RE: SBD-3 production is wrong

RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

bklooste -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 3:55:12 AM)
quote: I understand that manipulating the Japanese Economy and making better decisions on how to allocate the scarce resources available is part of the challenge/allure to the game for JFB's. From what I have read, there doesn't seem to be much scarcity to the resources. I have no problem with the Japanese player making alternative choices but they should be hard choices. It just doesn't seem that way from what I hear. Turning Shinano off is a "hard" choice and provides 720 HI per day for most of the game which is enough for quite a few more planes per month (100-200) + accelerate a CV ... Honestly you cant complain about Tojos if you play with PDU on ( note Japan doesnt get the Tojo chutai they had in dec 41 in Vietnam) the resources is the same as Nates and instead of a Nate most Japan builds Tojos..

Feinder -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 4:37:50 AM)
Is there a way to play a campaign game (Dec 7, 41 to end), without Japanese production? Just a scenario that has historic japanese production numbers of aircraft etc, and not to muck with producting a bunch of Tojos or whatever? Where Japan is constrained as the Allies. Number of produced aircraft, static arrival dates for ships. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Yes, it removes the relevance of strategic bombing. But if the claims are true that Japan can over-produce, then that ~also~ removes the relevance of strat bombing, since you can bank what you need before there's any pain caused by a strat bombing offensive. I'd love a no production scenario. -F-

tblersch -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 6:27:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 As I have discovered when doing F4F-4 research, this is a universal truth. Rule number one when looking at AE Allied airframe production numbers: TimTom is never wrong. Rule number two when looking at AE Allied airframe production numbers: is you think the production numbers are wrong, refer to rule #1 I mean that quite seriously. I thought the F4F-4 numbers were all wrong but after my research and some valuable information from some others, we pretty much agreed they were right. My guess is no matter which airframe you pick, you are going to find that the AE numbers are about dead on. Same here. I'm facing deep SBD shortages in 1942 as well, enough that I said to myself "That production rate can't be right." So I did some digging...and guess what? After making allowances for game mechanics (e.g. simplification of production runs to a constant monthly amount) and actual availability of airframes for battles (because - surprise, surprise - squadrons were never up to full strength in 1942, and were often seriously under-strength), the US production in the game is about as close to realistic as anyone's likely to get.

FatR -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 9:04:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I find it amusing that in what is supposed to be a historic simulation the IJ is swimming in airframes while the allies end up with carriers sitting in dock for years due to airframe shortages. The IJ has more high xp pilots then they can shake a stick at and a training program to keep their pilots elite all the way to wars end, while the allies struggle to field pilots with any experience at all, and have issues trying to keep up with training. This is not the case when the Allied player is competent. In particular, Allies not having enough planes and Japanese being able to keep their initial pilot quality cannot both be true, without gross and atrocious mismanagement on the Allied part.

FatR -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 10:03:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 What a lot of WITP AE players need to start understanding (Mike Scholl already does) is that "PDU on" and "IJN Production on" are about equal, individually, to having non-historic Allied torpedo dud rates. No. Your argument IJN Production ON is arguable (because this setting alone cannot be evaluated separately from the rest of the game), your argument about PDU ON is a load of it. Unless the Allied player, like, totally sucks at the game, PDU ON is great to have as Allies. Maybe not quite as great as it is for Japan, but the difference is not big enough to justify major handicaps for the latter. Logistics and planning is way harder with PDU OFF. Creating a mix of the available fighter types on the frontline, which is the key for successful Allied air defense, becomes way harder. Creating single-type bombers armadas, which is the key for successful Allied air offense (you don't want your 4Es to arrive piecemeal) becomes way harder. Shifting aircraft between theaters becomes way harder (nigh-impossible in some cases, such as early DEI/CBI defense). Battle-hardened squadrons might be stuck with obsolete planes. And so on. I won't ever play with PDU OFF as Allies, micromanagement already takes enough time.

