RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful??

RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 2:43:20 AM)
OK guys I appreciate the thought but with the exception of a few very specific points I would argue not to rely on my game v PZB too much as a guideline for this as it is an outlier. 1. In that particular game I am unable to interdict Chinese training which means PZB has more trained pilots and I am unable to interfere. This is a result of PZB's conquest of India so no complaints from me on this one. (In every other game I play my number 1 strategic objective for the Chinese theatre is to interfere with that training) 2. Hellcat production as I have said several times is 30% of what it should be and this has hamstrung me. These are not points of Japan being to strong but of the allies being under represented. 1. is an outlier and 2 is a genuine allied complaint. Now a few points. As I think I have made clear as the allies I have a philosophical objection to rear area training and I refuse to do it so yes I will be committing 30xp pilots to the front and I expect to lose several carriers as a result to kamikazes thats just the way it is. (I will be forced to use Marines on Carriers in Corsairs soon as well - PZB is aware of this neither of us is happy with it but its the way it is) In that particular game I have not committed to carrier operations beyond those the allies undertook IRL although I was unable to follow through in the Marianas however I have in the last 4 months destroyed KB twice and I think its a sad day when sinking five fleet carriers is not worth the 200 pilots lost (I would question whether Japanese repair is to good as those carriers were repaired damned quick after the first beating but thats another issue) If I was to recommend anything it would be 1. fix allied hellcat production and stop those dammed nightfighter variants. 2. USN pilot xp when thepool is empty should be at a floor of 50xp not 30 to reflect trained pilots from the Army or Marines being transferred in and given flight deck training in this way the Japanese still get a benefit from attriting thre USN pool (less 70xp pilots) but the USN does not go into the fight with 30xp pilots. The example PZB used above I lost 140 USN pilots in one fight so I LOST that engagment. Thats 3 months pilots in one engagement !!!! I will leave you with a warning in any game where PDU's are ON I do not see how with the current pilot numbers and hellcat production schedule and with the ability of the Japanese to produce tonies and franks to replace oscars and georges and jacks to replace land based zekes how any allied player will be able to avoid using Corsairs on every carrier in 44 from the start of 44 and using Marine pilots to assist with the massive losses the USN will take when it faces 1000 1st class interceptors rather than the dross PZB has been throwing at me. I genuinely believe it is impossible unless the allies say sod it not going to attack through SWPAC or CENTPAC and go via Burma/Malaya where they can advance under a cloud of LBA - I think in PDU environment all allied player will decide (as I have that the poor nature of Hellcat production and USN pilot pool vulnerability.) that any other course is a waste of time which will get dammed boring for the Japanese players as the Allies dont take risky naval invasions but instead play land war in Asia 100% of the time. I guess what I am saying is fix the dammed hellcats and either increase USN pilot numbers or increase the floor for untrained pilots or alternatively slow down xp gain and CAP it form supply missions for bombers and ground attack for fighters hard cap it at 55 like other training and slow down the rate of gain!!! Anyway back to the war

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 2:51:57 AM)
p.s. none of the above will stop me form being in Tokyo before the dammed Soviets Churchill would never forgive me.....I will adapt and overcome (somehow)

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 2:54:35 AM)
p.p.s I have 2 other games approacing mid to late 43 so I will let you all know if I hit the same issue in those games. Although I suspect not SPrior doesnt use pilot training in that way and in my other game the USN is an irrelevance after the way they crushed the USN in 42/43 [:D][:D][:D]

dtravel -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 3:23:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg If Japan IRL had taken over India and Burma and was receiving no pressure from the west, then shouldn't they have pretty decent production of airframes and training schools? No, because in real life the Japanese did not have the culture or industrial capacity to do so. They literally could not truely conceive of the need for mass production or how to accomplish it. They have obviously since learned, but that took the complete destruction of what industrial capacity they had (starting from scratch is easier than trying to retool existing industries) and a catastrophic shock to their worldview. Also, the game makes it way too easy to expand industry. Japan would have had to produce the machine tools to make the machine tools that would have made the armaments. The US already had a godawfully huge industrial base to begin with (we were already mass producing the machine tools to make armaments) and an industrially oriented culture and it took us five years to get up to speed.

