P-47 Production Gap

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by JeffroK »

You're welcome
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by Jim D Burns »

The problem with the fixed pools always has been the fact it is tied to historical realities that NEVER re-occur in game. If you look at Allied aircraft production numbers during the war, they crash in mid 1944. This is due to the fact the Allies were winning the war and enjoying 6-1 or better kill ratios while losing very few of their total airframes in combats. So the Allies scaled war production way back in mid 44 because they simply didn't need the extra airframes anymore, they knew they could win the war with far less production.

But in game the Allies routinely lose far more planes then they ever came close to losing during the war. But you're still stuck with tiny production numbers because someone made the short sighted design decision to stick the Allies with historical production numbers without first assuring that the model produced historical loss numbers. Had losses during the actual war been like we see in the game, I have no doubt the Allies could and would have produced tens of thousands more airframes as needed for as long as needed.

Limiting production numbers to historical realities only works if your combat models in game produce historical losses. This game has never even come close to historical accuracy in loss numbers, it has always been far too bloody. A big part of the bloody loss numbers is due to the utter lack of flak lethality in game. Players can fly day after day after day over enemy bases with few if any flak losses being suffered, which means operational tempo is far too great in game producing far too much air combat. If you were losing 5-10% of a raid or sweep to flak (naval flak would/should kill 40-50%), you'd only be flying offensive missions when there was a real operational goal needing to be achieved that was worth the sacrifice.

Also carriers can remain on station far too long in game as well. Historically a carrier was pretty much a one shot weapon with perhaps enough planes surviving to fly a second tiny follow up strike after the first big one. After that they headed to port for long periods of refit. Only late in the war when CVEs started shuttling large compliments of replacement airframes were carriers able to remain on station in combat for longer than a day or two.

Jim
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9795
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I had a snicker at the "only 1500" comment. I guess a mere 10 times allied production is just a trifle compared to the exaggerated 2500 comment heh.
???

Not sure where your figures come from here. Allies get almost 150 fighters/month from production beginning in Dec 41, not including all the new groups which more than doubles that figure .... by '43 the total is quite a bit larger.

Code: Select all

 12xBuffalo I
 1xB339D
 8xKittyhawk I
 25xP-39D
 35xP41E
 28xF2A3
 4xF4F3A
 8xF4F-3
 4xSNJ-3
 16xMiG3
 141 total in off map builds
 222 in New Groups deploying
 363 total fighters for Dec '41
 


Pax
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I had a snicker at the "only 1500" comment. I guess a mere 10 times allied production is just a trifle compared to the exaggerated 2500 comment heh.
???

Not sure where your figures come from here. Allies get almost 150 fighters/month from production beginning in Dec 41, not including all the new groups which more than doubles that figure .... by '43 the total is quite a bit larger.

Code: Select all

 12xBuffalo I
 1xB339D
 8xKittyhawk I
 25xP-39D
 35xP41E
 28xF2A3
 4xF4F3A
 8xF4F-3
 4xSNJ-3
 16xMiG3
 141 total in off map builds
 222 in New Groups deploying
 363 total fighters for Dec '41
 




So approximately 4.5 times is something we should be happy about?

Attempting to placate people by pointing out that the disparity isn't as great as it seems is bound to have little effect...
Hans

User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by obvert »

A couple of things.

Where are the actual numbers the Allies get in 44? No one seems to be throwing those out here. It has to be production plus groups arriving with a full allocation of planes. I have a feeling there are more coming in than most realize. Here are some numbers for early 44, the month of March.
[font="Trebuchet MS"]
130 - Hellcats
78 - Corsair F4U-1A
32 - Spitfire VIII
16 - Corsair II
50 - P-38J
175 - P-47D25
12 - Spitfire Vc
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

55 - P-40N
128 - Wildcat FM - 2
36 - Hurricane IIc
30 - Kittyhawk IV (Aussie)
12 - Kittyhawk IV (NZ)
8 - P-40N (Chinese)
4 P-39N2
6 - Beaufighter X
---------------
279

In replacement groups in March 44 alone the Allies get:

70 FM-2
15 Hellcat I
14 Wildcat V
40 Hellcat
16 Baufighter
--------------
165

963 total

That's a very slow month as no USAAF groups arrive. Jan and Feb have many more, including a lot of Corsairs. [/font]

