RE: Allied aircraft production figures

RE: Allied aircraft production figures (Full Version)

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

Message

Charles2222 -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 11:10:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez The point was that I don't increase RD but I do convert many of them to other aircraft. Chez Which is EXACTLY WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE PROBLEM!!!! Those R&D factories shouldn't exist. The ONLY reason they exist in the game is for the AI. They were not intended to be available for the player to use to build more planes with! If I understand correctly, your not reading the rest of that post has left you short. If you had read further you would have seen that he only uses them to increase current production, which in effect places them at zero. IOW, he can take the current producing factories in the game and increase them by a large amount (assuming the next increment is large) and just stop it when it reaches the desired amount or he can do the easy thing and basically eliminate the RD factories, for which he can then increase current planes types with smaller increments, therefore making it more manageable. The net result in how many planes he produces is the same as well as the cost. What Mogami is doing is keeping the RD factories from becoming a factor when gamewise they go online. 30 pts for RD to a A6M5 is meaningless until that is either moving up production time for the plane or it's actually online. If you take that 30 pts and change it to where it goes to zero, how does that change the game in a meaningful way? That 30 pts still zero can be increased just like any other factory or can stay at zero like any other factory. If you increase that production to 1 (I think that's the smallest increment) it will cost just as many points of supply as any other 1 point increase anywhere else. He can let the factory repair or not, and cost supply, just like anywhere else. I can't see how you would object to that if I'm understanding everything here. The only thing I can see that would make something of a minimal difference, is that it would scatter his producing factories somewhat, which I think is precisely his angle, but it's nothing free, it's no more planes than otherwise would be. His targets are just more numerous and smaller. That in no way has anything to do with the alleged problem of a too high IJ plane production talked about in the past (which is where Mogami's RD elimination was meant to do), but would only be a concern if the allies thought the factories weren't that scattered historically and gave some sort of advantage, and as he is the leader of IJ, wanting to make better decisions with his assets, why chouldn't he be able to scatter them if he wants (aside from the game not seemingly designed for us to make that sort of decision, his is just an innovative idea to achieve that end). (see following post before responding)

Charles2222 -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 11:24:27 AM)
As an addendum, I'm not too sure my last view was correct and that Mogami was incorrect. But let me throw this at you. I agree that it's possible that leaving the 83 factories there could cause a problem as y'all say that represents them being built (maybe just the outside framework of the places for instance, then to repair them puts in the equipment if you want to look at it that way) if correct, but though he isn't doing what I'm about to suggest, couldn't he arrive, at no extra cost to himself (if possible), with the zero figure you guys are wanting, simply by changing the plane type multiple times until it literally is zero, and then upgrading as any other zero level factory, to which would then cost the same as any other increase would? I'm not too sure he isn't taking in some kind of cost everytime he changes the plane type though.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 4:02:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 As an addendum, I'm not too sure my last view was correct and that Mogami was incorrect. But let me throw this at you. I agree that it's possible that leaving the 83 factories there could cause a problem as y'all say that represents them being built (maybe just the outside framework of the places for instance, then to repair them puts in the equipment if you want to look at it that way) if correct, but though he isn't doing what I'm about to suggest, couldn't he arrive, at no extra cost to himself (if possible), with the zero figure you guys are wanting, simply by changing the plane type multiple times until it literally is zero, and then upgrading as any other zero level factory, to which would then cost the same as any other increase would? I'm not too sure he isn't taking in some kind of cost everytime he changes the plane type though. Charles. The sad truth is that the entire production system in the game is an abortion having little to do with reality and a lot to do with 2by3's promise to provide something of the sort. In reality, the Japanese didn't have the steel, concrete, or construction manpower to do much major expansion of plants during the war. Nor were they able to expand "efficiency" by much. Growth came by increasing hours and shifts, letting sub-contracts to very small and inefficient suppliers (like the corner Service Station), and shifting emphisis to smaller and lighter aircraft. To wit: Japanese Output of Aircraft in Pounds-per-Man-Day: 1941....., 0.63; 1942......, 0.63; 1943......, 0.71; 1944......, 0.71; 1945......, 0.42 US figures jumped from 1.42 in 1941 up to 2.76 in 1944. But the US was able not just to expand the workforce, or broaden the suppliers, but also to build entirely new and much more effecient factories as well. In Japan, the IJA kept drafting skilled A/C workers as cannon-fodder right up to 1945. In 1941, Japan produced 5,088 A/C, and 12,151 A/C engines - about 2.39 engines per airframe. By 1944 the figures were 28,189 A/C and 46,526 (less reliable) A/C engines - about 1.64 engines per A/C. Mogami's "fix" may or may not be an historically correct interpretation..., but it does seem to work insofar as correcting a big problem in the mess of a production system 2by3 provided. It also seems to meet Ocam's criteria of being by far the simplest solution offered. I just wish the folks at 2by3 had heard of a spreadsheet instead of making players hunt all over Asia to try to manage the mess.

