RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (Full Version)

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



Message

msaario -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 12:36:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Manauverabality losly defined hear, should look somthing like this, with the best (Most) manauverable (aeroabatic) plane:

Oscar-38
Zero-37
Huricane-35
Spitfire-32
Wildcat/George-31
Tony-30
Ki-84-30
P-40-28
P-38-28
Hellcat-28
P-51-27
P-47-25
F4U-25


Wasn't Spit a lot more maneuverable than a Hurricane? Maybe these should be reversed? I find this list interesting, especially because the P-51 gets such a low rating. Being no subject matter expert, I'd love to hear other people's viewpoints (maybe the spread should be narrower). Now the differences are quite huge between various plane ratings.

Good topic though. I face this issue in my game vs AI as I am not sure I can anymore go into combat against the Allies no matter who flies what Japanese planes (my only major encounter with AI flown F6F's resulted in 70-11 in favor of the US - I halted offensive air missions after that. Partially my own fault though).

--Mikko



Rainerle -> Pilot Pool (9/8/2005 1:57:03 PM)

Hi,

personally I don't concern myself much with the pool, it's just the way it is (just like allied torps). The one thing I wonder is why the japanese started the war with understrength airgroups (those that you have to fill in the beginning). Is this a fact ? Seems really silly to me not to just accelerate a few soon to be finished pilots and get them in a cockpit by Dec. 7th. Input welcome.



tabpub -> RE: Pilot Pool (9/8/2005 3:30:45 PM)

Regarding the pilot pools, one has to remember the Fascist attitude about the war, both in Europe and Japan. They all anticipated short wars, with the corrupt and decadent democracies caving in to their superior positions and forces (and the incompetent Russians having the house fall down after their door was kicked in, to paraphrase Herr Hitler). Remember the Germans giggling when Roosevelt called for 50000 planes to be produced in 1942; they weren't giggling in 1945. Nor were they when they produced the highest monthly production of single seat fighters in late 44, but they didn't have the new pilots to fill them as their training program was falling behind the wastage rate. The Japanese had the same problem and the lag time for correcting it caught up with them before they could really address that fact.[sm=00000028.gif]....Look a dead horse!!

Regarding manuever ratings; they are not merely some numerical representation of acrobatic ability of the plane (I believe I have seen this stated as far back as UV) It combines several aspects including the tactics used, roll, dive and the like; not just the nimbleness of the plane. It is a arbitrary figure that the programmer(s) came up with. And the spread is not that great in my opinion; 29 is about the worst and what is the highest...38? Personally, when it comes to AtoA combat, speed is the thing. He who has the speed advantage (whether due to height or just having the better power to weight ratio) determines where and when the fight happens. You have to be able to catch me to shoot me; no missles here.

When the IJN lost their 4 carriers and then lost the majority of their other experienced pilots in the Solomons they lost their mobile air capability. You don't see this in this GAME, as we have a Fantasyland approach to air maintainence here. In the WITP world, you can fly 1/2 way round the globe; find the appropriate bombs, bullets and torpedoes waiting for you magically in the form of "supply"; find maintainencemen that can repair, arm and fuel the planes; (imagine some Dutch or Chinese mechanic looking at a beatup Fort that just struggled in to land with an engine out and missing on 2 cylinders in another...you think HE'S fixing anytime soon? Spares hava no, Boss....). In the REAL world, the ground element PRECEDED the planes to their future base....by ship usually. Now, while they were sailing there, the planes would either sit back in the States at a major base or at another on the front where there was a similarly equipped group to support them, but then they had to share, which would cut into their operational ability. Heck, look at what it takes to move a wing these days, something on the order of 5 huge transport planes per plane in the group I think (some other with experience might know for sure...I will have to dash off an email to my friend that was in a MAW ground element to see what it was when he was in).

So, after the rant, WITP is like a diamond. If you don't like the way it looks, cut it in the editor to your style. And if you don't want to cut it, sell it. Personally, it has it's flaws, but it also has it's brilliance (at least to my eye) and cut was pretty good, so I'll keep it as is. But I would think that until someone comes out with a different approach and theory to this conflict we work with this one as best we can...Perhaps with an official fix or two to remain...(not to sound like someone else, but let's look at the numbers on the Ventura.....it's basically an improved Hudson and the range is DRASTICALLY reduced....??? )

Peace.




Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 4:53:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I am not shure what Manuaver means in the WiTP Universe, but as you can see below, it must mean something other than what it means at least to me. The F4U as an example is arguably the worst manuavering plane on the list yet it scores higher than a Zero. It would be helpfull to know what Manuaver means in WiTP and how it factores into the AtoA calaculations.


