side and learning a lot as a new player.


I'm by far the expert but I appreciate you reading. Feel free to offer suggestions and comments at any time. I have thick skin. Unfortunately I usually learn by doing it wrong at first...



Is there any other way to learn?

I guess there is one, which is my favorite. Watch someone else do it wrong, then say "Well... I'm not going to do it that way." Then make a bigger mistake trying to avoid the mistake you watched someone else make.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 5/10/2017 12:23:42 AM >

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 356
RE: Solomons strategy - 5/10/2017 12:56:21 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		Well the P-38s just swept Magwe last turn and encountered no fighters - I stood them all down for 2 turns to recover moral and repair planes. I have now put them all backup - a total of 3 Sentais of fighters at Magwe and some Zeros flying LR CAP from nearby. I hope to put 100 fighters in the air for the CAP trap. I looked at all their maneuver bands and picked the one where my planes performed better than the P-38 and stuck my planes there. I have 4 groups staggered CAP. Crossing my fingers... Hope I catch some allied aircraft...

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 357
August 15th, 1942 - 5/10/2017 7:48:44 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline 		A whole lotta nothing happened today. My fighter trap over Magwe was silent as no allies showed up to play. I left them in place hoping for some action next turn.

The KB showed up in the Solomons but found nothing except a dozen or so PT boats at Tulagi and Lunga. Supposidly Vals hit several with bombs - if so they should be dead - but I doubt the reports. The KB was spotted last turn approaching so if any allied naval assets were in the area they probably ran for it. I am pulling the KB back for now.

More Artillery bombardments in China net more Chinese casualties.

B-17s from Oz hit the Lae airfields again effectively closing them. This is fine as I have no aircraft there and probably won't for a while due to the upcoming Solomon campaign. Mr Kane has been using B-17s effectively from Oz to hit airfields and troops in SE Borneo - not sure if they have the range to hit Rabaul or not - or if he is scared of fighters.

I have 3 naval guard units arriving in the Solomon area along with some base forces. More Engineers and AA are a week away.

Cruisers, Destroyers and support ships arrive in Truk for upcoming actions in the Solomons as well. Another 50k fuel is also unloading at Truk. Truk will have 120k fuel and 200k supplies for the battle. Supplies are a bit high, but can easily be moved out if I need to.


Is there a way to order xAKs with liquid cargo NOT to load fuel when you order them to load supplies? I am using them on the Singapore to Japan run bringing resources and oil to Japan and like to load supplies for the return trip but don't want to haul fuel.

Also, I have enough PPs to buy out another Division and am wondering if units in Japan still count towards the Soviet activation amount or not? I'm down to 9700 points and want to make sure I don't drop below the 8000 mark to risk soviet activation.


< Message edited by Xargun -- 5/10/2017 7:50:57 PM >

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 358
RE: August 15th, 1942 - 5/10/2017 8:01:33 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun


Is there a way to order xAKs with liquid cargo NOT to load fuel when you order them to load supplies? I am using them on the Singapore to Japan run bringing resources and oil to Japan and like to load supplies for the return trip but don't want to haul fuel.




You can convert them to military AKs. They lose the liquid storage capacity and gain a little more cargo space. You can then, if you want, also expand their troop space. They make very nice troop moving ships. They are a little heavy on fuel use, but more efficient cargo ships if you convert them to military AKs. Just look for the conversion option on the ship screen.




quote:



Also, I have enough PPs to buy out another Division and am wondering if units in Japan still count towards the Soviet activation amount or not? I'm down to 9700 points and want to make sure I don't drop below the 8000 mark to risk soviet activation.




Only Manchurian units count for the garrison. You are safe buying out at least one more division, which should only drop the garrison 450 points or so. You will eventually want to buy out most of the armor, however, so keep this in mind before dropping the garrison too low. There are some other units there which are very helpful in other theaters. Notice the electrical engineer unit, for example,... very high anti-armor rating and very small load cost. Helpful for defending against armor on islands with small stacking limits. So plan further withdrawals carefully.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 5/10/2017 8:02:00 PM >

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 359
RE: August 15th, 1942 - 5/10/2017 8:14:33 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1314
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline 		Sorry... in the conversion, they lose both cargo and fuel space, becoming less efficient cargo ships. I never use the 18 and 15 knot xAKs as cargo ships, that is why I was confused. I do convert many of them to military AKs, however, and then use them to move troops.

Your most fuel-efficient ships for long-haul transport are the Adens, the 12 knot ships with 4760 cargo and the big 14-knot cargo ships with 6K cargo: the Limas. The Limas would be best for a trip between Sinagapore and the Home Islands. (Of course, these capacities are reduced in Babe's, and I have no idea what their capacity is in that mod).

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 5/10/2017 8:19:30 PM >

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Long Term Aircraft Plan Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

0.656