Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate

 
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 >> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 9:22:32 PM   
miller41


Posts: 1022
Joined: 3/25/2003
From: Saint Marys, Ga
Status: offline
personally with the way that the Jap AI uses its AKs I am not particularly worried about their air force. At the rate they are going in my game the only way they will be able to move troops around is via transport AC as the losses in AK's and AP's has been staggering.

_____________________________

You have the ability to arouse various emotions in me: please select carefully.

(in reply to mullk)
Post #: 121
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 9:28:36 PM   
mullk

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Ohio
Status: offline
Are you playing the Japanese AI or playing as Japan.  My production issues are with the Japanese AI.  Your WAY behind the AI power curve, the AI in my game at 32 months will have produced 51000 aircraft in the same period.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 122
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 9:34:50 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3113
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
I think the problem is that a lot of people want to be able to invade Tokyo on 8 Dec instead of having to play into 1944 to see the substantial allied forces come online.


No the problem is the allies have been constrained based on historical theater arrivals rather than historical production capability. The problem that entails, is that the game does not produce the low number of historical losses, because it's still far too bloody (though it is much much better than before).

If you look at table 2 on page 15 of this document http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf , you'll note that historically the F4F only lost 24 airframes to enemy anti air, 178 to enemy air, 49 to operational losses and another 112 on other non-combat related flights. For a grand total of just 363 F4Fs lost during the entire war, tallied from all carrier squadrons and front line squadrons in the combat theaters.

That's only about 25% of all the F4Fs produced during the war, so war production far outstripped losses which allowed squadrons to easily keep fleshed out with airframes and new squadrons to come online.

The game will always far exceed these loss numbers, but AE has now restricted production even more than WitP or CHS to a point that only the airframes that arrived historically to replace those historically low losses are in game. So the allies now have a glass jaw, one good hit and they're KOed.

Basically they can't afford to replace their F4F fleet even once if it gets chewed up. I can imagine the cries and howls we'd hear from the Japanese players if they found out that once their carrier fighters were shot down they could never replace them.

I mean think about it, the four carriers that were sunk never received replacement airframes after, so what happens if they survive in game? No planes arrived historically, so none arrive to keep them fleshed out...

And we're only talking about one of the airframes here. All the pool numbers for all their airframes are pathetically low.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 9/1/2009 9:49:36 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 123
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 9:39:19 PM   
mullk

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Ohio
Status: offline
My issue isn't wanting to invade Japan in '42 it's that the AI is producing 50 planes a month of of model that their were a total of 215 produced for the entire war!  I'm trying to fend off 900 fighters a month in production with 50-60 fighters a month in production.  Trying to counter 750 a month in bomber production with 20-30 a month in bomber production



(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 124
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 11:00:28 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Whatever the devs decide to do they had better not break human play just to fix AI play.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to mullk)
Post #: 125
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 11:07:18 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Whatever the devs decide to do they had better not break human play just to fix AI play.



Amen. The AI gets artificial breaks, because they also have handicaps, like an inability to effectively protect AKs as miller pointed out.

As for PBEM, I think we need to play this out for awhile before drawing conclusions. The only thing we can say so far is that the Zero isn't the P-40 killer it used to be, which is fine by me as that is closer to reality.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 126
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 11:21:57 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

PBEM is going to be a totally different animal from Witp.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 127
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 11:56:38 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

The trouble is that Grumman produced 1200 or so F4F-4s. At the current production rate of 45/month, assuming the began in 03/42 (which is late by three months as far as the resources I have seen), the would not complete the historical production run until mid June, 1944, which is at least 12 months too long


As a question for The Managment:

Are the units that show up equipped with F4F-4s (and everything else) "free" or are the A/C to fill those units taken from the pools?




If the group is to arrive with some planes, then the planes are not taken from the pool.
Only groups with no planes defined in the editor take planes from the pool to fill out the group.
Reformed or withdrawn groups generally arrive with no planes so they come from the pool. Unless the group is 'a return as' group, then it depends on if any plane numbers were defined in editor.



So when you say "The US produced 1200 F4F-4s" you have to count whatever A/C show up in new units in addition to the 45 A/C/month that are added to the pool.

