Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

P-47 Production Gap

 
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 >> P-47 Production Gap Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 3:30:26 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5588
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I have a question; playing DaIronBabes Scen 30.

It looks like the P-47 is not in production for several months; the P47D25 is in production from 3/44 through 6/44, at a rate of 175 per month.

But when this plane terminates, the next model, the P-47N, doesn't start production until 3/45.

If I am reading this correctly, there is no P-47 production from 7/44 through 2/45

Is that right? At 175 a month, you would get something like 750, but that won't last that long in combat

Is this WAD?
Post #: 1
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 3:55:56 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7516
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
Jocke just pointed that out to me recently. I wouldn't worry too much! By then you'll be getting 5:1 or better with those planes anyway.

I think you start to get some Brit P-47s around that time as well. Maybe 40 a month? Can't remember correctly. But between those, the Corsairs, the Spit VIII and the P-38 variants you have a bunch of planes that crush any Japanese resistance. Add to that the profusion of Hellcats and the Allies shouldn't have too much trouble ruling the skies.

PS - Might be more than 750 also if some arrive in groups.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/26/2013 3:56:54 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 5:35:22 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9796
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
It's pretty much a myth that Allied late-generation fighters crush Japanese late-generation fighters.  At least against a good IJ player.  Even the P-47s and Corsairs can get chewed up so that you seldom have enough.  It seems that the only folks who think Allied late-war fighters are kryptonite to Super Man are folks who haven't played into the late war to discover just how tough it can be on the Allies.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 3
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 6:20:48 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Define late Canoerebel . I am in 8/44 and my planes ARE getting eaten alive by the Allies. I agree in '43 I held my own much better, but not any longer.

I actually had a sweep with 70 Corsairs (do not recall what version) last turn (8/11/1944) while I a good mix of about 140 fighters (Jacks v5, Georges v2, etc) and they lost ZERO lol. I lost about 10 so not too bad imho. A lot of Corsairs got beat up though so have no idea of if those made it back to base or not.

So according to your comment, I must not be a very good player as Japan (which I freely admit is a definate possibility ) or my point in the games is later than what you consider late.

Edit: had the date wrong

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 2/26/2013 6:21:36 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 4
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 6:42:00 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5274
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
The main problem with the short run of the P47D25 is that once it phases out I foresee the allies really suffering from US army fighter shortage. It doesnīt pick up until the P51D kicks in around 11/44 with some 120 per months. So the allies are basically stuck with 110 decent army fighters per month (80 P38s and 30 P51B). This at a time when the Jap players churn out some 2500 fighters per month...

So the USMC and USN will have to take on a lot of the fighting in mid 44. Playing as the allies even in 44 is a constant struggle against the pools.



< Message edited by JocMeister -- 2/26/2013 6:59:25 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 5
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 7:19:24 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15176
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
A case can be made that when Japanese production exceeds a certain amount or when the war is not going well enough for them that the Allies would adjust by sending more fighters to the Pacific theaters. But that does not happen in this game. So what we have is a management issue. There are two distinct sides to it: the raw numbers and the rate per month. As far as the raw numbers, you get 700 of that model as replacements, plus any squadrons that arrive equipped with it (I don't recall if any do or not). That's it. The 175 per month for four months is all of them. Worried about the gap between the end of production of that model and the beginning of production of the next model? Manage those 700 carefully. If you like you can pretend that it's really only 70 per month and not allow yourself to commit more than that number. However you do it, just manage them carefully!

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 6
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 10:24:23 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8373
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: online
It probably represents the priority the P-47 was getting in Europe. In 6/44 Europe had the Normandy invasion and the 9th AF had a huge demand for P-47s for the next 9 months. The P-47s were tough and good ground attack platforms, but German flak ate up a lot of them.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 7
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 11:46:42 PM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline
I am in late June '44 and as a result of this thread just realised I am about to lose production of my "go to" fighter. Thanks for depressing me guys.
I have to say though '44 as the Allies aint what it is cracked up to be. In July '44 you lose 2/3d's of your USAAF fighter production - remaining P-40 production (55 per month) and P-47 production (175 per month). This leaves you with 80 P-38's and 30 P-51B's only. Facing Frank's and Georges in virtually unlimited numbers with a USAAF production of 110 fighters per month is not exactly overwhelming. On the USN side you do get an increase of 50 planes per month in Hellcat production but still total US fighter production drops by 180 per month. That really sucks!!!
Andrew