SamCole -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 3:29:24 AM)
I would agree dtravel, but I would say it took less than three years to come up to speed. Starting at 12/41, by sometime about 6/44 the US was out producing all other countries combined.

dtravel -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 3:34:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SamCole I would agree dtravel, but I would say it took less than three years to come up to speed. Starting at 12/41, by sometime about 12/43 the US was out producing all other countries combined. The ramp up to full war production began in early 1940. It accelerated after Pearl Harbor but was already underway. And while we were outproducing everyone else by the end of '43, US production continued to climb thru '44 and '45.

Sardonic -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 3:37:36 AM)
Then possibly, simply increaseing the allied plane production is enough of a kludge.

Nemo121 -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 3:37:55 AM)
Jim D Burns, I'd be happy to wager you that with PDU on Allied fighter numbers would greatly exceed what PzB is producing. Sure some of the fighters being produced would be a little older but they'd still be serviceable. quote: Nothing can justify this production model and if you can’t see that then you are a biased and unfair player. Nothing like relying on hyperbole and labelling to end a discussion is there? What IS needed rather than an all or nothing approach at one or two points is a fundamental re-appreciation of the linkages in the game and on the impacts various items have on eachother. Once that is done and an undertaking to add some code is given then a new, more responsive model can be implemented. The key problem here isn't that there's too much or too little. If you actually READ what everyone is saying instead of just pushing a position you'll see that it boils down to RESPONSIVENESS... How would the US respond if China fell, if India fell, if day fighter losses climbed but night fighters remained almost untouched, if navy pilot pools were running low but there were a lot of USMC pilots etc. What needs to be done is to figure out all the varied triggers and then figure out reasonable responses. With that done the programmers can put in the necessary code and implement the appropriate interactions between triggers and responses. Obviously though, that won't happen and this is all just wasted breath. If anything does happen it will be a simple point fix which doesn't deal with the root causes at all.

SamCole -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 3:46:50 AM)
One way to address it is to give the US MASSIVE amounts of aircraft and pilots. If they are not needed there is no real advantage given. If, as in the PzB - Andy Mac game, one of the pools gets used a lot it will not go to zero. Certainly, if the USN needed more F6Fs and/or pilots, they would have been available. Just my thoughts. Just realized, I was talking about late models of aircraft like F6Fs and such. There really should not be much of a restriction on them, and the stock senarios really do not give enough out.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 4:03:41 AM)
It is true that F6F (day fighter) build rate is too low in the stock scenarios. It was Andy's problems in his game with PzB that led me to review it and, eventually, resulted in the F6F build rate being increased in CHS. Andrew

SamCole -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 4:39:40 AM)
I don't know about CHS but Andy said that in his stock game he was getting 60 USN pilots a month. If you add that up 12/41 to 8/45 = 44 months which comes out to 2640 USN pilots for the whole war? Seems a bit shy to me.

ny59giants -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 5:01:07 AM)
I guess a question to be answered by Matrix and the software guys, Is can the amount of pilots be modified so there is not a flat rate of pilots and experience levels throughout the war?? If memory is correct, the experience level of the Americans should increase over time as those who were in combat were rotated home to teach the new recruits, while the Japanese should go down as they kept their's in their squadrons until they died. There should be a way to increase the monthly pilots for the Allies as time goes on. Again, both these issues are probably to be answered by those more qualified than me. [&o][&o]

Sardonic -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 5:59:23 AM)
Given the actual production capability of the USA in WW2......it isnt even an abstraction to simply allow unlimited low grade replacements. Not high grade, no. You cant mass produce CV capable pilots. But thousands of P-39? Why not? The limitation would be upon the number of engines being produced.

SamCole -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 6:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic Given the actual production capability of the USA in WW2......it isnt even an abstraction to simply allow unlimited low grade replacements. Not high grade, no. You cant mass produce CV capable pilots. But thousands of P-39? Why not? The limitation would be upon the number of engines being produced. According to Dunnigan and Nofi in "Victory at Sea", that is just what the USN did. In mid 1944 the USN was qualifing about 8000 pilots a month! Just a few more than the 60 we get in stock.