FatR -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 10:28:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feinder Is there a way to play a campaign game (Dec 7, 41 to end), without Japanese production? Just a scenario that has historic japanese production numbers of aircraft etc, and not to muck with producting a bunch of Tojos or whatever? Be aware, that with the game engine as it is now, such a scenario will likely end with Allies storming Tokyo in the late 1943/early 1944. For an example of what happens when Japanese do not radically rearrange and expand the plane production see the current Cuttlefish/Q-Ball pair of AARs, where Allies move up Philippines with overwhelming force in late summer of 1943, Burma is practically overrun, DEI is isolated, and IJN had lost nearly all of its carriers.

Local Yokel -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 10:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider If you refer to a few posts above you will see what you need to do to "correct" the Japanese economy...good luck finding a PBeM opponent. I researched the economy for Japan...and the resources requirements to be transported to the HI are still shy by around 3-5 million points per year...if you want to know the tonnage of rice imported from Indo-China just ask...that being said the resource transportation requirements are about 7 times higher now when compared to WitP....so if you want to increase those requirements have it...however due to the nature of the economic model the entire system may just collapse if you go to far. As one who has played the Japanese side a good deal more than the Allied, this has come as something of an eye-opener for me. I had thought that AE provided a tolerably accurate model of the oil/resource shipping operations needed to sustain the Japanese economy, but it seems that the actual requirements are an order of magnitude greater. Worse, there is a broad hint being dropped here that the game may be incapable of providing an acceptably accurate model of the Japanese economy under war conditions. Apparently one major flaw is the game's failure to reflect Japan's food import requirements. So, one suggested solution is to turn off the production model and to apply build rates instead in order to replicate Japanese production accurately. But does that not mean that all those tramp steamers plying between Dalian and Moji and across the Tsugaru Strait with resources become instantly redundant? In which case, the Japanese player will doubtless hide them in some out-of-the-way port and all those Allied submarines will have nothing to shoot at but the IJN and the supply/troop transports. Won't the only job for the Japanese tankers be the transport of fuel to Truk, etc, whilst Palembang will cease to have any importance? It appears to me that abandonment of the production model leads to even worse distortions of the economy's impact upon strategy than its retention. Treespider may or may not be right about the difficulty of finding a PBEM opponent if the game's representation of the Japanese economy is made to reflect real life. I suspect some JFB's are sufficiently masochistic as to want to see how well they could manage an accurate economic model. But if AE is not providing such a model, apparently to ensure some people will be willing to take the Japanese side, then let's have that out in the open and stop deluding ourselves that at the grand strategic level AE has any pretensions to accuracy. If the Japanese have as big an economic advantage as is being suggested, then the presence or absence of another two dozen SBD's is a matter of the utmost insignificance.

Andrew Brown -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 12:04:42 PM)
What would be instructive in such as discussion is some information from games that have run full length (or nearly), and comparing the total numbers of Japanese aircraft produced versus what they produced in real life. I've never had the time to complete a game to anything like that far, so I can't comment myself... Andrew PS: One of the difficulties in recreating Japanese aircraft production is that it was nothing like constant - it increased by a huge amount in the later part of the war.

Andrew Brown -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 12:07:29 PM)
quote: I had thought that AE provided a tolerably accurate model of the oil/resource shipping operations needed to sustain the Japanese economy, but it seems that the actual requirements are an order of magnitude greater. No, they are not an order of magnitude greater. The requirements in game are well within the "ballpark" of what was required in the actual war, but yes - they are smaller. There are reasons for this, however. For example, not every single large and small ship that Japan used is represented in the game. Andrew