Also, a fact about the war most people don't mention and which could have changed a few campaigns in the air war. The IJAAF stocked up and reserved fighters in China and Manchuria for use there, a large amount of their better groups. These were not then available in the So Pac/SW Pac campaigns where the IJNAF lost the bulk of it's good pilots and a lot of planes. This of course had something to do with the feuding between services, but the WITP Japanese player will not be likely to choose this course of strategy. [;)]

Also, as many have stated, the Japanese production numbers are often relatively high, but are not often extraordinary considering actual Japanese fighter and airframe production in 44. Here is the chart by year, and this takes into account the slow-down caused by Allied bombing in later 44.

Image
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/P/r/Production.htm

This would be 1151 fighters per month. More than I'm making by over a 100.

The other numbers are quite high as well. I'm not making so many 2E bombers or recon planes, and to get to this total for the year I'd have to make 2,348 per month in all types of airframes! [X(] I'm currently at ~ 1,900 airframes a month, and I'm often turning those off and on depending on pools. So it's still possible that I'll underproduce by a significant amount compared to Japan historically.

One last thing. In our game Jocke has lost less than 300 P-47s according to my reports in total! That's in about 8-9 months of use, so 700 of the even better P-47D25 should go a long way! While I am a beginning player still, especially in this period of the war, I don't think I'm terribly mis-managing my CAP and fighter use against his sweeps. I think he's actually been very good at concentrating their use to maximize effect and limit losses, while I've been forced to pick spots to actually try to defend and only challenge them occasionally.
Attachments
japanesea..oduction.jpg
japanesea..oduction.jpg (102.77 KiB) Viewed 38 times
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I had a snicker at the "only 1500" comment. I guess a mere 10 times allied production is just a trifle compared to the exaggerated 2500 comment heh.

Total Allied production for June of 1944 is 978 fighters, night fighters, and fighter-bombers (including 523 from high-end types), adding together replacements from pools, factory production, and arriving airgroups. And 1220 =/= 1500.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

But in game the Allies routinely lose far more planes then they ever came close to losing during the war.
American losses alone (Army, Navy and Marines) against Japan amounted to approximately 18.5 thousands of aircraft (circusmtances of loss are irrelevant here, and AE is completely different from RL in his department anyway, with ops losses outside of combat being insignificant, so your "far too bloody" complaint can't possibly be valid, until both sides start to lose half of their production during training and routine patrols). I don't know how many British and other nations had lost.

I haven't read much AARs for more than a year, but I still can name a couple of finished games where total Allied losses for the war were only around 11-12 thousands of aircraft. In fact, that will be pretty much any of the numerous games where Allies won in 1944.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by JocMeister »

To be fair one shouldn´t count the total number of allied AC produced. In 44 the allies have to be on the offensive and only a few types can be used in that role. When I say "can be used" I base that on my own experience in in March 44.

To use Eriks list:
ORIGINAL: obvert

130 - Hellcats Outdated but still has its uses
78 - Corsair F4U-1A Fantastic!
32 - Spitfire VIII Potent on offensive but really shines on CAP
16 - Corsair II
50 - P-38J Good enough but will take losses
175 - P-47D25 Oustanding aircraft. Only runs for 4 months though
12 - Spitfire Vc Can´t be used offensively
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB Can´t be used offensively
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

55 - P-40N Can´t be used offensively
128 - Wildcat FM - 2 Can´t be used offensively
36 - Hurricane IIc Can´t be used offensively
30 - Kittyhawk IV (Aussie) Can´t be used offensively
12 - Kittyhawk IV (NZ) Can´t be used offensively
8 - P-40N (Chinese) Can´t be used offensively
4 P-39N2 Can´t be used offensively
6 - Beaufighter X Can´t be used offensively
---------------
279


If you sum that up you get 501 AC if you include the Hellcat. Personally I´m a bit reluctant to use it offensively. Without the Hellcat and P47 (short run) you end up with 196 Fighters per month. When the P47 stops production in July you do get a small boost in P38s (from 50 to 80?) and the P51 starts producing 30 per month.

