In Defence of Canadian Pilots (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message

Harrybanana -> In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/19/2016 7:06:18 PM)

In my game with Liquid Sky it is only T17 but I have already run out of trained Canadian pilots and have a large shortfall. Perhaps this is because of the fierce air battles we have fought, but I note that I have very large numbers of British and American pilots. I am not aware of the RCAF ever running out of trained pilots during the War. Certainly my father (an air frame mechanic) never told me any stories about the Lancs sitting unused on the airfields because of a pilot shortage. Canada was, as most people know, the home of the Commonwealth Air Training Program. As a result it is my understanding that a disproportionate number of young Canadian men chose to join the air force rather than the Army or Navy. By Wars end the RCAF had 200,000+ men (and some women) under its command. It was the 4th largest air force in the World.

Accordingly, I don't understand why Canada, with 1/4 the population of Britain, receives only 1/9th the number of pilots per turn, or with 1/10th the population of the US receives only 1/14th the number of pilots per turn. Especially since, unlike Britain and the US, all of the RCAF's active overseas squadrons were stationed in Europe. Can someone explain to me how the number of pilots each nation receives per turn was arrived at?



JeffroK -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/19/2016 8:46:07 PM)

At least 23 Squadrons remained in Canada for either West Coast duties or the East Coast where they performed Anti Sub Duties.

Being the largest base for the EATS ([:D]) more men where absorbed in supporting duties.

4th Largest Air Force?? Most of its men went to Article XV Squadrons of the RAF [:'(] The RAAF had more men under direct Australian command, well over 150,000 at wars end.

INVHO, aircraft losses are too high, so historical pilot and airframe numbers run short.



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 12:09:56 AM)

Hmmm...just read the wikipedia entry for the RAAF and see that it claims to have been the 4th largest Air Force at the end of the war as well. By number of personnel the RCAF was clearly larger, but I can't find anything that says how many aircraft the RCAF had to compare with the 5000+ the Australians claim.

The Article XV personnel contributed by Canada went primarily (and by the time period covered by this game almost exclusively) to RCAF squadrons not to RAF squadrons. For example my dad was assigned to RCAF 424 squadron when he went oversea in 1944. True they were under RAF operational control (in my dad's squadrons case Bomber Command) but they were still RCAF squadrons.

You may be right that losses in the game are greater than historical. But I disagree that, at least for the Allies in general, "pilot and airframe numbers run short." I have lots of airframes and a large surplus of British and American pilots. It is just for the Canadians and a few of the others that I am short on pilots.

During and after the Battle of Britain it was the RAF (not the RCAF) who ran short of pilots and personnel and this is why, early in the War, Dominion pilots and personnel were assigned to RAF squadrons. I am not aware of the RCAF ever being short of pilots. And even it ever was, the whole point of the BCATP was to share resources. So if the RCAF ever was short of pilots and the British had a surplus they would have been assigned to RCAF squadrons; just like Canadian and other Dominion pilots had previously been assigned to RAF squadrons. They certainly would not just leave these trained British pilots sitting in the "pool" while RCAF aircraft rotted away for lack of anyone to fly them. For this reason I think it would make more sense to have one common pool for the entire Commonwealth (and maybe the Norwegians and others for that matter). Alternatively, the number of Canadian pilots entering the pool each turn needs to be increased.



JeffroK -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 2:31:28 AM)

For this reason I think it would make more sense to have one common pool for the entire Commonwealth (and maybe the Norwegians and others for that matter

Closer to how it worked IRL.



JeffroK -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 2:33:47 AM)

From Wiki.

Article XV squadrons were Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand air force squadrons formed from graduates of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (1939) during World War II.

These units complemented another feature of the BCATP, under which personnel from the Royal Air Force (RAF), Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) and Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) were placed in a common pool, and assigned to Article XV and RAF squadrons – in Europe, the Mediterranean Theatre, Africa and South-East Asia – according to operational needs.



RedLancer -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 9:24:21 AM)

A revamp of the pilot system is so unlikely as to be a close on to a non-starter.

The game allows you to push the airforces (and ground too) much harder than history. If you are running short then tweaking your approach may be in order.



JeffroK -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 10:05:00 AM)

But you still cant fill out Commonwealth squadrons with Commonwealth pilots



RedLancer -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 11:29:20 AM)

I don't understand. In the game Commonwealth has a specific meaning which effects usage of aircraft and ground elements. There are no generic Commonwealth squadrons or pilots - only individual nations. You always have the opportunity to use untrained pilots.

