RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464

Page: << < prev 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/25/2011 3:13:17 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
For all frontline air units (land based only), I try to keep the unit maxed out in planes and extra pilots as well.

Roger that.

quote:

I usually have 10% or so of the pilots as inferior pilots. Should they survive, their experience will increase very quickly. If they die, well, c'est la guerre!

No can do, Mike-san. IMHO, they've got to be ready to do their job when they go to the front lines and have the minimal skills trained for at the training squadrons (e.g., 50 EXP; mid-60s skill du jour; 50 DEF). They train up faster in the training squadrons than they do in combat and are much more likely to not become a big smear on the tarmac from an OPS loss too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1141

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/25/2011 3:20:34 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

In this game, when I trained up a pilot, it was for experience and one stat. So, I never trained up TB pilots for naval search or bombing, only torpedo bombing. Not so this time.

IJNAF:

Torpedo Bomber pilots (Kates and Netties) - torpedo bombing, ASW, naval search (I'm reluctant to train them on ground bombing because I want them to go after ships, not get all shot up hitting ground targets.)

Just wanted to check in with you for skill training. You say "torpedo bombing". Did you mean "NavT" or "Torpedo attack and (naval) bombing" two separate skills? I will ensure my Kate pilots be trained up on NavB skills too. Still vascillating on the recon or NavS skill development merits. What exactly (and nothing more) is the minimum proficiency here for them to be able to sight a large enemy TF at sea? That's the rub. I certainly won't train them to 60-70-that would take too long.

I've found myself training a large number of IJAAF pilots for LowNav bombing skills-those used for Kamikaze attacks later in the war. My goal is to be able to keep Kamikaze skills in the 55-65 range-it should translate into more damage later in the war.

Agree on IJAAF ASW training. It takes a long time for them to get up to 70 skill, but once they do, they're effective.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1142

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/25/2011 5:49:03 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I usually have 10% or so of the pilots as inferior pilots. Should they survive, their experience will increase very quickly. If they die, well, c'est la guerre!

No can do, Mike-san. IMHO, they've got to be ready to do their job when they go to the front lines and have the minimal skills trained for at the training squadrons (e.g., 50 EXP; mid-60s skill du jour; 50 DEF). They train up faster in the training squadrons than they do in combat and are much more likely to not become a big smear on the tarmac from an OPS loss too.

Agreed. Worse, they just skill the allied pilots and so exacerbate future battles.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1143

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/25/2011 9:57:23 PM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

What's this "reduced transport capacity" thing? I haven't heard of that. Sounds tough.

There was some talk about Japanese economy, and general consensus is, that both sides have too much merchant capacity. Treespider have made a MOD, where he increased need for resources, and modified somehow Allied economies, but that hardly fixed the problem.
So, the other proposition is to reduce somehow merchant ship capacities. There is DaBabes Scenario, which implement that, and I recently began experimenting with it. It seems generally to be simply implemented in sheet exported by WITPloadAE. You probably have most data, about in-game Japanese Merchant Fleet, so can probably come with right numbers. Solution is generic, but I am guessing, if someone would want to dig deeper, the reduction should be based on fuel-per-transported_ton, so Japanese merchants would be economically worth around the same, no matter their capacity.

quote:

I don't know if I ever figured out how long to train up a pilot. I have the raw data somewhere so I can figure it out but I pulled 3 months out of my butt for the sake of argument. If anyone has any better guess, sing out please.

Around two months ago there was detailed experiment on this topic (and yes, around 3 months for 70 skill). General conclusion was, that neither leader skill, nor number of planes (yes, they train even with 0 planes) help much during training. An interesting fact is that training green pilot into 60 skill takes same amount of time, as training pilot from 60 to 70. So if you go for lower number, you can train TWO pilots in time, you would normally get an 70 skill expert.

Remember, that you can also use Float Planes for training, and expanding their groups is very easy.
Also, NICKs can be useful in Burma (since they have armor, and early Hurricanes are armed only with .303), but after a while they suck horribly, so you either would use them as unescorted bomber destroyer, or change them into strafing/attack aircraft.
Patrol Planes are hideously expensive, and vulnerable, but they carry 2 torpedoes. They can be great in night attacks, if group is large enough, so NavT can be useful.

quote:

2. The faster you can pull pilots out of the training queue, the fewer HI you have to spend on them. Many will argue that this is very little HI, but my philosophy is that every HI you put into your pool for end game is a great thing.