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 8
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/26/2013 11:51:43 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8790
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aoffen

I am in late June '44 and as a result of this thread just realised I am about to lose production of my "go to" fighter. Thanks for depressing me guys.
I have to say though '44 as the Allies aint what it is cracked up to be. In July '44 you lose 2/3d's of your USAAF fighter production - remaining P-40 production (55 per month) and P-47 production (175 per month). This leaves you with 80 P-38's and 30 P-51B's only. Facing Frank's and Georges in virtually unlimited numbers with a USAAF production of 110 fighters per month is not exactly overwhelming. On the USN side you do get an increase of 50 planes per month in Hellcat production but still total US fighter production drops by 180 per month. That really sucks!!!
Andrew


Every new unit comes fuly stocked. Folks make too much of production rates.

And if you doggie-lovers would just execute a NAVAL campaign in 1944, as Nimitz intended, you'd have plenty of planes. He got a carrier-class. What did MacArthur get? A really, really ugly memorial in . . . Norfolk, Virgina!

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 2/26/2013 11:52:06 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 9
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/27/2013 2:57:45 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

...This at a time when the Jap players churn out some 2500 fighters per month...

Wow, never even considered anywhere near that nor ever seen it ... would take 5,000,000 supply just to build that capacity, or 50% of one years' supply production. Players who do this, do their troops just starve? I'm not even looking at the HI balance.

And then, where do you put them? You haven't enough groups to use anywhere near that number of planes unless you are losing +50/day. And if you are losing 50/day, your pilot experience would be 40 in a few months as you can't train anywhere near 1500 pilots/month. The most groups I can stash for training get me ~600 fighter pilots/mo (IJN+IJA) at best, usually far fewer. And if you're not losing that many planes, then once your pools get too big, the planes just start converting to 2 resource each. Wow.

I must be really doing something wrong ...

PS: the only way I can see doing this is if the IJ is really on a roll ... if you conquer India completely and then take OZ and NZ ... yeah, your conquests can net you enough fuel, supply and HI to do this. But then not very many people in a PBEM have been that successful. So if someone who hasn't taken large chunks of ahistorical areas and tries to build this ... and you still face the issue of trained pilots. Where/how do you train 2500 fighter pilots/month? that is at least 50 groups dedicated to training....

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/27/2013 2:59:35 AM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 10
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/27/2013 3:38:01 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
aoffen, have you actually played Japan and produced that number of planes? If so, please tell us how? I have beefed up my air production pretty good and am producing around 1,800/month while still managing to keep my HI pool growing slightly in 8/44. This is with all merchent production turned off too btw. My HI growth also takes into the account of spending about 40K/month pilot training. So where you get this fantasy of 2,500 planes per month with an Japanese economy that will not crash and burn before '44 is over, I have no idea.

Like PacMondo said, even if you did produce that many, where the hell would you put them? You cannot make new squadrons to put the planes in and the ones that you fight with only get 12/week to build them back up again. even when kamis come in you can still only build the squadrons back up at the 12/week (unless you upgrade twice which also has it's demerits).

Last but not least, as Japan you do not have the AFs or support at most AFs to have huge number of planes outside the home is. If I had double the number of planes I do now, it would make no difference in my abilities to fend off the Allied sweeps and bombing runs. Plus my HI would be about zero now and my ground troops would suck even more than they do now

To be honest, if I ever play the Allies and japan is producing 2,500 planes a month, I would be estatic. As I know that by '44, they economy would be in ruins and could walk into Japan with no problems

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 11
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/27/2013 3:41:07 AM   
Saros

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
2500 is absurdly high. Although pilots are usually less of a problem because you are mostly fighting on the defensive over your own bases and you also lose a lot of planes on the ground when the heavies come visiting.

You can also pull 36 planes a week rather than 12 however as you can split most IJN/IJAAF groups, pull replacements and then recombine them. This intermittently allows 12 planes in reserve too!