Does anyone have a count on how many F4F-4s show up in new units, in addition to the 45/month and does that come out at the historic rate.

(This is all aside from the "IJ has control of their economy, the Allies don't" argument which does have value. If the allies had a disaster they would have turned up production and in a bit there would have been a lot more F4F-4s or whatever)


not to mention the A/c the were deployed to East coast squadrons. Remeber AE is just half the war.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Beezle)
Post #: 128
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/1/2009 11:59:16 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


Is it just me or does the replacement rate on the allied aircraft pools just feel too low? I don't mind feeling like I'm constrained on airframes early in the war, but it smells *too* constrained right now.

Example is that I'm currently in October of 1942 against the AI and my carriers have been docked for over 6 months now replacing their strike groups.

I get 21 SBD dauntless a month.
I have six carriers that embark, between them, about 150 SBD dauntless.

After one large scale engagement where I lost > 100 dive bombers, my carriers are hors-de-combat for six months which just smells too high to me. I mean it takes time to replace losses and allied resoures were not infinite, but I have a hard time believing that an order for additional dive bombers couldn't have been put through and filled in a whole lot less than six months.

For what its worth, I've got similar issues with other aircraft lines as well, but this was just the easiest to point out.



Here is your problem.

This never happened IRL, you are having an ahistorical experiencing, thus you have ahistorical demands for A/C. You can console yourself in the knowledge that had this happened to real life commanders they would have shared your concern...

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 129
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:07:18 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

I always love how on one hand people will point out the "historical" fact on why one side is being limited (ie Germany First for the Allies in this case) while at the same time making a case for ahistorical game play for the other side (no limits to Japanese production)

As an allied player I’d like to try and play an ahistorical game once in awhile and see what happens if I can have a bit more production… let me spend some PP to have more aircraft shipped to the Pacific for example.

Just make it an option at the start to allow for historical/ahistorical production for either side.  Like I said earlier if I wanted to see the historical outcome for the allies, I’ll read one of the numerous books I have on WWII…

In the mean time, in my case, I feel like I’m being hampered for trying to play the game a different way then the allies did historically… while the Japanese can try any ahistorical route they want.  This is especially true if the Japanese AI is doing things it didn’t do historically and I’m expected to use the material the Allies had historically… I should be given the chance to counter the ahistorical AI moves.  One of the reasons I’m running through so many planes is the moves the AI is making… (which I’m not complaining about) and my attemps to counter them.  I’m having to run all over the place with my Carriers short on aircraft just to stop a task force heading for Bora Bora for example!


Unfortunately that is not how this game was designed. You can complain to the high heavens and it won't change the fact that what you are talking about is a major code rewrite and not only outside the scope of the AE project, but also outside the scope of Gary Grigsby's original design concept.

To those that feel the Allies are treated unfairly in this aspect of the game I will reuse my age old response.

"WitP was designed, much like Bombing the Reich before it and despite the title, to explore the losers of WWII. In both cases the side with the most flexibility, or options such as production, or economy, or whatever is in fact the Axis side. Why?

I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.

I am not advocating one design or another. That ship has sailed, long before AE was born. The point is moot.

If this idea offends your sensibilities, sorry.

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to dude)
Post #: 130
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:16:01 AM   
Tomcat


Posts: 131
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Dallas
Status: offline
The debate has been interesting but I suspect it mostly applies to people who do PBEM. I stick to fighting the AI so I can mod the game to my heart's content. If I ever get promoted from "landlubber 3rd class" to "seaman apprentice" I might try PBEM, but for now I mod the game to where I enjoy fighting it out with the AI.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 131
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:29:44 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1919
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
I ran a quick test, head to head, hotfix version, with two airgroups that start down in pilots in Japan. Default leaders.

Case 1: Claudes, pulled in 15 green pilots, trained 100% for 30 days on escort, then 100% on general for 30 days.
After 30 days, experience for the newbies was between 36 and 46. Air was 68 to 72. Defense was a dismal 23(!) to 43.
After the second thirty days, experience was 43-51, with defense in 52-68. Not terrible, but hardly Saburo Sakai stats.

Case 2: Daves, pulled in 24 green pilots, trained for 60 days on 100% general. At end of the 60 days, the experience was 37-51.