The number seems small in the beginning, but in 1944 Japan will crank out 1100 pilots per month.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1144

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/26/2011 2:32:47 AM

n01487477

Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Tracker works with the Betas, just be sure to use the .dll with the Betas (by copying it in your Tracker folder).

If you use the versions (they run in parallel) of the Beta that have the expanded pilot pool array, check the Tracker thread. They are planning to support it, but I'm not certain it does so yet.

Yes - it does work with the methodology that witpqs mentions.

We have implemented the increase pilot array; will be available in the net release, yet to be determined.

@Mike - if you're running AE somehow on a Mac, then you can run Tracker.

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1145

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/26/2011 11:59:37 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I've found myself training a large number of IJAAF pilots for LowNav bombing skills-those used for Kamikaze attacks later in the war. My goal is to be able to keep Kamikaze skills in the 55-65 range-it should translate into more damage later in the war.

Agree on IJAAF ASW training. It takes a long time for them to get up to 70 skill, but once they do, they're effective.

Hi Chickenboy and anyone else that wants to contribute..... I was thinking about starting a thread on the very same subject... The IJAAF in regards to Low Nav training I was thinking after the intial crop of IJAAF trained ASW recruits graduate , delegate one group of bombers to LowNav training... Do you all think 90 to 110 days in is too early to start training pilots for kamikazee duty?

Thanks..

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 9/27/2011 12:00:40 AM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1146

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/27/2011 12:06:27 AM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I usually have 10% or so of the pilots as inferior pilots. Should they survive, their experience will increase very quickly. If they die, well, c'est la guerre!

No can do, Mike-san. IMHO, they've got to be ready to do their job when they go to the front lines and have the minimal skills trained for at the training squadrons (e.g., 50 EXP; mid-60s skill du jour; 50 DEF). They train up faster in the training squadrons than they do in combat and are much more likely to not become a big smear on the tarmac from an OPS loss too.

I have to echo what Chickenboy is saying. My Ops losses are through the roof and it's because I added inexperienced pilots to frontline units for just such "Training" and they've certainly left their mark all right. One year into the conflict and I have 1600+ Ops losses. Realizing this I've completely changed my philosophy on how to handle trainees. They train behind the lines...period.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1147

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/27/2011 1:12:53 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I've found myself training a large number of IJAAF pilots for LowNav bombing skills-those used for Kamikaze attacks later in the war. My goal is to be able to keep Kamikaze skills in the 55-65 range-it should translate into more damage later in the war.

Agree on IJAAF ASW training. It takes a long time for them to get up to 70 skill, but once they do, they're effective.

Hi Chickenboy and anyone else that wants to contribute..... I was thinking about starting a thread on the very same subject... The IJAAF in regards to Low Nav training I was thinking after the intial crop of IJAAF trained ASW recruits graduate , delegate one group of bombers to LowNav training... Do you all think 90 to 110 days in is too early to start training pilots for kamikazee duty?

Thanks..

Hasn't the group determined that you can get pilots trained in a single skill to ~70 in ~3 months? Some who have timed it indicate that you can get a group to circa 60 in about half (!) that time. So, figure LowNav at 1.5-2 months per recruit for a basic trained kamikaze pilot, right?

As far as when to *start* training for Kamikaze duty in the grand scheme of things? Tough question. When can Allied and Japanese players start using the benefits of hindsight and game mechanics? From day one. I can see the argument that it's unrealistically early for the Jap player to train Kamis on day one, but it's shades of gray. I'd be interested in hearing the arguments.

ETA: I suspect a reason this hasn't been a major issue has been the lack of AAR-reported games in mid-44 or later. Precious few have seen / discussed their kamikaze experiences for debate or HR development.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 9/27/2011 1:14:15 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 1148

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/27/2011 4:41:14 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Well, LowNav has its uses prior to kami. Nice to have with your Netties when you are attacking non-combat ship TF's. Also in conjunction with ASW seems to improve hits in ASW. Seems is relevant here as I haven't tested this, it is only observations.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1149

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:13:58 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

In this game, when I trained up a pilot, it was for experience and one stat. So, I never trained up TB pilots for naval search or bombing, only torpedo bombing. Not so this time.