Sardonic -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 6:13:53 AM)
I would never contradict Dunnigan. However in my mind, mass produce is more like 40k than 8k I cant read Gary's mind. I have no idea why he set it at 60.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 7:09:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 How would the US respond if China fell, if India fell, if day fighter losses climbed but night fighters remained almost untouched, if navy pilot pools were running low but there were a lot of USMC pilots etc. What needs to be done is to figure out all the varied triggers and then figure out reasonable responses. With that done the programmers can put in the necessary code and implement the appropriate interactions between triggers and responses. You completely miss the point. You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath. I don’t care what your or others arguments are, they’re simply specious arguments and have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the allied production model is borked beyond any semblance of reality. No set of in-game conditions or circumstances can possibly justify the neutered allied production model. Here are some limited figures for aircraft production numbers during the war that I found with a quick google search: http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml The US army alone produced some 297,199 aircraft, Japan only produced 76,320 aircraft total. Add to the US another 60,456 aircraft produced for the US navy and the US total production for the war was 357,655 aircraft. Even if only 30% of the total US production went to the Pacific, that’s 107,297 aircraft. But as we all know far more than 30% went to the Pacific since entire production runs of air frames like the F6F, F4U and B-29 were used almost exclusively in the Pacific. Those combined with the many other units operating in the Pacific using all other models of US aircraft produced during the war would easily exceed 30% of the total production of US planes. Early in the war a figure of 30% sent to the Pacific was probably accurate, but by 1944 a figure of 40% - 45% of total production being sent to the Pacific is probably more accurate. By the end of 1942 the US should be out producing Japan in both front line fighters and pilots by double at least and that margin should simply grow as the war progresses. Since the sytem is so bloody I say give everyone 10 times their historical production numbers, but at least give the US enough air frames and pilots to compete with all those Japanese factory upgraded production numbers. But since Japan has the ability to change over all their factories to just their best fighters, they can easily out produce the allies in front line fighters for the entire war. If they have 500+ factories producing front line fighters, the allies will never gain an advantage because all their front line fighters are fixed with pool productions usually around 100 – 150 air frames and earlier air frame factories cannot be upgraded to give them a multi-hundred production pool like Japan gets to use. When a single days air combat then shreds six months of allied fighter production, they are left with no choice but to downgrade to obsolete models while Japans production easily replaces their losses giving them a decidedly decisive advantage due solely to their being able to OUT PRODUCE the allies. I don’t care if PDU’s are on or not, fixed replacement pools are easily defeated by the unlimited Japanese production system. (unlimited in the sense all factories can upgrade to the best air frames throughout the entire war. Couple all this with a measly 60 US naval pilots a month and the outcome is inevitable no matter how well or bad the Japanese player is doing in the land war. Hell the US CVE’s alone will suck up 2 full years of naval replacements just by arriving on map as reinforcements, so I wouldn’t even credit the US navy with the equivalent of 60 pilots a month. Jim

bradfordkay -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 7:15:21 AM)
Surely if the game can have the experience level of replacement pilots change as the game progresses, it can also handle an alteration in the number of replasement pilots over time?