Also note that unlike Witp, there is not a bottomless pool of pilots. You get about 10 pilots per day to replace all losses (plus hefty starting pools that will carry you for a while). I wonder if we're going to find that JFBs who adopt an all-out attrition strategy won't surprise themselves when they run out of "Trained" pilots and start going for the 30's, 25's, 20's, 10's, etc. Early on to knock out the AVG and the Phillipines P-40's, sure. Extended strategy - not my choice.

I'm only 6 weeks into my PBEM, so I won't claim to know whether things are "balance" or which side is favored. However, I do think the challenges of training and pilot replacement are not fully appreciated.

(in reply to Tomcat)
Post #: 132
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:32:16 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


Is it just me or does the replacement rate on the allied aircraft pools just feel too low? I don't mind feeling like I'm constrained on airframes early in the war, but it smells *too* constrained right now.

Example is that I'm currently in October of 1942 against the AI and my carriers have been docked for over 6 months now replacing their strike groups.

I get 21 SBD dauntless a month.
I have six carriers that embark, between them, about 150 SBD dauntless.

After one large scale engagement where I lost > 100 dive bombers, my carriers are hors-de-combat for six months which just smells too high to me. I mean it takes time to replace losses and allied resoures were not infinite, but I have a hard time believing that an order for additional dive bombers couldn't have been put through and filled in a whole lot less than six months.

For what its worth, I've got similar issues with other aircraft lines as well, but this was just the easiest to point out.



Here is your problem.

This never happened IRL, you are having an ahistorical experiencing, thus you have ahistorical demands for A/C. You can console yourself in the knowledge that had this happened to real life commanders they would have shared your concern...


At some level, that is my point though.

I get replacements based on what happened in real life.

The game, as a model of air warfare, however, does not model real life for two reasons.

1) Aircraft losses *in game* far exceed comparable losses in the real world. Even with the reduced bloodiness of AE's air combat model, losses are still dramatically higher than historical use patterns would indicate.

2) The historical replacement rates were dictated by the historical operational tempo. As a player, I shouldn't be constrained to repeat history, but rather should be able to explore alteratives. As it stands right now, I don't have enough airframes to fight an ahistorical war. I'm basically forced into a sir-robin for the first 12 months or so.

I at least would much prefer an allied replacement model which tried to model allied capabilities and political realities more so than actual deliveries. If I take huge aircraft losses in one set of airframes, I'd quite reasonably expect the politicians and industrialists back home to ramp up production there over the next few months. Likewise, if I husband my forces and have light losses, I'd expect deliveries to drop.

In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 133
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:34:14 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 3849
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad
Case 1:


Try a Case 3 :

30 days of strafing helpless bases in China for experience's sake.

And then 30 days of air to air combat training for air combat rating's sake.

Or vice versa. Might be that the strafing should be done last, if training is less effective the more experienced they already are.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 9/2/2009 12:35:25 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 134
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 12:46:08 AM   
Hokum

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 4/14/2002
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

For all its empire, Japan was a small country, its industrial capacity was lower than France's. If you want a challenge (i.e a game) you must help her in a significant way.



This is a game where history is agonised over, where killratios and surface engagements and every last xAP has been lovingly worked on and considered and matched up to history.

Allied aircraft production is supposedly as close to the real world figures as could be obtained. Air combat is supposedly as close to the real world as a game can manage.

...and yet Japanese aircraft production figures are orders of magnitude out in some cases.


Yes, this was my point. It is hard to emphasize enough how weak Japan was compared to the allies. If you change the production rules a bit too much, then there is no game.

Note that I would be all for a "King's dream" scenario where FDR decides to go all-out in the pacific. But I'm ready to bet you that it would be just as boring as a "Dec-41 Apr-42" scenario for Japan would be. Right now, the game is forcing the US to be careful until 1943, and I think it's a good thing.

< Message edited by Hokum -- 9/2/2009 12:47:33 AM >

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 135
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 1:01:22 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 3849
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hokum
Yes, this was my point. It is hard to emphasize enough how weak Japan was compared to the allies. If you change the production rules a bit too much, then there is no game.


Far as I was concerned there was 'no game' in WITP after it became clear what the score was.