The 2nd-gen Allied aircraft MVR ratings are influenced to represent the high-speed/high altitude advantage that they had over most of the Japanese types they faced. Thats the idea at least. P-47D would be a good example. Its a brick of course..but at high altitude it was fast and suprisingly maneuverable 'at' those fast speeds. Its an abstraction of course.



Brady -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:10:23 PM)



"The 2nd-gen Allied aircraft MVR ratings are influenced to represent the high-speed/high altitude advantage that they had over most of the Japanese types they faced"


The big problem with this of course is that well, the Japanese planes that they were Faster than already couldnent manuaver with them at those speads or alts anyway, in other words ya they could do those things but they would be all alone in doing them, it is not like europe whear they faced planes on average that preformed all thgought the flight envelope with them. Spead as noted above was the single bigest advantage they had and this is acounted for, that and the training to avoid dog fighting, the problem is that when you get to planes like the Ki-84 or the Frank, that these artificialy comparable manuaver rating are screwing the Japanese.

If you have decent piolets and have fresh airgrops facing comperable allied late warplanes, say a Ki-84 and a Hellcate, the artificial manuaver rating aplied tot he Helcat is going mess up the equation.

This is why I am guesing were seeing the F4U, get ridisously high K/D ratios even when out numbered, and facing decent Japanese types like the Tony.


...............

Huricane was slower but more manuaverable than a Spitfire,P-51 were fast glass jawed beasts that were not particularly manuaverable, they were not bad certainly more handy than a F4U or a Jug.



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:14:53 PM)

well the Japanese did often try to offer battle despite the disadvantages. They didn't have much choice.

The most important variable in the game is Speed, followed by the gun value. (i.e. even if you raised the MVR rating a bit above the faster Allied plane it would not make much difference)



Brady -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:29:22 PM)

Gun Values should be fairly equile in Japanese late and Mid war types, to the US planes they faced with a standard 6 pack of 50 cal's, the Two 20mm and two 12.7mm guns on the Japanese planes were as deadly as the 50's they faced. It's been a while since I looked at this...

I am trying to see what is making the F4U be so domanate, when I look at the Spead diferances between in and the P40B and the Ki-61 as noted above in teh example the Guns shoul be fairly equile, espichaly in the uberabstraced would of WiTP in this regard. I dont understand why we see such huge K/D ratios with the F4U over the Tony and Not the Tony over the P40B, the only thing that jumps out is the Manuaver rating.

...........

Sweat freaking Jesious(sry to any religious folks) but ya I see it now, someone outa be slaped for coming up with those figures for gun lethality, good grief I cant beelave after all this time I hadent sean that, even with all the posts I amde on the subject mater since before the game came out...




Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:39:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


Gun Values should be fairly equile in Japanese late and Mid war types,


Your mis-understanding me. I was not suggesting an unfavorable comparison between Allied and Japanese gun values. I was simply stating that gun value is an important factor like the speed variable, because at the high end, as represented by the standard 6x50 or by the late war Japanese cannon/MG values, a pulse of fire will usually result in a kill vs a damage against aircraft with a Dur rating of 60 or under.

Combine a plane with a potent gun value and high speed, you have a killing machine (in the game)






Brady -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:42:30 PM)

I am beging to see how it works with better understanding , espichaly now that I see how their weighted, though a quick glance at the data base would indicate the Japanese guns are very diferent in terms of lethality comapred to the .50 cal.

............

Gota run, and cant get on my saopbox:(, but check this out:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

It would apear at a glance that the Japnese guns are grosly misrepresented in game.




Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:48:52 PM)

You might be interested in my mod for your next game. It attempts to address much of what has been highlighted in this thread. [:)]



Speedysteve -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 5:51:03 PM)

I now have nightmares of FLAK.........



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:00:00 PM)

yep...no more shutt'n down the airbase in one strike with massive hits scored from low altitude.

That is...not unless you want to pay for it. [;)]



WhoCares -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:01:02 PM)

Slightly off-topic and just out of curiosity, does the CHS do changes like suggested in this thread or are they close to the original database with that respects?

Edit:
Yes it is (at least to a certain extent): CHS Docu



Speedysteve -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:03:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yep...no more shutt'n down the airbase in one strike with massive hits scored from low altitude.

That is...not unless you want to pay for it. [;)]


You telling me. My current PM bombing efforts are from 20K as you know = 1 airfield hit if i'm lucky [;)]



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:21:42 PM)

yep. PM is very heavily defended by flak.

You have to attack at high alt just as the Japanese did at Lunga to prevent an unacceptible daily rate of attrition.