Sardonic -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 7:19:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 How would the US respond if China fell, if India fell, if day fighter losses climbed but night fighters remained almost untouched, if navy pilot pools were running low but there were a lot of USMC pilots etc. What needs to be done is to figure out all the varied triggers and then figure out reasonable responses. With that done the programmers can put in the necessary code and implement the appropriate interactions between triggers and responses. You completely miss the point. You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath. I don’t care what your or others arguments are, they’re simply specious arguments and have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the allied production model is borked beyond any semblance of reality. No set of in-game conditions or circumstances can possibly justify the neutered allied production model. Here are some limited figures for aircraft production numbers during the war that I found with a quick google search: http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml The US army alone produced some 297,199 aircraft, Japan only produced 76,320 aircraft total. Add to the US another 60,456 aircraft produced for the US navy and the US total production for the war was 357,655 aircraft. Even if only 30% of the total US production went to the Pacific, that’s 107,297 aircraft. But as we all know far more than 30% went to the Pacific since entire production runs of air frames like the F6F, F4U and B-29 were used almost exclusively in the Pacific. Those combined with the many other units operating in the Pacific using all other models of US aircraft produced during the war would easily exceed 30% of the total production of US planes. Early in the war a figure of 30% sent to the Pacific was probably accurate, but by 1944 a figure of 40% - 45% of total production being sent to the Pacific is probably more accurate. By the end of 1942 the US should be out producing Japan in both front line fighters and pilots by double at least and that margin should simply grow as the war progresses. Since the sytem is so bloody I say give everyone 10 times their historical production numbers, but at least give the US enough air frames and pilots to compete with all those Japanese factory upgraded production numbers. But since Japan has the ability to change over all their factories to just their best fighters, they can easily out produce the allies in front line fighters for the entire war. If they have 500+ factories producing front line fighters, the allies will never gain an advantage because all their front line fighters are fixed with pool productions usually around 100 – 150 air frames and earlier air frame factories cannot be upgraded to give them a multi-hundred production pool like Japan gets to use. When a single days air combat then shreds six months of allied fighter production, they are left with no choice but to downgrade to obsolete models while Japans production easily replaces their losses giving them a decidedly decisive advantage due solely to their being able to OUT PRODUCE the allies. I don’t care if PDU’s are on or not, fixed replacement pools are easily defeated by the unlimited Japanese production system. (unlimited in the sense all factories can upgrade to the best air frames throughout the entire war. Couple all this with a measly 60 US naval pilots a month and the outcome is inevitable no matter how well or bad the Japanese player is doing in the land war. Hell the US CVE’s alone will suck up 2 full years of naval replacements just by arriving on map as reinforcements, so I wouldn’t even credit the US navy with the equivalent of 60 pilots a month. Jim I do not contest your conclusions. But I do ask again, where in hell did you get all the supply points to do these conversions? Japan 'can' do many things but NONE of them w/o supply. I am sorry the needed supply simply is NOT there. Where did it come from?

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 7:38:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns You completely miss the point. You’re trying to argue that the system is somehow fine and any complaints are wasted breath. I don’t care what your or others arguments are, they’re simply specious arguments and have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the allied production model is borked beyond any semblance of reality. No set of in-game conditions or circumstances can possibly justify the neutered allied production model. I don't disagree that the production for the Allies is low. But it is simply one of the myriad of things in the game that is not, and will not, be exactly like reality until they can charge a price for the game that will justify all the programmer hours needed to put together a near perfect game. Should it be corrected, yes. Can we make suggestions, abolutely. Was the title of the thread "How can Allied production be fixed?", no. The thread was titled "Are the Japanese too powerful?". I take this to be a macro question, and no, I don't think they are too powerful. When I see 90% of the games ending in 1946 then maybe it we could say that. As is, I think there are plenty of Japanese players that have surrendered because the HI were being bombed and the writing was on the wall. If the Allies can 'win' (in WITP terms) around half the time then Japan isn't too strong.

mogami -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 7:49:55 AM)
Hi, Every new airgroup that arrives in the game comes in with trained pilots that do not come out of our pools. So to even start couting trained pilots players get in WITP add up all the pilots that arrive with these airgroups. This is why Japan only gets 10 per month. (in stock) these 10 per month are in addition to all the pilots that come into game already trained and in addition to all the pilots Japan can train on map from scratch. Before anyone can claim WITP does not provide enough Japanese pilots I suggest they actually conduct the intended training and count the pilots that arrive with new groups. Those 440 other pilots are just icing on the cake they never have been claimed to be Japans pilot training. (they are just the 440 "super" pilots that seem to come from thin air. ALL JAPANESE pilot training should occur on map. But instead ALL new groups arrive with magic trained pilots. In WITP the Japanese player will have almost 3x as many air groups as Japan maintained during war. (because human players never disband them without having them return) Japan built groups to replace lost groups. Players don't lose near as many so they end up with more. (and still refuse to use any of them for training) If Japan uses 1/4 to 1/3 of total groups for training they will train far more pilots then Japan did during the war. (I mean use the training mission not the bomb empty base crap) The Allied player is allowed to set groups on training. There is nothing gamey about this. No one ever said the Allied player could not train pilots on map. Any Allied player who is using 30 experiance pilots in 1944/45 is a knucklehead. If the Japanese player wants to control his aircraft production then set all the RD factories to size 0 on Dec 7 1941 and let him have at it.