Nikademus -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 4:16:21 PM)
quote: Charles. The sad truth is that the entire production system in the game is an abortion having little to do with reality and a lot to do with 2by3's promise to provide something of the sort. I take it you base this blanket statement on your direct experience with the produciton model playing as Japan?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 4:26:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: Charles. The sad truth is that the entire production system in the game is an abortion having little to do with reality and a lot to do with 2by3's promise to provide something of the sort. I take it you base this blanket statement on your direct experience with the produciton model playing as Japan? Truthfully, no. It has a lot to do with my trying to use the production model while playing as Japan, and with the absurd results that other players have been pushing out of it. If it were not an "abortion" it would have been all together on a spreadsheet to start with, and incapable of producing some of the rediculous numbers and manipulations I've seen posted. Just my opinion, Nik.

mogami -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 7:33:08 PM)
Hi, OK as simple as I can make it. RD factories should not be there in the first place. They are for the AI On dec 7 1941 Japan is producing 687 ac per month If on turn 1 I convert my RD factories to actual production (converting each type to available ac of same type (Army fighter to Army fighter, Navy fighter to A6M2 bombers to bombers and so on) I increase prouction by over 940 AC per month. I still have to repair these factories but I did not pay the 940 manpower and 940 HI that it would have cost me to expand my real existing factories by 940 ac per month. I now can convert my real factories that are producing ac I don't want and use my saved manpower and HI to expand existing factories. In other words right off the bat JAPan goes from 687 ac per month to close to 2000 per month. In 3 months (after everything repairs) I double it to 4000 per month. If I went crazy by 1943 I could be producing 7000+ per month. However If I don't touch (or don't have) the RD facotires I can't come close to this. (Japan needs manpower to build LCU 940 manpower spent on AC expansion would hurt Japan as far as growing new units and rebuilding old ones after combat) DOes this make sense?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 8:30:40 PM)
It makes PERFECT sense, Mogami. Not to mention being simple and elegant. Which also means that outside of you and I and a half-dozen others, NO ONE will want to do it. They don't want to play "the War in the Pacific", they are too enamoured of the "Fantasy in the Pacific". But your solution certainly beats any other fix I've seen or been able to come up with for this problem..

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 8:51:29 PM)
As I see Mike you are still whinning. This is so boring. You made your point. There is no need to tell everybody on each occasion what YOU think is historical. Its obvious nobody will have exact same opinion whats historical. But stop this nonsense about fantasies or etc.

Andy Mac -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 8:52:30 PM)
I understand perfectly I think I now understand a lot more about the game I know you have been saying this for a while Mogami but this is the 1st time I have really understood the impact of what you have been saying. What I would like to see (but am not good enough with the editor) is a PBEM only scen 15 scenario exactly as per stock but with a minimalist list of changes. i.e. no new map, not nik mod etc etc 1. RD Factories set to zero at start. 2. 5 x 200 plane Army and Navy HI training groups starting with zero planes but 200 exp 25 each pilots at start for Japan who can only perform Training mission allowing the Japanese player to determine how much basic on map training they want to perform (they would have to allocate obsolete planes and spend supply on training) (I define basic as getting from 25 - 50 via training mission !!!). (i.e. 1st Naval Training School, 2nd Naval training School etc etc make them Wings so they can be split and disbanded with pilots going to pool) I think this would be a better start point than the current Scen 15 If PH attack is genuinely viewed as not delivering realistic results perhaps set all US BB's to 30 Sys, Float and Fire as well on assumption that a PH attack is going ahead (so this scenario would assume PH happens and that KB actually attacks) I will have a play with the editor but I am genuienly not that good at mods !!!! Andy