IJNAF:

Torpedo Bomber pilots (Kates and Netties) - torpedo bombing, ASW, naval search (I'm reluctant to train them on ground bombing because I want them to go after ships, not get all shot up hitting ground targets.)

Just wanted to check in with you for skill training. You say "torpedo bombing". Did you mean "NavT" or "Torpedo attack and (naval) bombing" two separate skills? I will ensure my Kate pilots be trained up on NavB skills too. Still vascillating on the recon or NavS skill development merits. What exactly (and nothing more) is the minimum proficiency here for them to be able to sight a large enemy TF at sea? That's the rub. I certainly won't train them to 60-70-that would take too long.

I've found myself training a large number of IJAAF pilots for LowNav bombing skills-those used for Kamikaze attacks later in the war. My goal is to be able to keep Kamikaze skills in the 55-65 range-it should translate into more damage later in the war.

Agree on IJAAF ASW training. It takes a long time for them to get up to 70 skill, but once they do, they're effective.

Finally taking some time to respond to all these great messages....

I meant NavT. I forgot about NavB. That needs to be trained on as well. Gotta be able to use those Kates when the torps are gone and we're chasing the remnants of the Allied fleet, don't we?

LovNav - Sheesh, I don't recall that at all.

Gotta remember that. When do you start to train Kamikazes?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1150

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:15:24 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I usually have 10% or so of the pilots as inferior pilots. Should they survive, their experience will increase very quickly. If they die, well, c'est la guerre!

No can do, Mike-san. IMHO, they've got to be ready to do their job when they go to the front lines and have the minimal skills trained for at the training squadrons (e.g., 50 EXP; mid-60s skill du jour; 50 DEF). They train up faster in the training squadrons than they do in combat and are much more likely to not become a big smear on the tarmac from an OPS loss too.

Agreed. Worse, they just skill the allied pilots and so exacerbate future battles.

You guys convinced me. Someone made the comment about how they end up training the Allied pilots faster. You're right. Here's a question for the group - What's the lowest exp/skill you will consider putting in a frontline unit?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1151

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:17:03 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Tracker works with the Betas, just be sure to use the .dll with the Betas (by copying it in your Tracker folder).

If you use the versions (they run in parallel) of the Beta that have the expanded pilot pool array, check the Tracker thread. They are planning to support it, but I'm not certain it does so yet.

Yes - it does work with the methodology that witpqs mentions.

We have implemented the increase pilot array; will be available in the net release, yet to be determined.

@Mike - if you're running AE somehow on a Mac, then you can run Tracker.

Ok, what's the "expanded pilot pool array/increase pilot array"?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to n01487477)

Post #: 1152

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:18:27 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I usually have 10% or so of the pilots as inferior pilots. Should they survive, their experience will increase very quickly. If they die, well, c'est la guerre!

No can do, Mike-san. IMHO, they've got to be ready to do their job when they go to the front lines and have the minimal skills trained for at the training squadrons (e.g., 50 EXP; mid-60s skill du jour; 50 DEF). They train up faster in the training squadrons than they do in combat and are much more likely to not become a big smear on the tarmac from an OPS loss too.

I have to echo what Chickenboy is saying. My Ops losses are through the roof and it's because I added inexperienced pilots to frontline units for just such "Training" and they've certainly left their mark all right. One year into the conflict and I have 1600+ Ops losses. Realizing this I've completely changed my philosophy on how to handle trainees. They train behind the lines...period.

Thanks Lemon. Sorry you learned the hard way.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 1153

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:23:29 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Tracker works with the Betas, just be sure to use the .dll with the Betas (by copying it in your Tracker folder).

If you use the versions (they run in parallel) of the Beta that have the expanded pilot pool array, check the Tracker thread. They are planning to support it, but I'm not certain it does so yet.

Yes - it does work with the methodology that witpqs mentions.

We have implemented the increase pilot array; will be available in the net release, yet to be determined.

@Mike - if you're running AE somehow on a Mac, then you can run Tracker.

Ok, what's the "expanded pilot pool array/increase pilot array"?