I think AE is a huge improvement, still. But having Zero production at 10 times reality is totally whacked. I find it unbelievable that so much detail and haggling can go on in a game, down to the precise performance of individual pieces of naval ordnance, when theres this elephant in the room which is actually absolutely fundamental, the very root of strategy - how much stuff you get.

Imagine if P40s were ten times more effective than in reality. Or if a Brooklyn cruiser was ten times more effective than in reality, or a Zero. Imagine the threads that would result. Factories for some reason seem to get a free pass, and avoid the (perhaps excessive) scrutiny all other parts of the game receive.

And I'm not interested at all in Allied choices to match the Japanese ones, so thats a straw man. The Axis can have their extra choices and flexibility. If I had to manage the Allied economy I dunno if I'd even play the GC at all, I find it the anti-fun. Flexibility isn't the issue. The issue is insanity.

I have high hopes that the numbers won't actually be so crazy when the pbems get to the mid 1942 mark. Certainly absolutely every turn seems to be far more stringent than WITP, so surely production isn't going to match what it ever did in WITP. But if the numbers are again out by orders of magnitude... then they need addressing, in the exact same way that Buffaloes scoring 10 to 1 kill ratios against Zeroes would need addressing.

_____________________________


(in reply to Hokum)
Post #: 136
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 1:39:26 AM   
Peever


Posts: 116
Joined: 3/17/2002
From: Minnesota
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.


While I agree that the fun of war games is finding out what could have been done differently, focusing on the Axis because they lost seems like a narrow approach. The Allies did not fight the war in a vacuum. They fought the war based on the conditions at the time and had those conditions been different then they would have fought the war differently. We know that if Japan wants to win they better not follow history . So Japan must fight the war differently and this in turn will cause the Allies to respond in a different manner.

Japan is acting much more aggressively in my game than they did historically. Unless I want the supply line to Australia cut I’m forced to respond and put up a more rugged defense than the Allies actually did. Unfortunately I’m stuck with “historical” aircraft replacements despite fighting an a-historical war.

quote:

pat.casey:
In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.

That would be really nice. I image something like that would require a complete recoding of the game though.


_____________________________

"Sergeant the Spanish bullet isn't made that will kill me," Bucky O'Neil seconds before receiving a fatal shot to the head at the battle of San Juan Hill.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 137
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 1:41:43 AM   
Jzanes

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline
Given the TheElf's post, it sounds like this issue is going no where at this point.

I think it'll take some time before the data from some PBEM games starts to roll in. Then maybe this will be revisited.

I really hope it turns out to be a non-issue but I have real concerns that the impact of these low allied replacement levels is gonna ruin or at least skew the PBEM game.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 138
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 1:58:09 AM   
mullk

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Ohio
Status: offline
My concern is once again the production on the Japanese AI only, not 2 player in any form.  I don't necessarily feel the allies are producing low as the AI is WAY over producing. Please point out the historical document showing Japan out produced aircraft, tanks, gun and supplies at 10 times the rate of the allies during all of WW2 and I'll be happy.

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 139
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 2:04:31 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14495
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
The AE made it clear a long time ago (early in the project) that this request was way out of scope. As Elf said, it's just a different philosophy than the one chosen for the original game design. Apparently it also happens to be a whole boatload of work to implement it.

I don't have any particular problem with it the way it is, or if the alternate philosophy were in place. They're just different kettles of fish.

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 140
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 2:34:02 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey


Is it just me or does the replacement rate on the allied aircraft pools just feel too low? I don't mind feeling like I'm constrained on airframes early in the war, but it smells *too* constrained right now.

Example is that I'm currently in October of 1942 against the AI and my carriers have been docked for over 6 months now replacing their strike groups.

I get 21 SBD dauntless a month.
I have six carriers that embark, between them, about 150 SBD dauntless.

After one large scale engagement where I lost > 100 dive bombers, my carriers are hors-de-combat for six months which just smells too high to me. I mean it takes time to replace losses and allied resoures were not infinite, but I have a hard time believing that an order for additional dive bombers couldn't have been put through and filled in a whole lot less than six months.

For what its worth, I've got similar issues with other aircraft lines as well, but this was just the easiest to point out.



Here is your problem.