DFalcon -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 9:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac 2. 5 x 200 plane Army and Navy HI training groups starting with zero planes but 200 exp 25 each pilots�at start for Japan who can only perform Training mission allowing the Japanese player to determine how much basic on map training they want to perform (they would have to allocate obsolete planes and spend supply on training) (I define basic as getting from 25 - 50 via training mission !!!). (i.e. 1st Naval Training School, 2nd Naval training School etc etc make them Wings so they can be split and disbanded with pilots going to�pool) I think you can get the same results just by using the current pilot replacement system. By giving the Japanese higher replacement rates for pilots and banning on map training it will also have the effect of reducing experience levels. It has the added bonus of eliminating the very tedious job of moving, disbanding, moving and refilling training air groups. The tricky part is getting the numbers right. How many trained pilots do you give the army and navy to keep things on the level? You must consider that these rates are fixed for the whole game. You need to find a good number that will result in an early glut in the pools that gets drained away in '43. What experience level should they come in at? What house rules do you use to keep the Japanese from doing on map training? None of these are road blocks, but they do need consideration. This is the approach I will be using in my personal mod and I think it will achieve much of what your suggestion would with less fuss and bother both in the editor and during play.

Andy Mac -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 10:43:44 PM)
Yeah but then they dont have to expend Supply and air frames running training schools and it doenst give the Japanese the CHOICE of how many or how few to train. - arguably if you were setting it up this way you should remove all 'free' pilots that the Japanese get. I am trying to give them a choice of how many they want to train and pay supply for these 'Schools' would have to banned from doing anything other than use the training method i.e. no combat mission of any kind (except perhaps Kamis late war) Anyway I have kinda got off topic so I will�go back to trying to understand the�editor.!!!!�

DFalcon -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 11:13:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Yeah but then they dont have to expend Supply and air frames running training schools and it doenst give the Japanese the CHOICE of how many or how few to train. - arguably if you were setting it up this way you should remove all 'free' pilots that the Japanese get. I am trying to give them a choice of how many they want to train and pay supply for these 'Schools' would have to banned from doing anything other than use the training method i.e. no combat mission of any kind (except perhaps Kamis late war) Anyway I have kinda got off topic so I will�go back to trying to understand the�editor.!!!!� It is a trade off. I was a big fan of the "Pilot Training" mini game when I first started playing the game. The more I played the less I liked it. It just became tedious busy work. What ever the intention of the designers it is clear from the way the game is played that this part does not work well. The by the book method is clumsy and difficult with poor results. Most feel by the book training is not up to the loss rates and it spawns all sorts of juggling acts that break the system all together. If you have to do a lot of BS why not at least get good pilots. The Allied pilot replacements are easy to use and work well. Using it for Japan takes out the "Pilot Training" mini game but deals with some problems it has and makes the game easier to play. I like playing Japan but after playing the allies will never again go through the tedium of Pilot Training. I do not think it adds much for all the BS you have to do. I apologize for the side track but you touched on something I have been working on and could not help myself.