The Japanese player can choose what to produce and what not to. The allied player can´t. I just don´t think counting the total number of frames for the allies gives a fair picture. You need to look at whats actually coming. The P40/39/Kitties will have absolutely NO chance going up against Franks/Tojos/Georges/Jacks. No sane player will try to just as no sane Japanese player will use Oscars for sweeping against Spits.

My 2 ören...
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

To be fair one shouldn´t count the total number of allied AC produced. In 44 the allies have to be on the offensive and only a few types can be used in that role. When I say "can be used" I base that on my own experience in in March 44.

To use Eriks list:
ORIGINAL: obvert

130 - Hellcats Outdated but still has its uses
78 - Corsair F4U-1A Fantastic!
32 - Spitfire VIII Potent on offensive but really shines on CAP
16 - Corsair II
50 - P-38J Good enough but will take losses
175 - P-47D25 Oustanding aircraft. Only runs for 4 months though
12 - Spitfire Vc Can´t be used offensively
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB Can´t be used offensively
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

55 - P-40N Can´t be used offensively
128 - Wildcat FM - 2 Can´t be used offensively
36 - Hurricane IIc Can´t be used offensively
30 - Kittyhawk IV (Aussie) Can´t be used offensively
12 - Kittyhawk IV (NZ) Can´t be used offensively
8 - P-40N (Chinese) Can´t be used offensively
4 P-39N2 Can´t be used offensively
6 - Beaufighter X Can´t be used offensively
---------------
279


If you sum that up you get 501 AC if you include the Hellcat. Personally I´m a bit reluctant to use it offensively. Without the Hellcat and P47 (short run) you end up with 196 Fighters per month. When the P47 stops production in July you do get a small boost in P38s (from 50 to 80?) and the P51 starts producing 30 per month.

The Japanese player can choose what to produce and what not to. The allied player can´t. I just don´t think counting the total number of frames for the allies gives a fair picture. You need to look at whats actually coming. The P40/39/Kitties will have absolutely NO chance going up against Franks/Tojos/Georges/Jacks. No sane player will try to just as no sane Japanese player will use Oscars for sweeping against Spits.

My 2 ören...


I pretty much agree, with the exception of not using the Hellcat on offensive missions. I preferre having them on Cap but due to their ability to fly higher than many Japanese fighters they also got limited use in sweeps. Agree on all the other types, use them against IJ late war fighters and they will get eaten alive by Frank and Co.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The problem with the fixed pools always has been the fact it is tied to historical realities that NEVER re-occur in game. If you look at Allied aircraft production numbers during the war, they crash in mid 1944. This is due to the fact the Allies were winning the war and enjoying 6-1 or better kill ratios while losing very few of their total airframes in combats. So the Allies scaled war production way back in mid 44 because they simply didn't need the extra airframes anymore, they knew they could win the war with far less production.

But in game the Allies routinely lose far more planes then they ever came close to losing during the war. But you're still stuck with tiny production numbers because someone made the short sighted design decision to stick the Allies with historical production numbers without first assuring that the model produced historical loss numbers. Had losses during the actual war been like we see in the game, I have no doubt the Allies could and would have produced tens of thousands more airframes as needed for as long as needed.

Limiting production numbers to historical realities only works if your combat models in game produce historical losses. This game has never even come close to historical accuracy in loss numbers, it has always been far too bloody. A big part of the bloody loss numbers is due to the utter lack of flak lethality in game. Players can fly day after day after day over enemy bases with few if any flak losses being suffered, which means operational tempo is far too great in game producing far too much air combat. If you were losing 5-10% of a raid or sweep to flak (naval flak would/should kill 40-50%), you'd only be flying offensive missions when there was a real operational goal needing to be achieved that was worth the sacrifice.

Also carriers can remain on station far too long in game as well. Historically a carrier was pretty much a one shot weapon with perhaps enough planes surviving to fly a second tiny follow up strike after the first big one. After that they headed to port for long periods of refit. Only late in the war when CVEs started shuttling large compliments of replacement airframes were carriers able to remain on station in combat for longer than a day or two.