I think it's acceptible however....so com'on.....attack at 6000 feet. I dare ya. [:'(]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:48:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm finding that an initial pool of 1000 pilots is working well for the IJN though I recently cut the replacement rate in half down to 25 pilots per month. By mid 42 after moderate attrition the pool was down to 50%. Even after 1.5 month's of reletively light activity, that pool is still @ 50%. With the replacement rate reduction it will probably cut the theoretical pool even closer to threadbare by mid 42 depending on player actions.


It OUGHT to work fantastically considering the Japanes started the war without enough trained pilots to even man the planes they had. The "at start" pool is already a gift..., 1000 is winning the lottery.



Speedysteve -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:58:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

yep. PM is very heavily defended by flak.

You have to attack at high alt just as the Japanese did at Lunga to prevent an unacceptible daily rate of attrition.

I think it's acceptible however....so com'on.....attack at 6000 feet. I dare ya. [:'(]


You DARE me ya? So IF I accept and carry out this dare what do I get? (Except a decimated Daitai [;)])



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 6:58:43 PM)

Still a bit early to tell. Under the old replacement rate, the Japanese naval pool was 50% depleated with only moderate attrition from two high level air campaigns. (Java and PM operation) Even after two months of inactivity its still sitting at 50% while the JAAF pool was all but exhausted.

The "effect" it gave was what i wanted, Japanese experience levels have been dropping steadily from since game start vs the floor pulled out from under them due to exp 30-40 pilots replacing lost pilots starting on 12/7/41.

AI tests showed the new pool settings depleated 100% by late 42. PBEM is the real acid test however.

edit:
It OUGHT to work fantastically considering the Japanes started the war without enough trained pilots to even man the planes they had.

**

Yep. I know...I own Pettie's good work (Sunburst) which details the Japanese pilot program and that they didnt' have enough pilots to fill out all their ranks at war's start.

So why the contradiction in my mod? Again it all ties in to what the pool truely represents and 'what' constitues a fully trained pilot. (opinions as everyone knows, differ on this point) There also remain the problems of having to use one pool to fill out all assocated airgroups from transports to patrol planes to carrier pilots etc etc.

In the end, my 'goal' is to create an effect since trying to simply represent a hard "reality" doesn't necessarily fit within the game framework (Realty would be as Mogami and you mentioned, Japan starts with "zero" pilots in the pool) The goal is to simulate the steady downward curve of Japanese experience during the first year - year and a half of the war vs what is seen now which is a more or less instant drop of exp levels due to the immediate integration of untrained/incompletely trained pilots as soon as losses are suffered.

Its just my personal preference but given my task loads, i dont wish to partake of Mogami's innovative "solution" in regards to on map pilot training. It also enhances the AI which doesn't even have ability to control replacements. (another partial solution)




Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 7:24:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


[You DARE me ya? So IF I accept and carry out this dare what do I get? (Except a decimated Daitai [;)])



Well you might actually cause serious damage to my airfield and nab a plane or two on the ground. Isn't that worth it? Dont all your pilots want to die in battle for you? Or are they not true Klingons?!!!




Bombur -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 8:08:59 PM)


quote:


The 2nd-gen Allied aircraft MVR ratings are influenced to represent the high-speed/high altitude advantage that they had over most of the Japanese types they faced. Thats the idea at least. P-47D would be a good example. Its a brick of course..but at high altitude it was fast and suprisingly maneuverable 'at' those fast speeds. Its an abstraction of course.


-Yes, but this implies that, to some extent, speed is counted two times. One time in the speed properly (which is the most important variable, as you noticed) and another time when itīs incorporated in the maneuver calculation. I personally would like to see maneuvering reworked. It would give something like this:

1-Oscar/Nate/Claude: 38
2-Oscar II: 37
3-A6M2/A6M3: 35
4-P-51/Ki-84/Spitifire/Ki-100/Hellcat/A6M5/A6M8: 34
4-N1K2/Ki-61/F4F:33
5-P-38/F4U/J2M/Ki-44: 32
6-P-40/P-47: 31
7-P-39: 30 (no single engine fighter with less than 30, except, maybe, Fulmar and Firefly)

Suggestions are welcomed




Bombur -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 8:11:42 PM)


quote:


You might be interested in my mod for your next game. It attempts to address much of what has been highlighted in this thread. [:)]



-Yes, Nik mod is a very interesting one, lots of intelligent solutions for the worst aspects of WiTP engine. I would try it if I were you[:D]



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 8:25:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur


Yes, but this implies that, to some extent, speed is counted two times. One time in the speed properly (which is the most important variable, as you noticed) and another time when itīs incorporated in the maneuver calculation.


Yes. The idea (abstracted of course) was that at higher altitudes and at higher maintained speeds, The 2nd gen aircraft in question preformed better overall and have more MVR (at that point) vs the Japanese plane of which for the 1st generation planes in particular, their highest MVR occurs at lower speeds.

