Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (Full Version)

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



Message

caslug -> Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/1/2004 10:13:31 PM)

Ok, 10 pilot/mo for carrier trained is maybe right. BUT in the game, the 10 pilot/mo INCLUDES Jap Naval Air (ie, landbase zeros, vals, kate, search planes, etc.,). Maybe I'm wrong about this, but in my latest game (Mar 42) I had 300-400 JAAF replacement pilot in pool and 40 JNAF pilots in pool. I turned ALL NAVAL plane units(units on carrier & ships) OFF replacment, BUT all Land based air on Accept replacement. So what happens, my JNAF pilot pools goes down to zero. Which is OK, because I had couple of carrier units offload on based. The land base air units gets regular pilot replacement(65 exp) for oscars, bettys, nates, etc., (again OK), BUT the carrier "capable" units get the untrain pilots(35-40 exp). Maybe there should be a separate pool for carrier pilots, versus regular naval pilots(seaplane, land base zeros, vals, kates, & land base patrol/float plane). I think the allied sides gets that(US Naval separate from Air Corp& marine pilots).



rogueusmc -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 12:37:08 AM)

quote:

I think the allied sides gets that(US Naval separate from Air Corp& marine pilots).

But Navy pilot pool includes pilots for the Catalinas, Coronados, etc. too...same pool that supplies the Navy Wilcat pilots...it's basically the same on both sides.



caslug -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 12:54:27 AM)

JNAF gets a TOTAL of 10 pilot/mo for carrier, land base fighter/attack pls, float planes, & patrol planes. I think that way too low, while the JAAF operate on land and gets much more replacement. Land base naval pilot(JNAF) doesn't need as many training hours as carrier based, so why can't we get mor of them, like the army(JAAF). I guess the question.. is the 10 pilot a month(JNAF) was ALL the entire jap navy graduated? Or was this ONLY Carrier pilots? Genda said at the start of the war JNAF had 4000 trained pilots of those only 1500 were carrier pilots, the rest were land based, float planes, etc.,

That would mean at rate of 120 pilot/yr it would have taken 33 yrs to train 4000 pilots. which is obviously no true. They had 4000 pilots on Dec 7th. Maybe what would fair would be 10 carrier pilots/mo and 25-30 land based naval pilots/mo.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 12:56:44 AM)

These are *replacements* only, you will notice that all your air groups arrive full of pilots.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 1:21:42 AM)

10 pilots per month is only *trained* pilots. You can draw as many pilots as you want from the pool, but these will be untrained (exp 20-30).

Also, lets not forget you have one HUGE advantage over historical Japanese. You can use IJAAF to defend "navy" bases on the islands (you know, Zoomie's favorite fantasy, IJA and IJN commanders sharing hot showers together [:D] - gave me creeps whenever I read it [X(])

Oleg



DrewMatrix -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 1:25:16 AM)

quote:

Zoomie's favorite fantasy, IJA and IJN commanders sharing hot showers together


See, once again you are exagerrating and not sticking to historical fact. The IJA and IJN leaders never shared hot showers.

Everybody knows they just all got in those wooden Japanese Hot Tub things together.



Brady -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 1:34:16 AM)

Ya it is a bit insane how low the trained piolets leveal is for the Japaense each month, even doubling the present 10 to 20 would still be low, given the numbers they trained.


"Also, lets not forget you have one HUGE advantage over historical Japanese. You can use IJAAF to defend "navy" bases on the islands"

While it is true that teh Navy and Army had their own private war going on, on the side they did coperate withone another on ocashion, the Peggy's from both services forming a joint atack unit would be one example, and Army and Navy planes were stationed in the same areas, such as Rabaul as an example of Joint Fighter ops in one area.



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 2:46:28 AM)

Hi, Once again go back and count all the IJN units that arrive as reinforcements. These units arrive fully trained. now divide this total by the number of months before each unit arrives and you'll find IJN training levels to be much higher then just 10 pilots per month.

I'll show you how.

At start there are 4xIJN fighter Datai 129 days out. 4x27 pilots= 108 pilots 129/30=4 months. Just in fighter pilots the Japanese month training is shown not to be a mere 10 per month but 37 pilots per month. During this period there are 63 Betty pilots arriving. Total per month goes to 52. 18 Mavis pilots total at around 56 18 float plane fighter total 60 per month

So please use your brain before you complain.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 4:16:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caslug
That would mean at rate of 120 pilot/yr it would have taken 33 yrs to train 4000 pilots. which is obviously no true. They had 4000 pilots on Dec 7th. Maybe what would fair would be 10 carrier pilots/mo and 25-30 land based naval pilots/mo.