Jim
Jim - for what you wrote (in bold above) to be true also requires strictly historical actions day after by both players. The point being that even if the combat models were essentially perfect reproductions of real life results given the circumstances of each battle, the overall results would still be different because of different numbers of battles, and different circumstances of battles.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by crsutton »

This all makes little difference to me. I have been playing Viberpol in a campaign for three and a half actual years. He is pretty good at making Japanese aircraft. It is like he just craps them out after breakfast every morning.[;)] Yes, the Allies are stuck with historical production number while the JFB gets a pretty free hand. Over the course of our game I have bitched about. 1. The unfairness of early service ratings to the Allies. 2. The insane pace of production and research. 3. The damn 1 hex strike bonus for Japanese carrier aircraft. To many torpedo carrying bettys and just about a million other perceived insults to the Allies.

Yes the air situation does get a little desperate for the Allies and my pools have always been on the verge of empty for most of the game. But in the end, I was just bitching. My own personal experience is that I would rather be the Allied player in 1944 than the Japanese. He may still have more airplanes but I can beat his air force pretty much anywhere I choose. It is not a problem for me. If the Japanese player gets some advantages it has only made for a more balanced and fair game-that he will probably lose anyway.

We are just moving into 3/45 and the P47N comes on line. I have survived the P47 gap pretty nicely with corsairs, hellcats, P38s and the D Mustang. You just have to plan a little. Also, production of the British P47 has never stopped. It is just going to get better. Hang in there.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by obvert »

It might have been nice to add that when I sent this to you I also did this for the Japanese aircraft. I broke them into better and worse types. About the same ratio actually.

What is really the issue? If I (or any other Japanese player) is producing less than the Japanese did historically, and the Corsair/P-47 gets 5:1 at worst? Maybe 10:1 at best.

Did you miss the part in my previous note about the fact you've only lost 280 P-47s for the game so far? In 8-9 months? [;)]

What would the Allies do with more planes that you're not doing now? You bomb with 4Es every day en masse in two theaters, sweep with 6-8 Corsairs/P-47s groups every day. You're up by what, 5,000 planes in total airframes lost?

I would think you'd be happy if I made even more airframes to add to your VP totals. [:D]
ORIGINAL: JocMeister

To be fair one shouldn´t count the total number of allied AC produced. In 44 the allies have to be on the offensive and only a few types can be used in that role. When I say "can be used" I base that on my own experience in in March 44.

To use Eriks list:
ORIGINAL: obvert

130 - Hellcats Outdated but still has its uses
78 - Corsair F4U-1A Fantastic!
32 - Spitfire VIII Potent on offensive but really shines on CAP
16 - Corsair II
50 - P-38J Good enough but will take losses
175 - P-47D25 Oustanding aircraft. Only runs for 4 months though
12 - Spitfire Vc Can´t be used offensively
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB Can´t be used offensively
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

55 - P-40N Can´t be used offensively
128 - Wildcat FM - 2 Can´t be used offensively
36 - Hurricane IIc Can´t be used offensively
30 - Kittyhawk IV (Aussie) Can´t be used offensively
12 - Kittyhawk IV (NZ) Can´t be used offensively
8 - P-40N (Chinese) Can´t be used offensively
4 P-39N2 Can´t be used offensively
6 - Beaufighter X Can´t be used offensively
---------------
279


If you sum that up you get 501 AC if you include the Hellcat. Personally I´m a bit reluctant to use it offensively. Without the Hellcat and P47 (short run) you end up with 196 Fighters per month. When the P47 stops production in July you do get a small boost in P38s (from 50 to 80?) and the P51 starts producing 30 per month.

The Japanese player can choose what to produce and what not to. The allied player can´t. I just don´t think counting the total number of frames for the allies gives a fair picture. You need to look at whats actually coming. The P40/39/Kitties will have absolutely NO chance going up against Franks/Tojos/Georges/Jacks. No sane player will try to just as no sane Japanese player will use Oscars for sweeping against Spits.

My 2 ören...
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: obvert

It might have been nice to add that when I sent this to you I also did this for the Japanese aircraft. I broke them into better and worse types. About the same ratio actually.

What is really the issue? If I (or any other Japanese player) is producing less than the Japanese did historically, and the Corsair/P-47 gets 5:1 at worst? Maybe 10:1 at best.

Did you miss the part in my previous note about the fact you've only lost 280 P-47s for the game so far? In 8-9 months? [;)]

What would the Allies do with more planes that you're not doing now? You bomb with 4Es every day en masse in two theaters, sweep with 6-8 Corsairs/P-47s groups every day. You're up by what, 5,000 planes in total airframes lost?