This never happened IRL, you are having an ahistorical experiencing, thus you have ahistorical demands for A/C. You can console yourself in the knowledge that had this happened to real life commanders they would have shared your concern...


quote:

At some level, that is my point though.

I get replacements based on what happened in real life.


What would you suggest? An unlimited supply of SBDs, just in case you lose a battle you SHOULD have won based on History? What are the consequences of mistakes if that is the case? Can you imagine the outcry from the other 99.9% of the community if we changed rates to anything other than historical levels? All in favor....?

The notion that we have replacement rates for the allies at any level other than historical is somehow strange to me.

quote:

The game, as a model of air warfare, however, does not model real life for two reasons.

1) Aircraft losses *in game* far exceed comparable losses in the real world. Even with the reduced bloodiness of AE's air combat model, losses are still dramatically higher than historical use patterns would indicate.


I respectfully disagree. I've had games where I never lost that many SBDs. In fact in all my games I've NEVER had an SBD shortage.

quote:

2) The historical replacement rates were dictated by the historical operational tempo. As a player, I shouldn't be constrained to repeat history, but rather should be able to explore alteratives. As it stands right now, I don't have enough airframes to fight an ahistorical war. I'm basically forced into a sir-robin for the first 12 months or so.


Replacement rates were dictated by BuAer and were meted out by projections of losses based on past experience. This of course also projected op tempo, but early in the war they were dictated temporarily by production limitations as we transitioned from an underfunded prewar Navy to an over funded War-time Navy. The USN and the USMC especially were under equipped in 1941. Shortages of all aluminum skin, modern mono-planes abounded until manufacturers could get things going.

quote:

I at least would much prefer an allied replacement model which tried to model allied capabilities and political realities more so than actual deliveries. If I take huge aircraft losses in one set of airframes, I'd quite reasonably expect the politicians and industrialists back home to ramp up production there over the *next few months*. Likewise, if I husband my forces and have light losses, I'd expect deliveries to drop.


Not to sound harsh, but this game never intended to go there and AE will likely never go there. It just isn't in the cards. But ramping up production takes time. Even when operating at war time levels. Any larger than expected attrition event would cause a pinch, and would indeed take a *few months* to be seen in the fleet. In the meantime....you're in the same position.

quote:

In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.


You'll have to try the Japanese player if you want that luxury. You can always console yourself with the fact that none of us, even the AE team, really had any other choice. Alternatively you could wait til late '42 or early '42 to lose 100+ SBDs


_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 141
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 2:37:52 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3812
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Corpus Christi, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peever

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.


While I agree that the fun of war games is finding out what could have been done differently, focusing on the Axis because they lost seems like a narrow approach. The Allies did not fight the war in a vacuum. They fought the war based on the conditions at the time and had those conditions been different then they would have fought the war differently. We know that if Japan wants to win they better not follow history . So Japan must fight the war differently and this in turn will cause the Allies to respond in a different manner.

Japan is acting much more aggressively in my game than they did historically. Unless I want the supply line to Australia cut I’m forced to respond and put up a more rugged defense than the Allies actually did. Unfortunately I’m stuck with “historical” aircraft replacements despite fighting an a-historical war.

quote:

pat.casey:
In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.

That would be really nice. I image something like that would require a complete recoding of the game though.


To quote a wise man:
By Jove..., I think he's got it!

_____________________________

WAR IN THE PACIFIC: Admiral's Edition - Air Team Lead

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Peever)
Post #: 142
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:06:20 AM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 392
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Peever

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
I believe it is because the variables that were critical to their failure were on the losing side. In other words, the Allies got it right the first time. What these two Grigsby products aimed to discover was what could have been done on the losing side to change things.


While I agree that the fun of war games is finding out what could have been done differently, focusing on the Axis because they lost seems like a narrow approach. The Allies did not fight the war in a vacuum. They fought the war based on the conditions at the time and had those conditions been different then they would have fought the war differently. We know that if Japan wants to win they better not follow history . So Japan must fight the war differently and this in turn will cause the Allies to respond in a different manner.

Japan is acting much more aggressively in my game than they did historically. Unless I want the supply line to Australia cut I’m forced to respond and put up a more rugged defense than the Allies actually did. Unfortunately I’m stuck with “historical” aircraft replacements despite fighting an a-historical war.

quote:

pat.casey:
In other words I'd expect the allied production system to behave vaguely like a military replacement pipeline. Airframes that get burned up see their production increase. Those which accumulate in bases doing nothing will see their production rate decline to free up resources for planes with higher priority.