SLUG The Japanese Navy didn't have 4,000 pilots on 12/7/41. In truth, they didn't
have enough pilots to actually man the 2100 or so A/C the Navy possessed. The
replacement rate sucks..., but it's not that inaccurate. Japanese policies on Pilot
Training were woefully out of step with their ambitions.



Brady -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 4:25:00 AM)

Figures posted and quoted in the past for trained Japanese Naval avaitors do not generaly include those aloted for Auxilary units, some do and some dont, most sight only fighter piolets available so again realy the figures listed in past referances are larger in ral life than they apear, do not only to this omishion but those inhearent in the original figures which are not compleatly inclusive of just he fighter figuers do to omishions in the data for them as well. Now having said all that it should be noted that again the system in WitP for creating Japanese air units is not realy historical anyway what this means in this case is that while they arive fullt equiped with trained airmen they do so in an unrealistic maner not so much so during the begining of the war but certainly later in time, these units earler were already in the pipe line the later ones are more fixtishious in their creation. Even sighting Mogamis from the hip figures your way short of Navy piolets. I will grant you it would be nie on imposable to creat a system that was 100% historicaly corect in this regard and the one at present is pretyy darn good realy with the exception of the "pool" fiure witch is realy imo prety darn low.



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 4:38:51 AM)

Hi, In the first year of the war the Japanese player receives 417 trained pilots in airgroups and 120 pilots in pool for a total of 537 trained IJN pilots. 537/12=44.75 pilots per month.
This number does not include pilots the player can take as untrained and train on map. Nor does it include the 100 trained pilots in the pool at start. (Japan receives in total then 637 trained IJN pilots in first year)

Simply put. If you lose more then 45 pilots per month you are falling behind except for what you train on map your self. Taking just 1 Daitai of each type of aircraft (fighter,divebomber,torpedo,Landbased) you would be able to train another 108 pilots raising your monthy total to 53.75 pilots per month. The Japanese could not replace excessive loss from their groups. You must plan your operations for less loss then you can replace. There is no subsitute for this.

The game provides a reasonable number of trained pilots and allows you to decide how many more you train. The shortage is not because the game miscounted. The game as designed requires the Japanese player to decide if he is going to train new pilots or use untrained pilots. It is completly up to him.


Now since you know you can lose 745 pilots in the first year and be right where you began what are we complaining about? IJN CV will fight perhaps 2 CV battles. Allow half your loss for these (372) and half for landbased aircraft and you see the IJN can replace their CV airgroups almost entirely with trained pilots and still lose 31 pilots per month from their landbased groups. [X(] jeez you act like Japan is hamstrung because of pilots.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 4:59:01 AM)

DEAD ON TARGET, Mogami. The real problem is that number "10". A lot of posters
seem to think that that is ALL the trained replacements the IJN gets.



Brady -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 4:59:19 AM)

I am not having a huge cow over this, it is kinda a pet peave of mine but I do think the number could/should be a tad higher in the pool for replacements each month for the Army and Navy.



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 5:15:41 AM)

Hi, Brady it's no problem. But just to satisfy my curiosity how many trained pilots do you think Japan should get in the first year of the war?
Just how short is the pools monthly allotment and how many of the pilots the player gets should be his responsibly? Should the Japanese player get all his pilots trained for free or should a good portion of the training be left to him?

Would a good simple solution be to just add a few more Daitai and call them training units so the Japanese player would understand from the start they were strictly training units and if he used them for combat he would lose the abilty to receive future trained pilots.
(Code it so that when the player was happy with the training levels of these specific groups he could move the pilots into his pool and fill the groups up with untrained pilots and begin training them)

Have two choices for each group
1. Trained replacements
2. Untrained replacements



Mike Scholl -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 5:29:29 AM)

MOGAMI. If Brady says "11.4" we kill him.., right?



herbieh -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 5:33:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Brady it's no problem. But just to satisfy my curiosity how many trained pilots do you think Japan should get in the first year of the war?
Just how short is the pools monthly allotment and how many of the pilots the player gets should be his responsibly? Should the Japanese player get all his pilots trained for free or should a good portion of the training be left to him?