I would think you'd be happy if I made even more airframes to add to your VP totals. [:D]

There is no issue? [:)] I´m just pointing out that playing the allies even in 44-45 isn´t a cake walk as has been indicated by some. But its a really interesting discussion. Especially in Jim D Burns post I find a lot of good things.

I think the common opinion is that once the allies hit -44 they are unstoppable and its just a never ending steamroller that can´t be stopped. I just don´t find that to be true. The Japanese side has been given a lot of not so historical tools to balance that out. But I rarely see that mentioned. I was of the same belief until I got to -44 and I find myself nursing my pools even more then I did in 42.

I´m not saying its a bad thing for the game but people tend to forget the fact that the Jap side isn´t shackled by history while the Allies are and this help even things out a bit!
Image
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim - for what you wrote (in bold above) to be true also requires strictly historical actions day after by both players. The point being that even if the combat models were essentially perfect reproductions of real life results given the circumstances of each battle, the overall results would still be different because of different numbers of battles, and different circumstances of battles.

I'm not saying players need to or should mimic historical actions. I'm saying that a cushion should be built into the allied production pools due to realities of the games pro-Japan bias. On map combat ability should be based on what units are on map, not on trying to manage a too small production pool based on the intentional shutting down of allied production in 1944 as occurred during the actual war when it became apparent Japan was caving in.

Japan will always be far more effective in game then it was during the war and the notion that the allies would have shut down their production vs. such a difficult opponent is ludicrous. If in game Japan was as weak as it was historically in 1944, then I'd have no problem with the tiny late war production numbers we see, but they are never that weak that I've ever seen. The allies are constantly battling tiny pools all game due to Japan's over-effectiveness.

Jim
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: FatR
American losses alone (Army, Navy and Marines) against Japan amounted to approximately 18.5 thousands of aircraft (circusmtances of loss are irrelevant here, and AE is completely different from RL in his department anyway, with ops losses outside of combat being insignificant, so your "far too bloody" complaint can't possibly be valid, until both sides start to lose half of their production during training and routine patrols). I don't know how many British and other nations had lost.

I haven't read much AARs for more than a year, but I still can name a couple of finished games where total Allied losses for the war were only around 11-12 thousands of aircraft. In fact, that will be pretty much any of the numerous games where Allies won in 1944.

Loss numbers mean both participants, you can't just look at one side and say everything is fine. When I say historical loss numbers I mean historical ratios. The allies come nowhere near the comfortable 6-1 (probably closer to 10-1) or better ratio they enjoyed during the war in game. So Japan is always far more effective overall because they don't suffer the huge loss drain they historically faced.

Edit: Here are some actual loss numbers to look over: pdf

The F6F loss ratio is significant, read the text below table 2. It shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in air combat yet lost only 270 in air combat. That's a 19-1 kill ratio, something the allies can never hope to achieve in game. A huge part of the allied historical success in the war is due to the fact the F6F was so successful at defending allied shipping whenever it ventured into harm's way.

Of course the lack of historical performance for the F6F translates into far more shipping loss for the allies, something which cannot be accounted for in the games draconian production pool system, so the allies have to try and achieve the same level of counter-attack success with far fewer tools available to them as the war grinds on in game.


Jim
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Loss numbers mean both participants, you can't just look at one side and say everything is fine. When I say historical loss numbers I mean historical ratios. The allies come nowhere near the comfortable 6-1 (probably closer to 10-1) or better ratio they enjoyed during the war in game. So Japan is always far more effective overall because they don't suffer the huge loss drain they historically faced.

Edit: Here are some actual loss numbers to look over: pdf

The F6F loss ratio is significant, read the text below table 2. It shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in air combat yet lost only 270 in air combat. That's a 19-1 kill ratio, something the allies can never hope to achieve in game. A huge part of the allied historical success in the war is due to the fact the F6F was so successful at defending allied shipping whenever it ventured into harm's way.

Of course the lack of historical performance for the F6F translates into far more shipping loss for the allies, something which cannot be accounted for in the games draconian production pool system, so the allies have to try and achieve the same level of counter-attack success with far fewer tools available to them as the war grinds on in game.