That would be really nice. I image something like that would require a complete recoding of the game though.


To quote a wise man:
By Jove..., I think he's got it!


Perhaps, but I'd think that implementing allied production as a set of on-map factories and supply sources in con-usa would have been within the realm of practicality back when AE started. The amount of time that went into lovingly modelling hundreds of unique AK hulls, low production run planes, and incredibly rare pieces of artillary could, instead, probably have gone into putting allied production on-map, neh?

At some level, I don't doubt you're right e.g. it probably can't change at this point, but that does raise two followup points.

1) If it can't be changed, then I think the allied production rates should be bumped up globally to offset the ahistorical nature of japanese production. If you want a game where each player has an equivalent opportunity to step outside of the historical box then the allied player needs airframes too.

2) If and when there's a WITP 2, I'd like to register one vote for a symetrical production system. Either both parties should have on-map production, or neither.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 143
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:09:04 AM   
Peever


Posts: 116
Joined: 3/17/2002
From: Minnesota
Status: online
quote:

TheElf:
Can you imagine the outcry from the other 99.9% of the community if we changed rates to anything other than historical levels? All in favor....?


As much as I personally would like to see different productions levels I concede there would be no way to get a consensus as to what they would be other than historical. That's why I'm grateful the game includes a great editor so I can tweak little things here and there to suit my own play style ,or create truly ludicrous "what-if" scenarios.



< Message edited by Peever -- 9/2/2009 3:15:28 AM >

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 144
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:23:14 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

I ran a quick test, head to head, hotfix version, with two airgroups that start down in pilots in Japan. Default leaders.

Case 1: Claudes, pulled in 15 green pilots, trained 100% for 30 days on escort, then 100% on general for 30 days.
After 30 days, experience for the newbies was between 36 and 46. Air was 68 to 72. Defense was a dismal 23(!) to 43.
After the second thirty days, experience was 43-51, with defense in 52-68. Not terrible, but hardly Saburo Sakai stats.

Case 2: Daves, pulled in 24 green pilots, trained for 60 days on 100% general. At end of the 60 days, the experience was 37-51.

Also note that unlike Witp, there is not a bottomless pool of pilots. You get about 10 pilots per day to replace all losses (plus hefty starting pools that will carry you for a while). I wonder if we're going to find that JFBs who adopt an all-out attrition strategy won't surprise themselves when they run out of "Trained" pilots and start going for the 30's, 25's, 20's, 10's, etc. Early on to knock out the AVG and the Phillipines P-40's, sure. Extended strategy - not my choice.

I'm only 6 weeks into my PBEM, so I won't claim to know whether things are "balance" or which side is favored. However, I do think the challenges of training and pilot replacement are not fully appreciated.



Yep. That's what I'm getting from the post history here and from reading the manual. The Japs are properly constrained by pilots, while the Allies are somewhat constrained by the supply of airframes. I'm hoping that translates into a slower tempo by both sides from the blitzkrieg of Witp, as well as making for an interesting game in a reasonably historical context. Time will tell.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 145
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:27:32 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10259
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
The main constraint for the Japanese, is the same as it has always been and that is that the air group order of battle is fixed. No matter how many 10s of 1000s of planes I might have in the pools, I can never deploy more than I have aircraft "slots" in the fixed airgroup OOB.

Now if I could make up new airgroups - that might be an issue!!! But I cannot.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 146
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:27:48 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

1) If it can't be changed, then I think the allied production rates should be bumped up globally to offset the ahistorical nature of japanese production. If you want a game where each player has an equivalent opportunity to step outside of the historical box then the allied player needs airframes too.

2) If and when there's a WITP 2, I'd like to register one vote for a symetrical production system. Either both parties should have on-map production, or neither.


Japanese production seems far more historical than in Witp. They may be able to build more frames than historically, but it won't increase their front-line groups much because of the training issue. They have SERIOUS pilot limitations, which is absolutely how it should be.

Recognize also that the only reason there in on-map Japanese production is to allow the allies to attack it, via sub warfare and bombing. That comes straight from the original Witp developers.