In one of the beta's, the max pilot pool size was increased due to end game requirements. Tracker will make the change in their next update. Right now, tracker just truncates based upon the original pool size. Not problem until late game, and then not every game will hit the limit anyway.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1154

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:40:04 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Question for the group: The IJNAF begins the war with exactly 60 fighter slots in restricted HQs, allowing the training of 80 fighter pilots at a time. That's about 25 a month. Not nearly enough. Can Petes, or any other float planes, fly sweep or escort missions? If so, they can be used to train fighter pilots.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1155

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:41:41 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Question for the group: The IJNAF begins the war with exactly 60 fighter slots in restricted HQs, allowing the training of 80 fighter pilots at a time. That's about 25 a month. Not nearly enough. Can Petes, or any other float planes, fly sweep or escort missions? If so, they can be used to train fighter pilots.

Yes and yes. Although expanding these groups explicitly for the purpose of pilot training capacity is a bone of contention with some. I have no such compunctions about training IJNAF fighter pilots on the regularly-sized float units.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1156

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:44:45 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Question for the group: The IJNAF begins the war with exactly 60 fighter slots in restricted HQs, allowing the training of 80 fighter pilots at a time. That's about 25 a month. Not nearly enough. Can Petes, or any other float planes, fly sweep or escort missions? If so, they can be used to train fighter pilots.

Yes and yes. Although expanding these groups explicitly for the purpose of pilot training capacity is a bone of contention with some. I have no such compunctions about training IJNAF fighter pilots on the regularly-sized float units.

Thanks Chickenboy. Historically, float planes were used (rather unsuccessfully) as fighters by the Japanese. I see no reason why we can't use them as trainers.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1157

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:47:53 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I usually have 10% or so of the pilots as inferior pilots. Should they survive, their experience will increase very quickly. If they die, well, c'est la guerre!

No can do, Mike-san. IMHO, they've got to be ready to do their job when they go to the front lines and have the minimal skills trained for at the training squadrons (e.g., 50 EXP; mid-60s skill du jour; 50 DEF). They train up faster in the training squadrons than they do in combat and are much more likely to not become a big smear on the tarmac from an OPS loss too.

Agreed. Worse, they just skill the allied pilots and so exacerbate future battles.

You guys convinced me. Someone made the comment about how they end up training the Allied pilots faster. You're right. Here's a question for the group - What's the lowest exp/skill you will consider putting in a frontline unit?

EXP: I "like" for it to be >45. If I have a pilot very skilled in primary skill and DEF that's less than that, then I'll put him in, but I try to not put too many below 45 in my pools.

SKILL: Depends on the function. GRDB? Anything north of 50-55 is fair game.

NavT, NavB, Escort, Sweep? I want as close to 70 as possible, without clogging up my training groups. Will accept mid-60s if I have to move pilots through the system.

LowNav? Depends on what I'm using this for. I have a number of IJAAF bombers trained up to ~70 on this for naval interdiction-as a complement to IJNAF Netties. Most of my LowNav trained pilots, by number, are pre-trained Kamikaze pilots. Anything north of 55-60 is good here.

Recon / NavSearch? >55.

Transport? Lowest of the bunch. Anything >40 is OK so's I don't crack up too many transport aircraft.

DEF: You didn't ask about this, but I like minimum defense to be >50 for my fighter units. Non-combatants can get by with less.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1158

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:48:53 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Question for the group: The IJNAF begins the war with exactly 60 fighter slots in restricted HQs, allowing the training of 80 fighter pilots at a time. That's about 25 a month. Not nearly enough. Can Petes, or any other float planes, fly sweep or escort missions? If so, they can be used to train fighter pilots.

Yes and yes. Although expanding these groups explicitly for the purpose of pilot training capacity is a bone of contention with some. I have no such compunctions about training IJNAF fighter pilots on the regularly-sized float units.

Thanks Chickenboy. Historically, float planes were used (rather unsuccessfully) as fighters by the Japanese. I see no reason why we can't use them as trainers.

Yes. I remember reading of their involvement(s) in the Solomons in particular. The Rex doesn't look atrocious as a fighter unit-particularly in a pinch.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1159

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:51:14 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
When do you start to train Kamikazes?

December 8, 1941.

Oh, alright-that's an exaggeration.

I started in earnest after about 6 months of game time.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1160

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:51:35 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

DEF: You didn't ask about this, but I like minimum defense to be >50 for my fighter units. Non-combatants can get by with less.

Yeah, DEF. For some reason, I don't typically look at that. Is general training the only way to effectively increase this one? I know it goes up with all kinds of training, but usually pretty slowly.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 1161

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:55:09 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

DEF: You didn't ask about this, but I like minimum defense to be >50 for my fighter units. Non-combatants can get by with less.