dtravel -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/25/2006 11:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I understand perfectly I think I now understand a lot more about the game I know you have been saying this for a while Mogami but this is the 1st time I have really understood the impact of what you have been saying. What I would like to see (but am not good enough with the editor) is a PBEM only scen 15 scenario exactly as per stock but with a minimalist list of changes. i.e. no new map, not nik mod etc etc 1. RD Factories set to zero at start. 2. 5 x 200 plane Army and Navy HI training groups starting with zero planes but 200 exp 25 each pilots�at start for Japan who can only perform Training mission allowing the Japanese player to determine how much basic on map training they want to perform (they would have to allocate obsolete planes and spend supply on training) (I define basic as getting from 25 - 50 via training mission !!!). (i.e. 1st Naval Training School, 2nd Naval training School etc etc make them Wings so they can be split and disbanded with pilots going to�pool) I think this would be a better start point than the current Scen 15 If PH attack is genuinely viewed as not delivering realistic results perhaps set all US BB's to 30 Sys, Float and Fire�as well on assumption that a PH attack is going ahead (so this scenario would assume PH happens and that KB actually attacks) I will have a play with the editor but I am genuienly not that good at mods !!!! Andy 3. Remove half to two-thirds of the Japanese AKs and APs. They were added to make up for all those that the AI loses by not avoiding Allied air range.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/26/2006 2:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Yeah but then they dont have to expend Supply and air frames running training schools and it doenst give the Japanese the CHOICE of how many or how few to train. - arguably if you were setting it up this way you should remove all 'free' pilots that the Japanese get. I am trying to give them a choice of how many they want to train and pay supply for these 'Schools' would have to banned from doing anything other than use the training method i.e. no combat mission of any kind (except perhaps Kamis late war) Anyway I have kinda got off topic so I will�go back to trying to understand the�editor.!!!!� You've hit on a real problem of Japanese Pilot training. Allied Nations had been impressed by the Luftwaffe's early successes, and had geared up from the very start to provide massive numbers of A/C and Aircrews because that's what they feared the Axis were doing. So much so that the US (alone among all participants, actually CUT BACK pilot training in 1944 because it was obvious they had more than enough). The Axis Powers, not suffering excessive losses in their early campaigns, saw no reason to invest in such huge programs until the Air War had turned decisively against them. Then it was too late and to try to catch up they began cutting hours and corners. The Japanese did get a lot more aircrew in 1944 (they'd only trained about 5,000 in 1942, and 5400 in 1943), but they weren't nearly as well trained as the 82,000+ pilots the US produced in 1943 alone. Figuring out a reasonable "trade off" that a Japanese player can make earlier to ensure a better supply of reasonably well trained pilots later is a challange. Especially with the "fixed rate" of arrival the game wants to enforce. The "on-map training" did allow some flexibility in that area, but is subject to a lot of "abuse potential". I wish you luck, and will be delighted to offer whatever help I can if you want any.

Herrbear -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/26/2006 4:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DFalcon quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac 2. 5 x 200 plane Army and Navy HI training groups starting with zero planes but 200 exp 25 each pilots�at start for Japan who can only perform Training mission allowing the Japanese player to determine how much basic on map training they want to perform (they would have to allocate obsolete planes and spend supply on training) (I define basic as getting from 25 - 50 via training mission !!!). (i.e. 1st Naval Training School, 2nd Naval training School etc etc make them Wings so they can be split and disbanded with pilots going to�pool) I think you can get the same results just by using the current pilot replacement system. By giving the Japanese higher replacement rates for pilots and banning on map training it will also have the effect of reducing experience levels. It has the added bonus of eliminating the very tedious job of moving, disbanding, moving and refilling training air groups. The tricky part is getting the numbers right. How many trained pilots do you give the army and navy to keep things on the level? You must consider that these rates are fixed for the whole game. You need to find a good number that will result in an early glut in the pools that gets drained away in '43. What experience level should they come in at? What house rules do you use to keep the Japanese from doing on map training? None of these are road blocks, but they do need consideration. This is the approach I will be using in my personal mod and I think it will achieve much of what your suggestion would with less fuss and bother both in the editor and during play. You are right about the replacement training experience figure is set for the whole war. What I thought of doing is to not worry at all about replacement rates for the Japanese and some of the allies. For example, the Japanese can provide all the pilots that you need. In stock I think the IJN give you 10 a month at the replacement rate and unlimited at 1/2 the rate +/- 9 IIRC. The Japanese navy maintained quality pretty much thru 1942 and then it started to drop yearly. This we cannot do in WITP. I was thinking of setting the pilot pool for IJN at 700 to represent the amount of trained pilots needed thru 1942. Set the level of experience at 60 and set 0 for the amount of monthly replacements. That way the game will use the pool or exp 60 pilots and, if my guessimate of pilots is correct, thru 1942 and then all new pilots would average an experience of 30 with the range running from 21 - 39. This would require some training and might be a little low for the experience of 1943 pilots but would be higher than what they were getting in 1945. The US Army could be similar. The number of trained pilots was never a question. I would set the experience for the US Army at 100 with the pool and monthly replacement rate of 0. The Army would produce pilots on the average of 50 and range from 41 - 59.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/26/2006 8:45:44 PM)
The Japanese produced a total of 5,000 pilots in 1942, and 5,400 in 1943. This is for both services, new units and replacements, everything. These people generally recieved as good training as the Allies and should come in as such. In 1943, 44, and 45, the numbers trained went up, towards a theoretical goal of 30,000 per year in 1945 (never approached). But this group got much worse, and much less, training; and by 1945 hardly deserve the term "trained" at all. "Qualified to crash on their first mission, maybe hitting something usefull while doing so" was the goal. You need to be carefull in increasing the numbers too much, as I've yet to see the game produce anything close to the 50+% "operational losses" sufferred by both sides during the actual war. Without those, you are going to have too many A/C and pilots available