The Japanese are also far more constrained in how much they can expand industry in AE. They just cannot support massive expansion like they could in stock Witp.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to pat.casey)
Post #: 147
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:38:36 AM   
Arimus

 

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline
If the US had suffered a major setback in the Pacific and needed more aircraft and those aircraft were available then they would have been assigned to the PTO. 
A simple solution could be to place units on the east coast with a number of airframes and allow the allied player to buy them with PP's.
This would simulate what would really happen and is within the realm of possibilites as far as game-engine capabilities. 

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 148
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 3:41:33 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10259
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
I've been playing WITP and AE for over 5 years and I can assure you - I have never seen the Allies run out of aircraft!!!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Arimus)
Post #: 149
RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate - 9/2/2009 4:11:40 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arimus

If the US had suffered a major setback in the Pacific and needed more aircraft and those aircraft were available then they would have been assigned to the PTO. 
A simple solution could be to place units on the east coast with a number of airframes and allow the allied player to buy them with PP's.
This would simulate what would really happen and is within the realm of possibilities as far as game-engine capabilities. 


Perhaps in a Rainbow 2 or 3 scenario?

" RAINBOW 1 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies. United States forces would act jointly to prevent the violation of the Monroe Doctrine by protecting the territory of the Western Hemisphere north of 10 degrees South Latitude, from which the vital interests of the United States might be threatened. The joint tasks of the Army and Navy included protection of the United States, its possessions and its sea-borne trade. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific, from behind the line Alaska-Hawaii-Panama, until developments in the Atlantic permitted concentration of the fleet in mid-Pacific for offensive action against Japan.

RAINBOW 2 assumed that the United States, Great Britain, and France would be acting in concert, with limited participation of U.S. forces in continental Europe and in the Atlantic. The United States could, therefore, undertake immediate offensive operations across the Pacific to sustain the interests of democratic powers by the defeat of enemy forces.

RAINBOW 3 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies. Hemisphere defense was to be assured, as in RAINBOW 1, but with early projection of U.S. forces from Hawaii into the western Pacific.

RAINBOW 4 assumed the United States to be at war without major allies, employing its forces in defense of the whole of the Western Hemisphere, but also with provision for United States Army forces to be sent to the southern part of South America, and to be used in joint operations in eastern Atlantic areas. A strategic defensive, as in RAINBOW 1, was to be maintained in the Pacific until the situation in the Atlantic permitted transfer of major naval forces for an offensive against Japan.

RAINBOW 5 assumed the United States, Great Britain, and France to be acting in concert; hemisphere defense was to be assured as in RAINBOW 1, with early projection of U.S. forces to the eastern Atlantic, and to either or both the African and European Continents; offensive operations were to be conducted, in concert with British and allied forces, to effect the defeat of Germany and Italy. A strategic defensive was to be maintained in the Pacific until success against the European Axis Powers permitted transfer of major forces to the Pacific for an offensive against Japan."

In actuality, FDR adopted something closer to Rainbow 5...

"Though the President had not given his approval, the decision on the course the United States would follow in the event it was "compelled to resort to war" had, in effect, been made. The United States would make the main effort in the Atlantic and European area where the major enemy, Germany, was located, Just how the final blow would be delivered was not yet known, but the Americans expected it would require a large-scale ground offensive. In the Pacific and Far East, United States strategy would be defensive, with greatest emphasis on the area encompassed by the strategic triangle, Alaska-Hawaii-Panama. Implicit in this concept was acceptance of the loss of the Philippines, Wake, and Guam, Thus, in a period of less than three years, the Pacific orientation of U.S. strategy, developed over a period of many years, was completely reversed. By mid-1941, in response to the threat from Europe, the eyes of American strategists were focused on the Atlantic. It was there, they believed, that the war in which the United States was certain to be involved would be decided.

These expectations were more than fulfilled. Though the war when it came opened with an attack in the Pacific, the President and his military advisers made it clear at the outset in the first of the wartime conferences with the British held at Washington in December 1941-January 1942 (ARCADIA) that they would stand by their decision to defeat Germany first. Not once during the course of the war was this decision successfully challenged."

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_01.htm


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Arimus)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141