In my games I tend to place squadrons from nations who receive less pilots in quieter roles and I use their FB squadrons as fighters and not bombers.



LiquidSky -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 1:40:30 PM)



I do the opposite. I use them as bombers, not fighters. But they sit in England until June 1944. I also only use Americans on air superiority missions. And the commonwealth bombers flying over the Ruhr tend not to lose a lot of planes when flying at night.

We did fight some pretty intense superiority battles over the Ruhr in the early game....I shot a lot of Spit V's down. Probably many of those were Commonwealth.

I think it is one of those things where once you get burned, you wont let it happen again.



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 2:42:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

A revamp of the pilot system is so unlikely as to be a close on to a non-starter.

The game allows you to push the airforces (and ground too) much harder than history. If you are running short then tweaking your approach may be in order.


I'm not looking for a revamp at this stage of the development. Just increase the replacement rate of the Canadian pilots to historical levels. I'm not a programmer but I assume this would be an easy fix and just require changing the number in the data from 26 per turn to 35 or so. At the same time you can decrease the British number if you want, they get way too many vis a vis the Canadians and other nationalities.

If I am pushing the air forces harder than history (I'm not saying I am, but if I am) then why do I have such a large excess of British and American pilots? And I have been tweaking my approach over the last few turns when I realized I was running short. For example, only RAF and American pilots are now flying air superiority missions in Northern Europe and all the RCAF NF squadrons have been disbanded. But as a Canadian it galls me to have to "conserve" my nations air force and give it a far less prominent role then it played historically because of faulty programming. I'm not saying this is a major fault in the game, or will have any significant effect on the outcome of my game. But it does offend my honour.



RedLancer -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 2:53:44 PM)

I am not unsympathetic but I am surprised that if there is a big problem in numbers why it hasn't been raised before, hence my reluctance to commit. The Dev Team does have a Canadian conscience in Keith Butterley (warshipbuilder). I'm hoping he'll chip in.

(From a purely personal perspective I'd like to see pilot replacement number as a editable function)



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 3:01:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I don't understand. In the game Commonwealth has a specific meaning which effects usage of aircraft and ground elements. There are no generic Commonwealth squadrons or pilots - only individual nations. You always have the opportunity to use untrained pilots.


Yes, but what we are saying is that there should be a generic pool for Commonwealth pilots that can be used to fill RAF, RCAF,RAAF and RNZAF squadrons. I understand this is not likely for WitW, but something to keep in mind for WitW II.

Historically the RCAF never used untrained pilots. I can see your point that if casualties were high enough they may have had to, but I would suggest that if casualties were that high the RAF would have run out of trained pilots before the Canadians.

quote:

In my games I tend to place squadrons from nations who receive less pilots in quieter roles and I use their FB squadrons as fighters and not bombers.


I have used the Canadian and other nationalities as fighters and not FBs. I don't believe a single Canadian squadron has been converted to a FB role. The same with the Belgians, Dutch, Czechs and Poles. But I have still had to withdraw all of their fighters from active duty.

I understand what you are saying about placing the squadrons from nations who receive less pilots in quieter roles. That makes sense. But I see you are from the UK. Would you not find it just a little galling if the British only received say 50 pilots per turn while the Canadian and other nationalities all received more than enough to fill their air forces. So that now it was the RAF that had to do all these "quieter roles" and wasn't getting enough trained pilots to fill its squadrons?




Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 3:13:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I am not unsympathetic but I am surprised that if there is a big problem in numbers why it hasn't been raised before, hence my reluctance to commit. The Dev Team does have a Canadian conscience in Keith Butterley (warshipbuilder). I'm hoping he'll chip in.

(From a purely personal perspective I'd like to see pilot replacement number as a editable function)


I can't speak for anyone else but I never noticed it myself until now. In my prior games all my Allied pilot replacements, except NF, were set to "normal". So, of course, all my Canadian squadrons had their full complement of pilots. I never noticed that they had lower experience than the British and Americans and I don't think I ever once clicked on the "Pilots" tab. But as I get in to the game I am learning and discovering more features all the time.

If other players have not experienced a shortage of Canadian pilots and my own shortage was simply caused by greater than normal air casualties, then I will withdraw my protest. But if in fact it is normal for the Canadians to run out of trained pilots, unless extraordinary measures are taken, then I respectfully request that this be addressed.