Herrbear -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/26/2006 9:19:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl ... You need to be carefull in increasing the numbers too much, as I've yet to see the game produce anything close to the 50+% "operational losses" sufferred by both sides during the actual war. Without those, you are going to have too many A/C and pilots available When you talk about 50+% "operational losses" are you talking about planes or pilots or both? I agree that the game does not take into account operational losses as it should and I think a player should look at that factor when saying such and such a plane produced so much and this could not be achieved when the game gives you only x amount. But I am not sure about what you mean "...have too many A/C and pilots available." The game now doesn't limit you on the number of pilots you can introduce, it impacts only their experience. So I don't see how my suggestion would impact that? Or am I not understanding what you were saying? Thank you.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/26/2006 9:24:28 PM)
You want to see some high ops losses? Just drastically lower the skill level of pilots. I lowered the exp level by 50% from the already lowered CHS levels. Lots of ops losses, A2A is nowhere near as deadly between pilots with exp levels in the 30s. No reason we have to have the majority of pilots in the 80s and 90s.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/26/2006 11:42:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl ... You need to be carefull in increasing the numbers too much, as I've yet to see the game produce anything close to the 50+% "operational losses" sufferred by both sides during the actual war. Without those, you are going to have too many A/C and pilots available When you talk about 50+% "operational losses" are you talking about planes or pilots or both? I agree that the game does not take into account operational losses as it should and I think a player should look at that factor when saying such and such a plane produced so much and this could not be achieved when the game gives you only x amount. But I am not sure about what you mean "...have too many A/C and pilots available." The game now doesn't limit you on the number of pilots you can introduce, it impacts only their experience. So I don't see how my suggestion would impact that? Or am I not understanding what you were saying? Thank you. Obviously "operational losses" of A/C are larger than aircrew. If I recall correctly, Japanese A/C ops losses were about 65%, and Allied about 60% in the Pacific. I think a fair "ballpark guess" would put aircrew losses at about half of that. Not all dead, but "pranging your kite" is detremental to one's health. "...have too many A/C and pilots available." Here I was refering to the numbers of pilots trained by Japan in 1942 and 1943. If you just divide it out, it comes to 433 p/m (minus those recieved in new airgroups). But if you just throw this number into the mix without everely curtailing "on map training" or better representing "ops losses" it would produce very "hinkey" results. It's even worse if you do it on the Allied side where the US alone trained over 120,000 pilots during those two years (at 30% to the Pacific, that's 36,000+ pilots, divided by 24 equals 1,500+ per month - minus those in new air groups). Everything is interconnected, and you can't just "plug in" a number without considering how it effects everything else. That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I was unclear....

Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 1:05:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl If I recall correctly, Japanese A/C ops losses were about 65%, and Allied about 60% in the Pacific. Careful Mike. You're basing your op losses percentage on air frames destroyed in the actual war. As the stats I posted early on in the thread show, op losses on a per sortie basis were very low, about 1%, 2% if you include the non-combat sortie losses but we don�t have the total sorties flown for those stats to add to our total for comparison. The game gets it pretty close now and I think we should strive for a % based on sorties flown, not based on a % compared to combat losses. The only reason the op losses percentages were so high during the war was because not many aircraft were lost in combat when compared to what we lose in WitP. So when comparing your ops losses in the actual war to aircraft lost in combat you have high percentages. I think op losses are about right in game needing a slight tweak up perhaps, it's the overly bloody combat routines that make them appear too few. Change combat so the USN and Marines only lose a combined total of about 3,000 planes for the entire game and you'll see a much higher percentage difference for the current op losses that the game has now. Jim