Yeah, DEF. For some reason, I don't typically look at that. Is general training the only way to effectively increase this one? I know it goes up with all kinds of training, but usually pretty slowly.

It will go up with general training or with skill-specific training. Both methods are somewhat slow. My understanding is that it rises more slowly when the specific skill rises more slowly, so your 'bang for the buck' is in training other skills that are lower to get more DEF training. Hence the 'general' training approach of some.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1162

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 3:55:31 PM

SoliInvictus202

Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

DEF: You didn't ask about this, but I like minimum defense to be >50 for my fighter units. Non-combatants can get by with less.

Yeah, DEF. For some reason, I don't typically look at that. Is general training the only way to effectively increase this one? I know it goes up with all kinds of training, but usually pretty slowly.

I think if you train your pilots for escort and sweep - then def rises pretty fast IMO..
I find general training utterly useless... with ANY plane type...

< Message edited by SoliInvictus202 -- 9/28/2011 4:18:22 PM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1163

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/28/2011 5:02:03 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

DEF: You didn't ask about this, but I like minimum defense to be >50 for my fighter units. Non-combatants can get by with less.

Yeah, DEF. For some reason, I don't typically look at that. Is general training the only way to effectively increase this one? I know it goes up with all kinds of training, but usually pretty slowly.

I think if you train your pilots for escort and sweep - then def rises pretty fast IMO..
I find general training utterly useless... with ANY plane type...

Agreed train at 100 feet using sweep and defense goes up at a pretty good rate. I have criteria for pilots but it's all allied based so I don't know how it would transalate to the Japanese side.

Once the allied player starts getting his replenshment CVs in early spring his naval aviator training can go into overdrive if he choses the IJN doesnt have that capability.

The IJAAF looks like theres more than enough to embark on a solid program but naval training it looks like creativity is the order of the day.

I'm still fermenting ideas but one thing I've considered is every time a carrier goes in the yard is completely strip every trained pilot from the unit and fill up with greenhorns until the CV is done upgrading. Lots of clicking but it looks like that and other ideas are a neccessity, but the struggle is the beauty of playing this side.

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)

Post #: 1164

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 9/30/2011 9:38:30 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Guys, I appreciate all the input. You're helping me out more than you can imagine. Note that I haven't considered R&D yet. Here's the air plan assuming PDU on:

IJNAF

This is the easy one. Here's what I'll produce:

Plane (#/month)

A6M2 (100)
G3M2 (30)
G4M1 (30)
C5M2 (10)
B5N2 (50)
D3Y1 (50)
E13A1 (30)
E14Y1 (9)
H6K4 (10)
H6K2-L (6)
L3Y2 (10)

Before you guys start screaming that the levels are too low, it's just my initial levels which will be reached by the first week in Jan 42. At that point I'll determine if adjustments should be made. A few notes...

A6M2 - Obviously, I want to replace all the A5M4s in the frontline as quickly as possible and bring all the A6M2 units up to full strength. That'll take 88 airframes, not counting losses. The pool starts with 26 and there are a total of 13 excess A6M2s in units at the start. I hope to have the DEI units converted/filled by the end of Dec 41 and the 24 Air Flotilla units converted in Jan 42. We'll see. I don't want to overproduce this model (or have factories that are too large) because the A6M3 is the model that upgrades to the good stuff. Once the A6M3 comes online (Jun 42), I plan on producing more of those. They will replace the M2 in the ground based units. The M2 will be allocated to carrier units and a couple select ground units. I plan on increasing the R&D of the M3 hoping to bring it online a month or two earlier.

G3M2/G4M1 - There's a modest 46 Nells in the pool and 0 Bettys, but the Betty units are over strength for the most part. I typically don't lose many of these in the beginning, so I think it'll be ok. I plan on producing the variants of both throughout the war.

C5M2 - I will produce just a few to keep up with losses. It's all the IJNAF has at the start so I have to sustain them.

E13A1 - This is the model I will use. The Petes will be pulled from frontline service and be used as trainers. I'll use the others until their stocks are depleted both in the front line and as trainers when needed.

H6K4 - Not sure if 10 per month is sufficient. I'll bump this up if need be.

H6K2-L & L3Y2 - These are my naval transports.