Helpless -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 4:39:35 PM)

Amount of train pilots per turn depends on the number squadrons in the scenario plus national modifiers. Amount of Canadian pilots was increased after release (should be in the patch notes). It is possible to modify it again, but as John said we got no reports that it is low in neither tests we ran.



cmunson -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 8:01:09 PM)

I use to have a shortage before the patch but haven't had an issue since but I also don't run my air force as hard as some other players might. It is rare now I have more than 3 days of flying for a given AD and many like bombing are 2 days. The Free French and the Norwegians seem to have the most pilot shortages. I've also learned over time to be careful about my missions so I avoid casualties. Those who've flown interdiction missions over the Ruhr know of what I speak.

That said if someone presents a compelling case that the replacement rate is too low for a given country then I guess I would vote for a rate change.

Here is Turn 95 as Allies in 43 Campaign.

[image]local://upfiles/26498/2EEB96B4206D4B179D65C4B1057F8368.jpg[/image]



cmunson -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 8:09:00 PM)

One more point I would make. There are a lot of Canadians in bomber command. The effectiveness of night bombing decreases dramatically by late 1944 and the loss rate soars. Germans have swarms of night fighters with lots of aces. I find myself switching much of bomber command to daylight ground attacks in late 1944 missions to keep casualty rates down. Allies rule the daytime sky and those big bombs are great for blasting stubborn Germans out of fortified cities/ports.



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 10:44:48 PM)

Chris, are you playing a human opponent or the AI?

I don't consider myself particularly reckless with my air force. I was only bombing 2 days per week with Bomber Command and 8th AF. I recently increased to 3 days per week after some testing indicated that it was feasible (well except perhaps for the Canadians). BC is bombing at night from 21,000' which is limiting it's losses. My opponent appears to have disbanded most if not all of his NFs so that should help. But I don't think one should have to rely on that or other extraordinary measures for the RCAF.

If the British and Americans were also running out of trained pilots I would have just put it down to excessive casualties all around. I also understand why the Belgians, Poles and Dutch mwould run out of pilots as they had a limited pool to draw upon.

If it is just me that has a shortage of Canadian pilots then perhaps it is just my bad luck or something. But I expect it is a problem with everyone and they just don't realize it. Like I said, I played two entire campaign games as the Allies against the AI and one against a human and it is not until I was playing my 4th game that I ever even checked my pilot pool. Has anyone else noticed a shortage of Canadian pilots?



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/20/2016 10:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris.munson

One more point I would make. There are a lot of Canadians in bomber command. The effectiveness of night bombing decreases dramatically by late 1944 and the loss rate soars. Germans have swarms of night fighters with lots of aces. I find myself switching much of bomber command to daylight ground attacks in late 1944 missions to keep casualty rates down. Allies rule the daytime sky and those big bombs are great for blasting stubborn Germans out of fortified cities/ports.


Why does the effectiveness of night bombing decrease in late 44? Is this just because of the swarms of German NFs. My understanding is that many human German players disband their NF squadrons because they need the pilots for their day fighter squadrons.



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/21/2016 5:53:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Amount of train pilots per turn depends on the number squadrons in the scenario plus national modifiers. Amount of Canadian pilots was increased after release (should be in the patch notes). It is possible to modify it again, but as John said we got no reports that it is low in neither tests we ran.


Well the RAF has 6X more squadrons than the RCAF and Britain had 4X Canada's population; but they get 9X more pilots per turn. Again you wouldn't get any reports unless people were looking for this; and I rather doubt that anyone could possibly be as anal about this as me.

This is not a game breaker, just an annoyance for me.

I did take a look at my save from T80 (the last turn) of my game against the AI. Canada did have 400+ pilots in the pool (Britain had 10,000+). But the real difference was in experience. The RAF squadrons all had experience from 70 to 90 (most in the 80's); the RCAF squadrons were only 65 to 80 (most in the 70's). So I can only assume that there were some untrained pilots int he RCAF.



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/21/2016 5:54:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris.munson

I use to have a shortage before the patch but haven't had an issue since but I also don't run my air force as hard as some other players might. It is rare now I have more than 3 days of flying for a given AD and many like bombing are 2 days. The Free French and the Norwegians seem to have the most pilot shortages. I've also learned over time to be careful about my missions so I avoid casualties. Those who've flown interdiction missions over the Ruhr know of what I speak.

That said if someone presents a compelling case that the replacement rate is too low for a given country then I guess I would vote for a rate change.

Here is Turn 95 as Allies in 43 Campaign.

[image]local://upfiles/26498/2EEB96B4206D4B179D65C4B1057F8368.jpg[/image]



Chris. How do the Canadians and the Brits compare in experience?



cmunson -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/21/2016 2:19:41 PM)

quote:

Why does the effectiveness of night bombing decrease in late 44? Is this just because of the swarms of German NFs. My understanding is that many human German players disband their NF squadrons because they need the pilots for their day fighter squadrons.