Would a good simple solution be to just add a few more Daitai and call them training units so the Japanese player would understand from the start they were strictly training units and if he used them for combat he would lose the abilty to receive future trained pilots.
(Code it so that when the player was happy with the training levels of these specific groups he could move the pilots into his pool and fill the groups up with untrained pilots and begin training them)

Have two choices for each group
1. Trained replacements
2. Untrained replacements



I agree with Mog. Ive had several false starts as Japan against the AI, the 1st turn is so huge!. Part of that is putting some squadrons ect to training, and putting everything to no replacements. I try to withdraw units, then fill up, and begin training.
Because Mogami is far more experienced, how many planes do you normally have training (roughly), how do you go about it?, how low should I let a daiti? get before withdrawing it

Sticking neck tentatively out.....



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 6:12:28 AM)

Hi, On turn 1 I begin by moving undersize airgroups (both Army and Navy) to where I can disband 1 into another. I set all groups to "do not receive replacements" ) When I get to where the remainging groups are at or near full strength I have a number of Chutai disbanded and set to return in 90 days. These groups will draw pilots from pool when they retrun but the Navy pool will be at or near 0 by then and the Army pool is large enough that It does not matter (I will have Army trained replacement groups close to the turn these units reform The Navy groups are the ones that will need to be place into actual training)
Since I have not yet been able to get all my Navy Groups into combat I always have a number of groups that are "rear area" I use these as replacement groups. When a front line group gets to where it requires 4 or more pilots I break a Daitai down (3 groups of 9 pilots/ac each) I fly the group to where needed and disband. Now the front line group is brought back to fighting size and I have a group to place untrained pilots into and begin training
I plan my operations with this in mind. For every Daitai in combat I want one of these 9 pilot/AC groups. So I would say I begin operations with a 3 to 1 ratio. 1 reserve Daitai for every front line Daitai. I use the IJN pool for my CV. I augment them by when ever possible disbanding a landgroup into the CV group. (becarefull not to overload your CV)
In one current game the date is 12-29-41 and I only have 11 pilots in my pool. This means I am doing fine because all front line and CV units are at full strength or slightly over strength (excess ac go into reserve in the group and when pilots are assigned daily missions the ones with the higher fatigue sit out the day and rest)



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 6:50:46 AM)

Mog what happens when you, according to your training program, disband one third of the "reserve" Daitai that is *only* "carrier capable" (ie land based Zeroes or Vals), into frontline CV Zero or Val Daitai that is "carrier trained"?

I guess nothing special [8D]

O.



rogueusmc -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 7:11:18 AM)

The "air group' is 'carrier capable'...not the pilots....the pilots they draw will be good for the airgroup using them.



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 7:13:10 AM)

Hi, No nothing happens when I take a trained carrier capable pilot and place him into a carrier trained unit. 90 days later I get a carrier capable unit full of untrained carrier capable but not carrier trained pilots. If I place the entire carrier capable but not carrier trained group on a carrier I risk higher op loss but if I send the entire group in parcels to a carrier trained group there is no increase in Op loss. Are we really going to start sweating the impact of adding trained pilots to carrier groups? It would be better if I could only disband carrier trained groups into carrier trained groups but you cannot disband a group assigned to a CV by the data base. Withdrawing does not work because the pilots of a withdrawn group go with it off map leaving only the aircraft behind.
Since the Japanese player using this mission must still commit a group to replacement and then go through the process of retraining it again before it can be used again I don't see a major issue. Just consider all such groups so used to be carrier trained. The groups used at start of war are all well trained. Groups used later in war will still be among the best pilots available. It's easier then adding still more rules and restrictions that the player would hurdle because in the end the Japanese player will do what he must to have trained pilots for his groups. He will train pilots as long as he is able. Only by running out of supply will he stop training pilots. Carrier training is important but pilots sent to carrier training are already pilots. If the Japanese player can fill up his groups with untrained pilots and conduct missions with them what should stop him from sending fully trained pilots? (If only carrier trained pilots can be sent to carriers then the player should not be allowed to send untrained pilots. Then he would have to move the groups to a shore base and train pilots before sending the group to a CV to carrier train which in the end is the same as just sending trained pilots )



Brady -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 8:34:47 AM)

"But just to satisfy my curiosity how many trained pilots do you think Japan should get in the first year of the war? "

Honestly I dont Know, since the game is not true to history in this regard anyway it is very hard to arive at a figure, and since my sources are not good for the Army in this regard and only particaily so for the Navy it is dificult to say, what my sources show is that what is given at present is at face value just a token in the game. This is whear it gets kinda hard to make a good point since the lines are blury to begine with. From the Hip simply doubling it would seam a good start, but the Army should realy get more than the Navy so finding a good figure is hard presently for me to arive at.