IJAAF

Ki-43-Ic (128)
Ki-21-IIa (40)
Ki-46-II (20)
Ki-48-Ib (40)
Ki-57-I (10)

Ki-43-Ic - This is the only way to go. I chose 128 because I can get 3 factories to that in a month. This will be the main fighter in Burma and China (eventually). Gotta get numbers up fast. I'll need 300 just to convert all the Nate units. There's only 11 in the pool. I thought hard about building some Nates early on to fill out the training units fast, but decided against it. Those 254 Nakajima Kotobuki engines just sitting there in the pool keep calling to me. About 118 of those 300 will fill out the training units. The remaining 180 are just going to sit in the pool. Let those 254 engines rot! Not worth the HI to just end up sitting in the pool. I may increase it above 128 but I'll decide in Jan 42.

Ki-21-IIa/Ki-48-Ib - This is tough, especially with all the discussion on the board about IJA medium bombers. I decided to stick with the Lily because of the DB variant later in the war. I'm thinking initial production of Helens at 40 as well. I think 120 per month will work, but am open to increasing the Sally and Helen further if needed.

Some discussion of the 1E bombers. I have a use for all of them. Initially, I'll use what's available primarily in a Naval Attack mode to hit the fleeing Allied merchants. I've had good luck with this in the past. As I build Lilys, I'll swap them out, beginning with the 3 & 5 Air Divisions, then China eventually. I hate the Ki-36, even with the camera. Those guys get pulled for other 1Es as soon as possible. They're trainers. I won't keep them even in China. I'll use the Ki-30 and Ki-32. I'll use the Ki-51 in China for a bit of time but pull them out of the DEI asap as well. Too small of a bomb load. They will all end up as trainers. I make sure and keep 1 of each type in Manchuoko (the rest there are Ki-36s) so I can downgrade to them later if needed. I will not produce any more of them.

Ki-57-I - This is my IJA transport going forward. The Ki-59 is a piece of trash. There are a total of 36 around the map and in the pool. These will become trainers in the 4 chutai in Manchuoko. They'll give up their Ki-57-Is to front line units. I like the MC-21 (but I can't give a good reason why

). The 12 spares will fill out a 9 plane chutai. That'll give 3 spares for 2 chutai. When the numbers fall low enough, I'll move all the planes into one chutai and upgrade the other. Ki-56s - We start with 2 chutai and 9 planes in the pool. I'll upgrade one of the Ki-59 chutai and do the same as with the MC-21. Eventually, everything will be Topsy with the exception of the trainers. So after all the moves, there will be the following transport chutai in the frontline:

Ki-57-I - 1x 27 plane sentai, 1x 12 and 2x 9
Ki-56 - 3x 9
MC-21 - 1x 12 & 1x 9

So, with the 27 L3Y2s, there are a total of 132 transports available. I plan on using them a lot!

Ki-46-II - This is the obvious choice. I will use the Ki-15-II and Ki-46-I until their stocks are depleted. Eventually, the remaining Ki-15-IIs and Ki-46-Is will end up in China. The Ki-15-II is the trainer.

Engines:

I'll increase capacity to slightly exceed need.

Here are the airframe factory changes. Note that these numbers are included in the production numbers above:

F1M2 (3) to H6K2-L (6)
Ki-27b (35) to Ki-43-Ic (32)
Ki-27b (10) to C5M2 (10)
Ki-36 (32) to A6M2 (34)
Ki-51 (30) to Ki-43-Ic (32)
Ki-56 (2) to L3Y2 (10)

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 9/30/2011 9:43:24 PM >

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 1165

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 9:44:29 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ki-43-Ic - This is the only way to go. I chose 128 because I can get 3 factories to that in a month. This will be the main fighter in Burma and China (eventually). Gotta get numbers up fast. I'll need 300 just to convert all the Nate units. There's only 11 in the pool. I thought hard about building some Nates early on to fill out the training units fast, but decided against it. Those 254 Nakajima Kotobuki engines just sitting there in the pool keep calling to me. About 118 of those 300 will fill out the training units. The remaining 180 are just going to sit in the pool. Let those 254 engines rot! Not worth the HI to just end up sitting in the pool. I may increase it above 128 but I'll decide in Jan 42.