herwin -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 1:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel quote: ORIGINAL: treespider If you refer to a few posts above you will see what you need to do to "correct" the Japanese economy...good luck finding a PBeM opponent. I researched the economy for Japan...and the resources requirements to be transported to the HI are still shy by around 3-5 million points per year...if you want to know the tonnage of rice imported from Indo-China just ask...that being said the resource transportation requirements are about 7 times higher now when compared to WitP....so if you want to increase those requirements have it...however due to the nature of the economic model the entire system may just collapse if you go to far. As one who has played the Japanese side a good deal more than the Allied, this has come as something of an eye-opener for me. I had thought that AE provided a tolerably accurate model of the oil/resource shipping operations needed to sustain the Japanese economy, but it seems that the actual requirements are an order of magnitude greater. Worse, there is a broad hint being dropped here that the game may be incapable of providing an acceptably accurate model of the Japanese economy under war conditions. Apparently one major flaw is the game's failure to reflect Japan's food import requirements. So, one suggested solution is to turn off the production model and to apply build rates instead in order to replicate Japanese production accurately. But does that not mean that all those tramp steamers plying between Dalian and Moji and across the Tsugaru Strait with resources become instantly redundant? In which case, the Japanese player will doubtless hide them in some out-of-the-way port and all those Allied submarines will have nothing to shoot at but the IJN and the supply/troop transports. Won't the only job for the Japanese tankers be the transport of fuel to Truk, etc, whilst Palembang will cease to have any importance? It appears to me that abandonment of the production model leads to even worse distortions of the economy's impact upon strategy than its retention. Treespider may or may not be right about the difficulty of finding a PBEM opponent if the game's representation of the Japanese economy is made to reflect real life. I suspect some JFB's are sufficiently masochistic as to want to see how well they could manage an accurate economic model. But if AE is not providing such a model, apparently to ensure some people will be willing to take the Japanese side, then let's have that out in the open and stop deluding ourselves that at the grand strategic level AE has any pretensions to accuracy. If the Japanese have as big an economic advantage as is being suggested, then the presence or absence of another two dozen SBD's is a matter of the utmost insignificance. I've done professional and academic work in this area. We cannot as yet model a modern industrial economy in the detail needed. It's beyond the state of the art and is likely to remain that way for at least a generation. If you've ever wondered why Soviet mathematicians were expert on inverting large (1,000,000+ rows) sparse (mostly zero) matrices, it was because the problem of simulating an economy in the necessary detail to allow central planning involved solving that problem. It was and still remains intractable.

castor troy -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 2:12:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown What would be instructive in such as discussion is some information from games that have run full length (or nearly), and comparing the total numbers of Japanese aircraft produced versus what they produced in real life. I've never had the time to complete a game to anything like that far, so I can't comment myself... Andrew PS: One of the difficulties in recreating Japanese aircraft production is that it was nothing like constant - it increased by a huge amount in the later part of the war. I guess what most people are missing (and that has been true in WITP already) is the fact that the average PBEM won�t see the Japanese in the game producing more aircraft than in real life. Talking about the total numbers, the "problem" (kind of for the usual discussion) is the fact that the total numbers of real life saw also big numbers never reaching the front line (trainers etc) and of course not only the most advanced aircraft. In the game, you usually see 400-700 of the best fighters (Army and Navy) as production capability (factories most often turned off and on) and 200-400 bombers of the best versions. Total numbers produced in the course of the war aren�t that much off from real life in both WITP and AE, with AE probably made another step forward. IMO it still should be more difficult for the Japanese to produce the most advanced aircraft, perhaps doubling or trippling the supplies used for expanding or making different aircrafts costing different amounts of HI, as a Frank in late 44 probably has cost a couple of times more than a Nate in 37. While I guess only the first thing is doable.

Miller -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 2:12:47 PM)
Just to throw in my 2p worth...... According to the figures on the combind fleet website the Japs produced 53,434 a/c between 1942 and the end of 1944. I am currently at August 44 in my game, and despite it being the scn 2 variant which gives me a few production advantages, I doubt my total production will exceed the real life total. I am producing roughly 1200 a/c a month, of which 80% are single engined. Want to produce 400 Tojos a month? No problem.......but forget about building any Army bombers (which is no hardship as they are useless at this stage of the game).