In the game though it can sometimes be representative of double jeperady but as i mentioned, a few points of MVR wont make all that much difference because speed is a much more weighted variable.





CapAndGown -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 8:51:18 PM)

Nik,

I have been thinking about the IJN pilot pool as well and I think what is messing things up is the incredibly high exp level for the japanese training program.

What if the experience level for "trained" IJN pilots was reduced to 50 or 55. Then you could set the replacement rate at a more realistic 25 to 30 per month. The only problem would be that your "pool" would be added to the fleet with a very low exp number. The answer to that is to move the "highly trained" pilots out of the pool and into the squadrons themselve. Then you would have 3 or 4 extra pilots for every Datai that represented people graduating from the IJN's pre-war training program.

Edit: Another advantage of this approach would be that raw recruits really would be dogs.




Damien Thorn -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 8:59:45 PM)

In addition to trained vs non-trained replacements, you also have to consider that the "trained" level drops every year for Japan no matter how well you manage your plane pool. So, even if you have 30,000 trained pilots in your pool, those pilots coming out in 1945 will have much lower levels than those coming out in 1942. I've always hated this because you can't change it with the editor except to set the 1941 levels absurdly high.



Nikademus -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 9:08:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

What if the experience level for "trained" IJN pilots was reduced to 50 or 55. Then you could set the replacement rate at a more realistic 25 to 30 per month. The only problem would be that your "pool" would be added to the fleet with a very low exp number. The answer to that is to move the "highly trained" pilots out of the pool and into the squadrons themselve. Then you would have 3 or 4 extra pilots for every Datai that represented people graduating from the IJN's pre-war training program.


Yes, i've thought about this approach as well and it might well be a more valid approach. Admitedly though, I am liking the results i'm seeing with my current system because it is producing the desired result of gradually dropping Japanese exp. I've read up on many comments by the Japanese themselves on the negative comments they had towards the batches of replacements but this has to be weighed against the fact that they themselves had come through a very strigent program which only became more relaxed as the war situation worsened. Therefore based on this theory i dont have a problem seeing replacements coming in at 65-75 but with a very low trickle rate (even at 25 pilots per month...thats not much ,esp when one remembers that op losses in the game take pilots with them) and that the pool must serve the entire airforce in question)

The starting pool simply represents some padding....it gives the Japanese a window by which they can fill out their airgroups and might a short term war before the pool exhausts and they start gettting the true dregs. the pilots that come out from this standing pool abstractly represent the batches of pilots who came through a program that was still generally nitpicky but starting to get abreviated as wartime demands made themselves felt.)

However this isn't to say the alternate suggestion re-forwarded by you wont work just as well. Problem of course is that it takes time to really flesh it out. I'm at nearly 9/42 in my first test game. Pilot pool is at 50%, and avg exp levels have dropped on average 10-15 points for the elite units. This allows them to still be competant but not overwhelmingly so. A recent AI/AI test had both Japanese pools exhausted by late 42 (but of course thats with AI management or "mis" management [;)] )




Bradley7735 -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/8/2005 9:54:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

In addition to trained vs non-trained replacements, you also have to consider that the "trained" level drops every year for Japan no matter how well you manage your plane pool. So, even if you have 30,000 trained pilots in your pool, those pilots coming out in 1945 will have much lower levels than those coming out in 1942. I've always hated this because you can't change it with the editor except to set the 1941 levels absurdly high.


Damien,

Pilot replacements (the pilot pool) stays constant throughout the war. However, new air groups will have their average starting exp decline throughout the game (allies go up).



Damien Thorn -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/9/2005 12:28:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Damien,

Pilot replacements (the pilot pool) stays constant throughout the war. However, new air groups will have their average starting exp decline throughout the game (allies go up).


Wow, I didn't know that. That's good news. So replacements always use the value for 1941? I really don't care what starting groups come in at since they'll all be replaced by replacment pilots eventually anyway.



mogami -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/9/2005 1:57:26 AM)

Hi, I am getting to where I want to hurt people who think the Japanese pool is where their trained pilots come from.

It is not.

It has never been.

Trying to make it the source of trained pilots is butt weasel cheating.


In the words of the great man.,


"TRAIN YOUR OWN PILOTS...BUTT WEASEL" "Quit looking for handouts"



witpqs -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/9/2005 3:43:41 AM)

Beer Mog, beer.



Bombur -> RE: Japanese pilot replacement at start pool (9/9/2005 5:13:16 AM)

Hmmmmm....I had an idea. You set the pilot exp for Japan in 95 for 1941, 90 in 1942, 85 in 1943, 80 in 1944 and 75 in 1945, and give 1(one) new pilot/month, this will allow you to have an unlimited supply of relatively well trained recruits (exp around 40-50 instead of 30)



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625