IIRC there is quite a lots of frontline units with NATEs. If you do not want to keep them out of action, it would be nice to have them filled with planes, and it will take several months to produce enough OSCARs to rearm every unit.
So, either you will keep them out of fight, or use them depleted. The more planes, the better performance (and pilot gains/survival).

quote:

Some discussion of the 1E bombers. I have a use for all of them. Initially, I'll use what's available primarily in a Naval Attack mode to hit the fleeing Allied merchants. I've had good luck with this in the past. As I build Lilys, I'll swap them out, beginning with the 3 & 5 Air Divisions, then China eventually. I hate the Ki-36, even with the camera. Those guys get pulled for other 1Es as soon as possible. They're trainers. I won't keep them even in China. I'll use the Ki-30 and Ki-32. I'll use the Ki-51 in China for a bit of time but pull them out of the DEI asap as well. Too small of a bomb load. They will all end up as trainers. I make sure and keep 1 of each type in Manchuoko (the rest there are Ki-36s) so I can downgrade to them later if needed. I will not produce any more of them.

The one obvious thing - they operate from lvl 2 airfield, and it is hard to find anything developed enough at the war beginning. So you are either using 1E bombers for close support at normal range, or 2E from smaller airfield (and suffer more op loses).

quote:

Question for the group: The IJNAF begins the war with exactly 60 fighter slots in restricted HQs, allowing the training of 80 fighter pilots at a time. That's about 25 a month. Not nearly enough. Can Petes, or any other float planes, fly sweep or escort missions? If so, they can be used to train fighter pilots.

I am using one of the Dutch fighter group for training Naval Attack, so I see no problem.
The only difference is, that fresh pilots tend to have skill fitting type of planes in the group, slightly higher.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Thanks Chickenboy. Historically, float planes were used (rather unsuccessfully) as fighters by the Japanese. I see no reason why we can't use them as trainers.

Yes. I remember reading of their involvement(s) in the Solomons in particular. The Rex doesn't look atrocious as a fighter unit-particularly in a pinch.

RUFE is much better, than in WITP. It can actually hold on its own against P-40 now.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1166

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 12:30:09 PM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

G3M2/G4M1 - There's a modest 46 Nells in the pool and 0 Bettys, but the Betty units are over strength for the most part. I typically don't lose many of these in the beginning, so I think it'll be ok. I plan on producing the variants of both throughout the war.

Just curious why you would keep the Nell in production? Is there some advantage over the Betty for certain roles, or does it have to do with the engines and production?

How is the radar on the G3M3? I've haven't really used it.

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 1167

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 2:19:22 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

G3M3 radar doesn't arrive until 45 or so. Not sure anyone knows the impact.

Agree with Inquisitor, RUFE does seem to work well, at least for me.

I also keep the Nell in production. The first upgrade is the best 2E naval bomber for a long time. At least for range/load. When Frances arrives, then you can consider an armored bomber ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 1168

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 3:23:49 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Inqistor, I guess I was unclear. I will use the Nates in the frontline until they are replaced. Actually, I plan on upgrading 1 chutai to Oscars immediately. There are enough Nates in the pool to fill out all the Nate units in the 3 & 5 Air Divisions. The concern is that there won't be any spares to replace losses until I get enough Oscars to upgrade other Nate units. It's something I'll have to live with.

Good point on the 1E bombers & level 2 airfields. I was unclear here too I guess. I will use them until they are upgraded. Initially, they are very effective against Allied merchant shipping but become less effective as the merchant shipping becomes more scarce. I plan on upgrading the Ki-51 sentai in 3 AD to Lily immediately. They'll need more 2E bombers for use against Singapore. The 5 AD Ki-51s and Ki-36s both get upgraded to Ki-30s. This fits well here too. They can operate from smaller airfields, which are in abundance in that area.

One last point about engines. I'm not really concerned about which engine is used for a particular airframe. As long as it is planned for, it shouldn't matter.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 1169

RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464 - 10/1/2011 3:38:08 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

I just got a great idea from GBL's AAR! The B5N1 uses the Nakajima Hikari engine and there are 99 of those engines in the pool, with no use. The B5N2 factory starts at 0. I'm going to change it to B5N1 (no cost to change) and increase it to 50, as I had planned for the B5N2. Once all the engines are used, I'll convert it for free to the B5N2 and continue production. I may have to change one or two of KBs TB daitai to the N1 down the road, but that's no matter. Thanks GBL!

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1170

Page: << < prev 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports >> RE: Here we go again! tc464 (A) vs. Mike (J) - No tc464