It is due to night fighters. Off topic but I am curious about strategy of disbanding night fighters. The one place the Luftwaffe can dominate late war is at night getting substantial kill rates of 10:1 or more. The lifespan in daylight against hordes or Allied escorts is pretty short. I find Germans late war reduced to holing up in a few places with no drop tanks to try and catch deep raids that my be flying past escort range. Even if good German pilots in daylight getting a 2:1 kill ratio the attrition from that can't begin to keep up with the 35 pilot a week replacement rate. Flying missions with hordes of untrained pilots is just building planes in order to crash them.

It what may be heresy to some I send many of the daylight reinforcement fighter groups to EF to boost CV there.

I don't have an argument against more Canadian pilots if facts bear out replacement rate too low. Something I do that may help Canadians that dates back to pre patch but I still practice is moving the FB's from Italy to southern England a couple of months before D-Day. Here they get Typhoons and rest up for D-Day. I also move all Canadian troops to England so they will be wanting their own air support. Finally, I only play as Allies now with the additional air HQ's. I put all Canadian bombers in their own command so it is easy to have them set out a few turns. I never fly Wellingtons on strategic bombing missions also and the Canadians have a lot of those units so I upgrade or put them in a port buster command.

As for pilot experience, you can go into the editor and see the base levels by calendar quarter for each of the combatants.

I usually play against AI but note even AI doesn't contest daylight raids late in the war. Allied AI does run air units too hard though with no rest and I should go look at their replacement pools sometime.

Good luck over Germany.



Harrybanana -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/21/2016 3:52:57 PM)

Thanks Chris. But I still don't understand why the German NFs get a kill ratio of 10:1 in the late war? In the early part of my game with QBall (where I am the Germans) it was the British NFs and Bombers that were shooting down my NFs at a rate of about 2:1 or better in their favour. This has been fixed with a recent patch, but they are still shooting me down in close to equal numbers. What changes that results in the Germans getting 10:1 ratio in their favour? And again is this against a human opponent or the AI? If against the AI I suspect that the AI doesn't transfer NFs to Bomber Command from Fighter Command or the TAC Air forces so is at a numerical disadvantage. Also I read a post that the Allies should set their NFs to accept trained pilots only, so I assume most human players do this.

With respect to Canadian pilots, I agree that things can be done to reduce pilot losses. I also agree that this is not a game changer. But it galls me (probably because I am Canadian and my dad was career RCAF) that these special measures have to be taken to keep the Canadian pilots safe. The fact that you also appear to have to take special measures (such as putting the RCAF Bombers in their own command so they can sit out a few turns) to preserve them suggests that this is not just me. Of course, the Canadians did have their own Group (6th) in Bomber Command; but they never had to sit out a few.

But since no one else is posting here that they have to take special measures to preserve the RCAF pilots I can only assume that it is not a problem for others.



cmunson -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/21/2016 5:13:34 PM)

When I reference 10:1 I should clarify I mean axis NF versus allied NF and allied night bombers. NF on NF it is closer to 1:1 although I'm not tracking closely. I've been playing with the patch to NF combat for longer as a beta tester and any comments on NF performance are in reference to post patch. I've only played one human opponent since the patch. Playing allies or axis though it is tough slog at night starting mid 1944. Maybe the axis shouldn't be able to marshal hundreds of night interceptors in one attack but their radar sets improve as war advances.

Night intruder missions help allies some but they are low numbers. AI does put some NF's as escort but playing as Allies I find I lose that war of attrition as allied NF production is low (versus 60+ a week for Axis). Since the patch I only put half of my allied NF's on escort and the rest on intruder missions because as I said I find I can't keep up with the attrition on the escort missions.

I am generally happy with night action now and seems balanced but glad players always digging into things and suggesting changes. That's what makes this game and the support the dev teams gives it so great.






LiquidSky -> RE: In Defence of Canadian Pilots (2/21/2016 9:53:40 PM)



In 1944 there is little reason for the allies to bomb at night. The Lancasters can do much better damage bombing in the day, and the Luftwaffe day fighter force is no longer an obstacle to day light bombing. As such, there is little point into having 100's of pilots sitting around at night with nothing to shoot at.

In June? 1944, the Luftwaffe fighter squadrons all get much bigger. It's a good time to fill them with the trained pilots from the night squadrons.

I keep the ZG squadrons as they can flip between day and night by changing the planes....if I feel the need for a small number of night fighters.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625