"Would a good simple solution be to just add a few more Daitai and call them training units "

I think your workaround for the piolet training is a frankely brilent game play tactic, one I hope to be able to emulate myself. Howeaver I am kinda put off by the fact that it must be done in the first place, since the Japanese ecenomy is not represented at anywhear near the fullest extent and the fact that we must dink with this is realy a big pain in the pooper and efectively saps 1/3 of your front line strength..that alone is a big peave of mine, granted in the first part of the war this is not a big deal but soon enough these units will be neaded...but No we have to train our own piolets in WiTP because they think 10 a month is the corect leval?!?!? You clould as you say add some extra units to represent training, and posably even add some extra suply/resources to make up for feading them this would at least make up for the loss in force.

Trained replacements/ or untrained is also an interesting idea.



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 8:57:50 AM)

Hi, Brady it should be pretty easy to get an answer from you.
Why don't you just post your version of the Japanese OOB.

Do it like this.

1st Ftr Daitai Tokyo 27xA6M2
a new group would be like this
5 Jan 1942 1st Ftr Daitai Tokyo 27xA6M2

As you compile your OOB you just note "included in WITP" or "Not included in WITP"
If a group was disbanded you note the date and location it was disbanded. If a group changed aircraft type you note the date location and new type of aircraft.

Then you count all the pilots. This does not give you how many pilot Japan trained for any specific period but you know how many they required at any specific time in order to fully man their groups.

When you are all done you will no longer have to "guess or feel" about WITP numbers you will know one way or the other. If for any specific date you have a number of aircraft other then normal TOE it note that.



caslug -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 10:30:47 AM)

I only brought the low number (10/mo) because I read that Captain Minoro Genda, mastermind of Pearl Harbor stated, "The strenght of JNAF at the beginning of the war was 3-4000 pilots. About 1500 were trained for carriers..."

While Col. Junji Hyashi, Chief of Staff of JAAF 51st Training Division, told Allied officers: "JAAF had appx. 2000 pilots w/ 300 hrs training in 1941....Training divisions had about 750 planes and each graduated 300 pilots every 3 mos. Cadets had lower physical standards as war progressed, but mental skills remained the same and there was no cause for degradation in that regards."

Frag&Mogami brought up a critical point, new units come in fully staff. So this makes it a little more easier to understand. Too bad we can't just have training school(basic, intermediate, adv) and allow us to allocate percentages to different type of planes based on exp/scores. I'm not advocating placing indvidual pilots to fighters, attack planes etc., but maybe fighters get top 30% of each class, bombers get middle 30%, transport gets bottom 20%, etc.,



Arkady -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 11:47:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caslug
...
I'm not advocating placing indvidual pilots to fighters, attack planes etc., but maybe fighters get top 30% of each class, bombers get middle 30%, transport gets bottom 20%, etc.,

Are you sure ? [:D]
Do you want your special sake delivery transport plane crashed by inexperienced pilot ? [:-]

My cargo planes pilots must be very experienced...[8D]



tigercub -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 1:19:40 PM)

Hi everyone

I have started a PBEM game of scenario #15 against a local friend. I'm the Allies.

We used the editor to change many things in the game: one of the main ones was to increase the Jap pilot income to 75/60 for the army and navy. We have done much reading and we agreed that the Japaneses might have had low pilot training for many reasons in different parts of the war but overall it improved to meet most of their needs until the big fuel crisis prevented first class training.

The low 10/20 per month is too debilitating for the Japanese. And certainly does not represent the Japanese ability. Sure they have an "unlimted" supply of untrained pilots in the game but surely these didnot start appearing until mid 1943,NOT December 1941! The pre-war Jap CV pilots were certainly a one-of-a-kind elite. But that doesn't mean that the next generation are only 10 well trained pilots plus many poorly trained zombies. With 60 trained pilots per month we agreed it would give the Japanese a chance to stay competitive but remaining in an historical average for the Japanese. The pilot quality starts to decline according to the manual, 1944 the Army is experience 50 and navy 45. And when the Japs begin to lose many planes in 1943 their third generation of pilots will start to contain the "untrained" elements that all Allied Fanboys like to read about. (And the 1944 Turkey Shoot will show).