Swenslim -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 3:14:15 PM)
There is one more problem wich doesnt reflect fact, that if japan player protects his convoys well, ships enough fuel and resources to HI, allied player can not bomb HI industry, then for example Frank must have service rating 1 or 2 not the 3, Tony must have 2 not 3, Fransis must have 2 rate not 4 etc. And now lets look on numbers in my pbem game is january 4 1943, im am producing total 775 planes per month, in february will open 38 Tony plant, 61 Judy plant and in april 42 Jill plant. I will close Kate, Val plants - 32 and 44 a/c per month. So i will be producing around 850 a/c per months or 10 200 a/c per year. In real history Japan produced 16 700 (including training planes) in 1943, 28 200 in 1944 and few thousand in 1945. What is much more important, Japan trains 615 army pilots and 450 navy pilots per month. I dont see where is over-production in the game.

castor troy -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 4:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Swenslim What is much more important, Japan trains 615 army pilots and 450 navy pilots per month. I dont see where is over-production in the game. there for example? [:D]

herwin -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 4:43:46 PM)
See this xkcd cartoon.

Bradley7735 -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 5:16:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 What a lot of WITP AE players need to start understanding (Mike Scholl already does) is that "PDU on" and "IJN Production on" are about equal, individually, to having non-historic Allied torpedo dud rates. No. Your argument IJN Production ON is arguable (because this setting alone cannot be evaluated separately from the rest of the game), your argument about PDU ON is a load of it. Unless the Allied player, like, totally sucks at the game, PDU ON is great to have as Allies. Maybe not quite as great as it is for Japan, but the difference is not big enough to justify major handicaps for the latter. Logistics and planning is way harder with PDU OFF. Creating a mix of the available fighter types on the frontline, which is the key for successful Allied air defense, becomes way harder. Creating single-type bombers armadas, which is the key for successful Allied air offense (you don't want your 4Es to arrive piecemeal) becomes way harder. Shifting aircraft between theaters becomes way harder (nigh-impossible in some cases, such as early DEI/CBI defense). Battle-hardened squadrons might be stuck with obsolete planes. And so on. I won't ever play with PDU OFF as Allies, micromanagement already takes enough time. If you think PDU ON is equally beneficial to both sides, then you're smoking something. Is it nice for the Allied player? sure. But, it's about a factor of 10 less in importance when you can't change the types of planes you're producing. And, Japan has 2 "countries" or nationalities to constrain him. Allies have at least 12 "countries", several of them don't even produce planes to have a choice in upgrades (Marines and India come to mind.) Want to have a decent Dutch fighter in 42? tough. Either you can't change Dutch fighter production, or there aren't any Dutch fighters to change to. It would be nice to stop production of the Buffalo (all national variants) and produce the P-40. And, it would be nice to upgrade that Dutch unit to a US produced plane. Japan can do any of that, except they can't mix between Navy and Army.

Bradley7735 -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 5:20:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I find it amusing that in what is supposed to be a historic simulation the IJ is swimming in airframes while the allies end up with carriers sitting in dock for years due to airframe shortages. The IJ has more high xp pilots then they can shake a stick at and a training program to keep their pilots elite all the way to wars end, while the allies struggle to field pilots with any experience at all, and have issues trying to keep up with training. This is not the case when the Allied player is competent. In particular, Allies not having enough planes and Japanese being able to keep their initial pilot quality cannot both be true, without gross and atrocious mismanagement on the Allied part. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the content of Sredni's post. But, your logic is flawed. Low airframes will help increase the average experience of the other player. Likewise, high average experience will help reduce the total number of airframes of the other player. "Here's 10 planes. Now, fight a war of attrition with the highly skilled enemy." [:D]

FatR -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 6:39:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy there for example? [:D] The total number of IJNAF pilots that entered various training programs in 1937-45 was over 240 thousands. Yes, most of these are late-war pilots who haven't completed their training or were trained inadequately, but so are trash pilots the in-game training program gives you (even in early 1942).