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 3:51:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl If I recall correctly, Japanese A/C ops losses were about 65%, and Allied about 60% in the Pacific. Careful Mike. You're basing your op losses percentage on air frames destroyed in the actual war. As the stats I posted early on in the thread show, op losses on a per sortie basis were very low, about 1%, 2% if you include the non-combat sortie losses but we don�t have the total sorties flown for those stats to add to our total for comparison. The game gets it pretty close now and I think we should strive for a % based on sorties flown, not based on a % compared to combat losses. The only reason the op losses percentages were so high during the war was because not many aircraft were lost in combat when compared to what we lose in WitP. So when comparing your ops losses in the actual war to aircraft lost in combat you have high percentages. I think op losses are about right in game needing a slight tweak up perhaps, it's the overly bloody combat routines that make them appear too few. Change combat so the USN and Marines only lose a combined total of about 3,000 planes for the entire game and you'll see a much higher percentage difference for the current op losses that the game has now. Jim I understand what you are saying Jim. It's part of what I meant by how everything is inter-related and can't be viewed just as this number or that number. But I've also seen things that suggest that on both sides "attrition" (non-combat losses) wrote off approximately 10% of the deployed aircraft in theatre every month. If you started a month with 2,000 aircraft deployed to units, you could expect to lose 200 in 30 days even if you never made contact with the enemy. Or put another way, if you started the year with 2,000 A/C deployed, and sent in 2400 replacement A/C during the year, the most you could expect to have at the end of the year is 2,000 - minus any combat losses inflicted by the enemy. Air war, especially in an area as backward and hostile as much of the Pacific, is extremely expensive.

mogami -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 5:51:00 AM)
Hi, What is so hard about pilot training? I do all mine in Osaka and Tokyo and it's pretty darn easy to keep track of. You have front line units (where the combat is occuring) You have bases that are the supply line to these forward bases. Groups train in Osaka/Tokyo and when ready they move to support base. Front line group can either move back to base to receive replacements or training group divies and sents required replacements to front. Use the all groups menu and sort by type. (I conduct all my air mission orders and movements from this menu. I'd say I have more groups in rear areas doing nothing then I have front line units. Carriers hang out in major ports out of enemy air range so it's not hard to figure out where to send the trained replacements.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 1:36:31 PM)
This may well be true in your case Mogami..., but I think you will agree that the "on map" training of air units is subject to some serious abuse by players. Whomever came up with "transport mission training" was not looking to duplicate any historical activity...., he was looking for (and found) a "game mechanic" to abuse. Part of the discussion in this thread was how to provide the Japanese player with a more realistic flow of trained pilots...., and one of the worries was that if you did you would have to somehow "control" on-map training to balance it.

mogami -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 2:55:47 PM)
Hi, How ever you slove the problem Japanese pilots will need to be trained on map. Pilot training has to be impacted by the war. If you just set a number of auto pilots then supply will never be a factor. Once Japan is cut off from imports the player will need to decide how much of his remaining supply stockpile is used to train pilots. Personally I don't mind if the best way is also the hardest way to get the results I require. I won't buy into the excuse that pilot training fails because of exploits. I fails even more if it is not something the player has to worry about. I am always against any increase to monthy pilot allotment of increase in starting pilot pool. I know these are increased to allow Japanese player to except greater losses early in war and this is exactly why I am against them. The Japanese must train their pilots, they must do it on map and they must decide if allowing their quality to decline is worth what they gain in exchange. They can't fight massive battles early in war and also keep pilot quality high by using an increased starting pool. (There is a reason my games as Japan are not massive bloody conquer the map games)

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 4:24:44 PM)
"Personally I don't mind if the best way is also the hardest way to get the results I require. I won't buy into the excuse that pilot training fails because of exploits. I fails even more if it is not something the player has to worry about. I am always against any increase to monthy pilot allotment of increase in starting pilot pool." I can understand, sympathize, and agree with your reasoning..., but HOW do you control the opponant who insists that if the "exploits" are in the game, he's going to use them? Some aren't that easy to spot, and you can invest a lot of time in a game before it becomes obvious. I know you can limit yourself to playing only with players you trust not to abuse the system..., but how do you know who they are until you play them? It's just frustraiting that the "system" is so succeptable to "abuse" and "massaging". OK, I'll get off my soapbox....