I think that the Japanese had good pilots but they were severely restricted by tactics, supply, support, inadequate planes, and choosing to fight the wrong battles at the wrong time and place.



mogami -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 1:57:19 PM)

Hi, At 75/60 Japan should never have a pilot problem. Remember this is in addition to the trained pilots Japan gets with new groups that as I've shown already give Japan over 600 Navy pilots in first year. You've made it so that a Japanese supply shortage will have little impact on Japanese pilot quality.
Japan is supposed to train pilots on map. Any demand over that 600 pilots the first year is supposed to be trained on map. Now there is no reason for Japan to ever train a pilot on map.
2700 trained Navy pilots for the war may not sound like much but this is in exess of all the new arrivals. 2700 pilots is almost enough for Japan to replace the entire IJN airforces 2 times for free. (and the 3450 free Army pilots allow the replacement of the IJA more then 2 times) How many times do you think the Japanese were able to replace their entire airforce before they could not do it again with trained pilots. (Hint Japan began to use less trained pilots before they had lost 1000 combined Army/Navy pilots. The percentage of less trained pilots only increased over time. Even as Japan expanded training programs the percentage of what we would consider poorly trained pilots in combat units increased.

at 75/60 Japan is a super power. (She gets 1350 trained Navy pilots in the first year now. More then enough to replace the loss of Midway and Solomons. )



Hard Sarge -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 3:21:49 PM)

quote:

The strenght of JNAF at the beginning of the war was 3-4000 pilots. About 1500 were trained for carriers..."


okay, well, which one is it ?, did they have 3000 trained pilots, or did they have 4000 trained pilots ? just a little bit of a fudge factor there

I mean were half of them Carrier trained, or were a third of them Carrier trained ?

Brady, I disagree with your statements, your not sure how many should be there, if the game had come with 20 a month, you would complain, if it came with 100 a month, you would complain

like your arguement about the Ki-100, being a good 2nd Gen plane, come on man, all your info, and you trying to say it was designed ?, I would think that would be the last plane you would bring up, since the only reason it was made, was the Ki-61 couldn't be, they had frames and wings, but no engines, so they added a engine that was laying around, and it worked out much better then they thought it would, and in fact turned out to be a pretty good plane, for a hybrd

the Franks and Georges turned out to be pretty good planes too, once they were brought back to the states and tested, once they got good fuel and got the right engine work done, they turned into monsters, but the pilots who fought them, didn't see them that way, and, the test pilots hated to fly them, they never knew if they would land (which I believe that was also a complaint on the Ki-100, weak landing gear, due to poor Heat treating)

so, how many do you want, 10, 20, 100 ? keep asking, Mogami will just keep showing how if you plan and play the game right, you don't need them

gee I guess I get to be a fanboy now too

HARD_Sarge

Anti_Whine_Fanboy_Club



tigercub -> RE: Japan a Superpower!!! (9/2/2004 3:26:33 PM)

Hi again,

The army has 12x75=900
the navy has 12x60=720 REPLACEMENT pilots.=1620 annually.

Don't forget that the experience of the pilot pool declines each year for Japan. The first generation of replacement pilots are less than the pre-war ones. And it declines each year. I think Japan did have to replace it's airforce many times over, at lease once in the first year and then increasing after that. Those flimsy Japanese aircraft were very costly in casualties to operate. Plus they had to try to increase their force size. BUT I'm certain their pilot skill didnot plummit as the current unchanged pilot replacements implies. Only some rich kid you bought his place in the training system would be flying at 35 experience in 1942.

tigercub



tigercub -> RE: Japan a Superpower!!! (9/2/2004 3:43:21 PM)

Hey, who is whining?

We are just saying we don't agree with the current settings. And trying to get a better deal for history. The Japanese pilot replacement level is so obviously below an accurate figure that something has to be said. People here believe that the Japanese pilot skill did not decline so rapidly that the game suggests. And we are "discussing" its realism and impact on the game.

I'm sorry you feel that when someone disagrees with you it is whining.

tigercub



tsimmonds -> RE: Jap Carrier Pilot Replacement - too low!! (9/2/2004 3:51:13 PM)

quote:

HARD_Sarge

Anti_Whine_Fanboy_Club


Sign me up, HARD_Sarge!!



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625