bradfordkay -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 6:54:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: I had thought that AE provided a tolerably accurate model of the oil/resource shipping operations needed to sustain the Japanese economy, but it seems that the actual requirements are an order of magnitude greater. No, they are not an order of magnitude greater. The requirements in game are well within the "ballpark" of what was required in the actual war, but yes - they are smaller. There are reasons for this, however. For example, not every single large and small ship that Japan used is represented in the game. Andrew What??!! You left out the woden hulled Japanese merchant ships??? (Sorry, Brady, I couldn't resist...)[;)]

castor troy -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 6:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy there for example? [:D] The total number of IJNAF pilots that entered various training programs in 1937-45 was over 240 thousands. Yes, most of these are late-war pilots who haven't completed their training or were trained inadequately, but so are trash pilots the in-game training program gives you (even in early 1942). yeah, what Japan in real life mostly put into their squadrons from mid 43 on would be probably something like skill 35 in the game, while in the game you put skill 70 into the squadrons, and a skill 70 pilot isn�t twice as good as a skill 35, he�s probably three or four times as good. Or do you want to tell me that you put the pilots from the replacement pool into your frontline units? I guess you train them two months and put them as skill 70 into the units...

Swenslim -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/6/2010 7:43:03 PM)
And where do you get 70 skill pilots ??? In my game in early 1943 most of my reinforcement in active squadrons are 35 skill pilots. It is very uncomfortable to manage reserve pilots who have some Manchuko training because you dont see IJN or IJA pilot you chose, so you need to push dozens of times before you get reserve pilot into squadron.

Andrew Brown -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 1:13:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin See this xkcd cartoon. One of my favourites [:)]

TheElf -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 2:57:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: che200 JWE personally i think we have to have at least a mod where the data errors in the Game are updated, or we can have an data update for new games so at least we could have better scenarios. I know that it could create problems for ongoing games but it could be an update which only people who are going to start new games would use. In my game vs the AI i edited these data errors but it would be easier if we know which are the data errors instead of editing each time. So what's to stop ya'll from making one? It's not a data error, it's a difference of opinion and, frankly, I'll listen to Mr timtom above any collection of other people, as regards opinion. This man's sources, analyses, and game integrations are cleaner than anything I have seen anywhere else. I have learned to trust his judgment implicitly. I have supported many tweaks, some of them unpopular, but I don't don't support this one. Sorry, but my vote is no. Ditto...

bklooste -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 6:59:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy there for example? [:D] The total number of IJNAF pilots that entered various training programs in 1937-45 was over 240 thousands. Yes, most of these are late-war pilots who haven't completed their training or were trained inadequately, but so are trash pilots the in-game training program gives you (even in early 1942). yeah, what Japan in real life mostly put into their squadrons from mid 43 on would be probably something like skill 35 in the game, while in the game you put skill 70 into the squadrons, and a skill 70 pilot isn�t twice as good as a skill 35, he�s probably three or four times as good. Or do you want to tell me that you put the pilots from the replacement pool into your frontline units? I guess you train them two months and put them as skill 70 into the units... The Japanese will only put them into the front line if he is forced to by attrition and is required to commit the forces , likewise for allied players. Also a quite 41 early 42 spells big trouble for Japan in late 42 due to the experienced allied pilots he then faces .

castor troy -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 7:11:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Swenslim And where do you get 70 skill pilots ??? In my game in early�1943 most of my reinforcement in active squadrons are 35 skill pilots. It is very uncomfortable to manage reserve pilots who have some Manchuko training because you dont see IJN or IJA pilot you chose, so you need to push dozens of times before you get reserve pilot into squadron. If Japanese pilot training isn�t completely different from the Allied one, then it takes two months on average of on map training and you�ve pushed a skill 35 to 70 skill pilot. That�s where you get them from. And while you find it uncomfortable to do Japanese training with IJN and IJA pilots (2 different services), the Allied player has to do the same with USAAF USN USMC British Canadian Indian Chinese Soviet Dutch New Zealand Australian pilots, which means 11 services. Does that sound more uncomfortable? Not to talk about the fact that the Allied have smaller squadrons.