Jim

The Hellcat numbers are amazing.

I began playing the Japanese side to learn more about it, to try to understand the production system, and because I thought it would be a good challenge. It has been! These kinds of discussions are great, but we also have to remember that the large majority of games end before 44. These late game Allied numbers were against a politically divided, philosophically antiquated force that had been dealt several devastating blows before getting to 44, like Midway and the cumulative effects to the New Guinea and Solomons campaigns.

What if the war had gone the other way, and the KB had sunk 3 US CVs for no losses, invaded Midway, and retained the majority of their trained pilots and naval crews? What if the Japanese had taken Port Moresby, held Guadalcanal for another year without going through that debilitating drain on their resources and pilots and built a series of supported bases up the Solomons and across New Guinea? What if the IJA and IJN were not battling and inhibiting each other but were instead supporting each other's operations, streamlining production and sharing information? All of these numbers come from historical incident and particularity, not what happens in the game. That is what is interesting about playing it.

Should the Hellcat be stronger? Maybe. But maybe the ability of Japanese players to use R n D to field fighters months in advance should be slightly less pronounced or more costly. Some have said the pilot training evens the fields too much as well. I used to think this, but now in 44 I realize that elite US and British fighter units will have far better pilots than the Japanese and their advantage will continue as those kill ratios of the good fighters stay in the 5:1 territory.

The 4E though is the real deciding factor. Used well these weapons can disintegrate any isolated Japanese base and the units on it. Maybe the Allies don't win as they did in the war, but they have all of the tools to win in the game. It's about how they use them.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by witpqs »

What if the war had gone the other way, and the KB had sunk 3 US CVs for no losses, invaded Midway, and retained the majority of their trained pilots and naval crews?

As far as the battle of Midway is concerned, the Japanese did retain the majority of their trained pilots and air crew. The ground crews on board the carriers suffered massive losses IIRC, and of course the naval crews themselves suffered heavy losses.
henry1611
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:41 pm

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by henry1611 »

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As far as the battle of Midway is concerned, the Japanese did retain the majority of their trained pilots and air crew. The ground crews on board the carriers suffered massive losses IIRC, and of course the naval crews themselves suffered heavy losses.

Just read that page in Shattered Sword today. "The Midway carriers between them counted 721 aircraft technicians killed, or more than 40 percent of the total number embarked." 121 pilots and airman were killed during the battle.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: obvert
What if the war had gone the other way, and the KB had sunk 3 US CVs for no losses, invaded Midway, and retained the majority of their trained pilots and naval crews? What if the Japanese had taken Port Moresby, held Guadalcanal for another year without going through that debilitating drain on their resources and pilots and built a series of supported bases up the Solomons and across New Guinea? What if the IJA and IJN were not battling and inhibiting each other but were instead supporting each other's operations, streamlining production and sharing information?


It wouldn't make any difference at all other than perhaps pushing the date of final collapse forward a bit. As the chart on page 4 of this PDF shows, Japan's peak airframe production numbers never even achieved the figures for just the US production from 1941. By 1944 US production so far outstripped all other countries combined that there was never any question about the outcome of the war. The only real question was how long it would take.

http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/neba/journal/v1n1p91.pdf

The chart also dramatically demonstrates the sharp decline in production output once production was intentionally curtailed. Had Japan been as difficult an opponent in reality as it is in game the steady increase to production numbers that you see occur through 1943 could have easily been maintained. And the fact the air war was won already in Europe, means a good 80% or more of mid 1944 and beyonds production could have gone to the Pacific had it been needed. But historically it wasn't needed, so players are prevented from having that tool/ability available to them in game.

Charts for any other war material or ship types would show similar growth and declines. So realistically the allies should never suffer from shortages in any type of war fighting equipment no matter what kind of losses they sustain in game. But the fact there is fixed pools and limited replacements means this game is simply an exercise in fantasy when it comes to war production for the two sides.

Jim
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: P-47 Production Gap

Post by crsutton »

Well, I pretty much only play humans via email. My only real concern is that with any sort of Allied control over production there would just not be any JFBs around to fight with. If I were a Japanese player and if hellcats were getting a 16-1 advantage over my aircraft, I don't see myself sticking a three year campaign out.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”