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 9:29:05 AM)
Absoulutely Mogami I will be using the training function on map so I am not a "knucklehead" but when I am losing 200+ pilots a day on operations and receiving roughly 120 a month (mostly in escort carrier gps) and 60 per month into my pool (not even sure that training works for the CVRE Gps as they cannot fly on operations even training ones as the carriers are so overloaded) then then you can see how my pool is quickly exhausted. So at a time when IRL the USN was operating at sea continuosly I will need to turn round send my fleet to dry dock and spend 6 months training my pilots to get them to 60 xp which will result (assuming no losses whatsover in my fleet having enough trained pilots for a 2 or 3 day battle at the current brn rate so the USN carriers become a one shot weapon for the game is that really what was intended ? Nemo ok here is the list of allied carrier capable fighters able to be used Hellcat 144 F4U 150 F4U1 - D 100 FM - 2 120 F4 F4 90 Total 604 per month. Ignore LB Fighters from this because no one is saying that the allies dont have enough land based fighters in 43 or 44. Now in a PDU game you are quite correct I would be downgrading like mad at present and I would be using FM2's and F4F's on my carriers as I dont have enough F6F's so the allies would be reverting to obselete types on fleet carriers in order to compensate is that what you mean ? its braodly equivalent to the Japanese reverting to Claudes onto KB in 44 because they dont have enough Zekes !!!!. Of the 604 394 per month are front line types but of these 250 are Corsairs that 90% of Japanese players would howl as unfair if used on USN Carriers in late 43/44. (all of my games have houserules to stop corsairs on carriers but this was designed to stop them in 43 and will have huge knock on implications in 44) So basically the allies are left in the un enviable position of using the Wildcat as the main carrier fighter as there are not enough Hellcats and despite PDU's being on most games have houserules for Corsairs The proposition you are making Nemo regarding enough allied fighters only applies if in a PDU environment the allies are free to place Corsairs on carriers from the moment the Hellcat becomes operational this is not a house rule that 90% of game have at present because of the current reaction (that I agree with) to avoid having Corsairs on carriers in early 43. All I am saying is that PDU's will Force the allies to use corsairs on carriers earlier and in greater numbers than History. Now a note of caution my game with PZB is an OUTLIER I suspect but dont know that it will be worse in a PDU game we almost have to wait and see what happens. I will say this if I get to the stage where my Hellcat pool is empty in a PDU game I will be talking long and hard to my opponents about Corsairs but my 2 PDU games are a long way from those straights especially as I will be spending every waking moment of SEAC in stoping those pilot training schools. It is now the mission in life of the RAF to kill Japanese training schools they have NO other purpose. Andy

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 9:43:04 AM)
quote: PZB and Andy’s game proves beyond a doubt that allied production is far too low given the horrendously bloody nature of the game. Yes the allies are at a disadvantage because India was wiped out in that game, but Andy hasn’t been overusing his carriers because of that. He has launched the expected carrier operations any allied player would need to launch for his counter-thrusts in 1944 and is now completely out of USN pilots and Hellcats. You said it well - India is out of the game. But as i see it, Andy still managing to advance faster than historical despite all advantage Japan have (as some of them says). Hey, Allies didn't defeat Japan before 1945 on two theatres, in the mentioned game they doing better than historical on just one theatre without Brits! Hmm actually I was slightly ahead of schedule in the Marshalls but I am now behind and likely to fall further and further behind. I cannot maintain the operational tempo the allies IRL were able to because of pilot losses

pauk -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 9:54:02 AM)
Andy, Andy[:-][;)] What about SRA?.... well IMHO you are too hasty at the moment in your game against PZB or you just doing propaganda warfare again?[;)]... I will not offer to you any advice, but just let you know it is possible to keep tempo.....