castor troy -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 7:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bklooste quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy there for example? [:D] The total number of IJNAF pilots that entered various training programs in 1937-45 was over 240 thousands. Yes, most of these are late-war pilots who haven't completed their training or were trained inadequately, but so are trash pilots the in-game training program gives you (even in early 1942). yeah, what Japan in real life mostly put into their squadrons from mid 43 on would be probably something like skill 35 in the game, while in the game you put skill 70 into the squadrons, and a skill 70 pilot isn�t twice as good as a skill 35, he�s probably three or four times as good. Or do you want to tell me that you put the pilots from the replacement pool into your frontline units? I guess you train them two months and put them as skill 70 into the units... The Japanese will only put them into the front line if he is forced to by attrition and is required to commit the forces , likewise for allied players. Also a quite 41 early 42 spells big trouble for Japan in late 42 due to the experienced allied pilots he then faces . which should be quite difficult I guess when the Japanese train nearly 13000 pilots a year. That means you have to shoot down something like 15-18000 aircraft to kill those pilots.

FatR -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 10:24:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy If Japanese pilot training isn�t completely different from the Allied one, then it takes two months on average of on map training and you�ve pushed a skill 35 to 70 skill pilot. And Allied training squadrons severely outnumber Japanese ones by early autumn of 1942. About three to one if we talk about fighter squadrons. Bomber squadrons are relatively sparce, but Allied bomber pilots do not die in droves every time they meet a half-dozen of enemy fighters. So yes, Allied training pilot is completely different. In its capacity. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy That�s where you get them from. And while you find it uncomfortable to do Japanese training with IJN and IJA pilots (2 different services), the Allied player has to do the same with USAAF USN USMC British Canadian Indian Chinese Soviet Dutch New Zealand Australian pilots, which means 11 services. Does that sound more uncomfortable? No, it doesn't, see above. Besides USN and USMC are not different services. They use the same plane pools and I'm pretty sure they use the same pilot pools.

FatR -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 10:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 If you think PDU ON is equally beneficial to both sides, then you're smoking something. Is it nice for the Allied player? sure. But, it's about a factor of 10 less in importance when you can't change the types of planes you're producing. Only if you don't know how to use it or, conversely, so incredibly good at micromanagement and forward planning, that it doesn't matter much, but I, somehow, don't see any of the known great Allied players among the usual complainer crowd. quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 And, Japan has 2 "countries" or nationalities to constrain him. Allies have at least 12 "countries", several of them don't even produce planes to have a choice in upgrades (Marines and India come to mind.) Marines use the same pools as USN. quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Want to have a decent Dutch fighter in 42? tough. They get Hurricanes normally, and Hurricanes are the kings of air combat. Also, try making them survive to March of 1942, one day.

SuluSea -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 12:20:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR No, it doesn't, see above. Besides USN and USMC are not different services. They use the same plane pools and I'm pretty sure they use the same pilot pools. Wrong, They do not use the same pilot pools, nor are USMC and USAAF pilots from the same pools.

castor troy -> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong (6/7/2010 12:37:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy If Japanese pilot training isn�t completely different from the Allied one, then it takes two months on average of on map training and you�ve pushed a skill 35 to 70 skill pilot. And Allied training squadrons severely outnumber Japanese ones by early autumn of 1942. About three to one if we talk about fighter squadrons. Bomber squadrons are relatively sparce, but Allied bomber pilots do not die in droves every time they meet a half-dozen of enemy fighters. So yes, Allied training pilot is completely different. In its capacity. quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy That�s where you get them from. And while you find it uncomfortable to do Japanese training with IJN and IJA pilots (2 different services), the Allied player has to do the same with USAAF USN USMC British Canadian Indian Chinese Soviet Dutch New Zealand Australian pilots, which means 11 services. Does that sound more uncomfortable? No, it doesn't, see above. Besides USN and USMC are not different services. They use the same plane pools and I'm pretty sure they use the same pilot pools. just because you are pretty sure unfortunetely doesn�t mean it is like this. There are different pilot pools for USN and USMC. There�s no need for the Allied to have three times more "training squadrons" than the Japanese (that can create monster sized groups btw) because the Allied don�t have aircraft to put those pilots in in the time frame you talk about. They certainly have from mid 44 on though.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.921875