mogami -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 6:59:32 PM)
Hi, Ask them before you start. "How are you going to train replacement pilots?" Perhaps when we look for opponents we should say "I am a win at all costs player" "I try for historical accuracy when I play" "I hve no clue about anything, tell me what I should or should not do" Many options are player defined. We can turn off PDU,Sub Doc,Damage control Some folks like the exploits and depend on them.� (rather then map out a time table and operational plan for first 6 months they just teleoport every where on turn 1 and then consolidate the postion) You know almost every "Major" complaint about WITP has a very simple solution. Don't like "Uber CAP" don't put more then 4 CV in a single hex (or more then 2 in a TF) (I find the reasons people don't do this very amusing. Uber CAP cause too bloody combat and strikes do not get through but people won't solve the problem because then the IJN CV might get hurt? OK then be happy with Uber CAP it's doing what you want. But if you want more realism, less bloody air combat and balance then don't use Uber CAP. 12 CV can still operate together just not in the same hex.� Since both player have to agree to this at start Operational planning will account for fact that CV-versus CV battles will take place between TF of not more then 4 CV per hex. (12 CV in 3 ajoining hexes can still launch a coordinated strike however CAP over each TF will be much less then with 12 CV in a single hex so massive coordinated strikes will have an advantage over CAP (however such strikes will only target a single TF) but the odds for the smaller disjointed strikes having an effect are greatly increased.� THis simple fix favors IJN in period before USN CV get the larger fighter squadrons and of course the IJN greatly outnumbers the USN but Japanese players still have to plan for USN because it is not sucide for 3 or 4 USN CV to come out compared to games where 10 IJN CV/CVL operate in single hex.� Since USN is a viable threat this change in play style produces a more realistic game. The USN BB at Pearl now have possible air cover if operating against Japanese bases and so Pearl Harbor strike becomes more important.� (versus games where Japan can ignore USN BB because KB always assured of overwhelming USN CV if they come into contact.� WIth 4 CV per hex limit it is now possible for 3 or 4 USN CV to inflict damage on 2 IJN TF in a single day.� (suppose 3 hexes of IJN CV opposed 1 hex of USN CV but weather grounded 1 or more hexes of IJN CV in AM and opened new target in PM? (I would not risk the war hoping for such a result but at least now it is possible where before it was not) OK the point is everything that anyone has ever posted about has a solution. UBER CAP has simple and fun solution massive ground combat does not occur in my games so it is not a problem I don't use map edges I don't overstack airfields I don't screw with production (much) I don't fly offensive missions same turn I transfer airgroup I don't teleport. Game works great I have alot of fun. My opponents don't have to pull their hair out for anything other then being fooled by those "transports" up by Attu turning out to be Hiryu Soryu Kaga and Akagi

Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/27/2006 8:16:36 PM)
Game works great I have alot of fun. My opponents don't have to pull their hair out for anything other then being fooled by those "transports" up by Attu turning out to be Hiryu Soryu Kaga and Akagi Darn. One of these days I've got to play this game against you. It sounds like fun when you talk about it. Can I put in a bid for a start next year?

mlees -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/28/2006 9:32:48 PM)
A question in regards to those "Operational Losses" figures... There are many reasons why a plane may become written off as a loss that doesn't involve the death of a pilot or aircrew. For example, some knucklehead may run into a plane with his tow tractor on the ground. A storm front blows through and flips a couple over on the apron. (Or blows them off the flightdeck.) Spare parts are stripped off an airframe to make several others flyable. (Dubbing it a "Hanger Queen".) Eventually enough parts are missing that the plane is just shoved to the side, and a replacement called up from the reserves. In WiTP, do all operational losses entail life or death risks to the pilots?

Feinder -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/28/2006 9:37:20 PM)
quote: In WiTP, do all operational losses entail life or death risks to the pilots? Yes. In WitP, an ops loss = dead pilot. -F-

mlees -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/28/2006 10:28:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder quote: In WiTP, do all operational losses entail life or death risks to the pilots?� Yes.� In WitP, an ops loss = dead pilot. -F- So, a higher number of pilots lost in "operational losses", and a more deadly A2A combat model... does this mean that more pilots die in game than they did in real life?

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625