RETIRED -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 9:55:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: skrewball About the Japanese pilot training... This game is about "WHAT WOULD YOU DO" if you were in command. I can tell you that if I was in command of the Japanese, I would have implemented a strict training regime. AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE GIVEN UP TO DO IT?. You can't just say "make it so!" If you are going to build all those extra trainers and provide experianced instructors, then you are going to have to give up something. Probably several "active air groups" from the initial set up. Sure you will.....

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 10:09:23 AM)
Um SRA sorry dont understand Pauk. Allies were had taken the Palauas and assaulting the Marianas now IRL this isnt propaganda I am just about on timeline but my Fleet is seriously screwed

pauk -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 10:11:59 AM)
eh, aren't you have a some bases in Sulawesi? anyway, do you have free time for turn? I'm just opened turn and could send it to you in about an hour. If not i won't rush - these days are really intersting and enjoyable!

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 10:13:00 AM)
To Hasty !!!! I spent 6 months prepping the op against the Marianas it was the greatest assemblage of might seen in the game 2 full corps supported by over 50 carriers and every BB I had right on the historical timeline not ahead not behind but right on and I called it off because of lack of pilots and hellcat airframes. Sorry Pauk this is not propaganda, it is not bullshit it is the truth it WAS NOT WORTH 200 pilots to sink 5 fleet carriers. aNDY

Andy Mac -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 10:18:54 AM)
No I am at work now so no turns until tonight. OK arguably Sulawesi is ahead of schedule by about 3 months given landings in PI didnt occur until October ish but lets not forget that Allies took Palaus about now so as I said I am behind schedule and I was ahead because Wobbly held onto the Gilberts and PM.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 10:27:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RETIRED AND WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE GIVEN UP TO DO IT?. You can't just say "make it so!" If you are going to build all those extra trainers and provide experianced instructors, then you are going to have to give up something. Probably several "active air groups" from the initial set up. Sure you will..... This is what some (myself included) players do on day 1 (or 2) of Jap turn, disband about 1/3 of the active air units so that in 90days will have training units with low experience pilots. This is standard Mogami method. Japan doesn't need 100% of active air units to advance in 41/early 42, but they will need those extra trained pilots from late 42 on.

Sneer -> RE: Are the Japanese now TOO powerful?? (8/7/2006 10:54:47 AM)
this game is too bloody and units are in bad shape fast my usual method is to disband 2 50% daitatis into 1 and have reinforcements going in 90 days + 60 days for training if exp level is not satisfying it means that for 4 months at least I'm short of some units usually 30% of my units is always in organizing or trainig i will agree with Mogami when I see unit losing 3-4 pilots / engagements but I saw too many 80% casualties battles it is silly to use such argument under this A2A model i don't see also a justification for non pool japanese pilot exp so low in 43 when my economy is in best shape i have supply surpluses i have withdrawn from combat 750 nates 500+ oscars and some claudes there are quite a lot of 1st class fighters and bombers in reserve that can be used for training too I'd like to use them in my training facilities given rate of killed pilots on the front so at least 2000 planes can be devoted to training any time withg enough supply to let it run how long training is needed ? i'm not expert but as we speak not about theory but about flying time I would say that 50-80 hours of flight should be enough to see exp close to 40-50 area so every 3 months I should be able to train crews for 2000 planes with exp 40-50 in game terms it is 600 per month - and yes all new units should draw pilots from them - I rarely see more than 200 planes per month in reinforcement so up to 400 pilots / month will be available as loss replacement their quality will not be great but it is material i can do sth with with 20+ pilots they can only die !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! costs - obsolete planes are no costs - supply costs ? i assume 1h flight /day so 50-80 hours =50-80 days with 2k sorties and as I don't need to use true bombs for every bomber trained all the time i think 2.5 k supply per day would solve this I'm ready to pay instead of silly on map bombing in PI/china trainings most of players are ready to see such system planes and pilots are priority as WITP is air war for most of the time notice that so high plane production is not needed as better pilots = lower losses so ending supply balance would be smaller but some of forum memebrs can't see this logic after mid 42 allies decide how we Japanese player play - it is often not purely our choice as most of sorties flown are of defensive nature unless sb pick up the idea of managing pilot pools with real planes and supply I refuse to dissuss about gamey pilot training

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875