< Message edited by Saros -- 2/27/2013 3:43:39 AM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 12
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/27/2013 4:18:33 AM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

aoffen, have you actually played Japan and produced that number of planes? If so, please tell us how? I have beefed up my air production pretty good and am producing around 1,800/month while still managing to keep my HI pool growing slightly in 8/44. This is with all merchent production turned off too btw. My HI growth also takes into the account of spending about 40K/month pilot training. So where you get this fantasy of 2,500 planes per month with an Japanese economy that will not crash and burn before '44 is over, I have no idea.


Hey, don't shout at me, I never said anything about 2,500 plans per month. I have no idea how many my opponent is producing, I just know its more than me. I was simply having a whinge about losing 2/3rds of my USAAF production ast a time I am trying to crank up the pressure. As to production numbers not being important, that certainly isn't my experience. If you never plan on using those shiny new units then fine, but the moment you get into serious combat the size of your airframe and pilot pools are the key determinant of how long you can sustain combat operations.
Cheers
Andrew

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 13
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/27/2013 10:00:20 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeisterThis at a time when the Jap players churn out some 2500 fighters per month...

My production in my longest-running game by 6/44 is some 1220 fighters per month, only 625 of which belong to models that can somewhat compete with Thuds/Spits/Corsairs (I'm still making lots of Zeroes and Oscars, primarily because the supply cost of repurposing factories is prohibitive). And I might have ruined the Japanese economy to obtain even that (in fact, my troops do starve here and there).

< Message edited by FatR -- 2/27/2013 10:01:05 AM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 14
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/27/2013 2:38:12 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5274
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Whoooops! 1500 planes!



_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 15
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 1:27:26 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7421
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: aoffen

I am in late June '44 and as a result of this thread just realised I am about to lose production of my "go to" fighter. Thanks for depressing me guys.
I have to say though '44 as the Allies aint what it is cracked up to be. In July '44 you lose 2/3d's of your USAAF fighter production - remaining P-40 production (55 per month) and P-47 production (175 per month). This leaves you with 80 P-38's and 30 P-51B's only. Facing Frank's and Georges in virtually unlimited numbers with a USAAF production of 110 fighters per month is not exactly overwhelming. On the USN side you do get an increase of 50 planes per month in Hellcat production but still total US fighter production drops by 180 per month. That really sucks!!!
Andrew


Every new unit comes fuly stocked. Folks make too much of production rates.

And if you doggie-lovers would just execute a NAVAL campaign in 1944, as Nimitz intended, you'd have plenty of planes. He got a carrier-class. What did MacArthur get? A really, really ugly memorial in . . . Norfolk, Virgina!


Yep, but the Allied player still has to look ahead and plan for the gap-especially in scen. 2. But the navy and marines can pick up the slack. Allied nations start to pick up production as well, so with care it turns out Ok. With new squadrons Allies get about 900-1,000. make it work.....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 16
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 1:52:49 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I humbly appoligize to aoffen for attributing the 2,500/month to him as he was not the one that brought it up. I also want to thank Capt Hornblower for pointing that out

I am also glad to see that JocMeister (who was the one that DID post the 2,500 number) revise that number down to a much more reasonable 1,500/month . Those damn 1 and 2 keys are just too close together

So we should all be good now . If not, I am sure someone will point it out to me lol.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 2:35:28 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 18
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 4:57:25 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5229
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
The gap is what the P39 is for!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 19
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 6:22:59 AM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The gap is what the P39 is for!


Very helpful. Thanks a bunch!!!!!

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 20
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 7:23:03 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5229
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
You're welcome

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 21
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 10:52:23 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3271
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 2/28/2013 11:03:59 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 22
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 11:09:19 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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.

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

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 23
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 12:17:05 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3792
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

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.

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


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 24
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 12:38:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7516
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
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.

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.


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.



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! 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.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/28/2013 12:39:10 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 25
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 1:34:32 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

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/

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 26
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 1:53:59 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by FatR -- 2/28/2013 1:56:01 PM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 27
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 3:05:05 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5274
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
To be fair one shouldnīt 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:

quote:

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 Canīt be used offensively
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB Canīt be used offensively
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

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



If you sum that up you get 501 AC if you include the Hellcat. Personally Iīm 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 canīt. I just donīt 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...

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 28
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 3:12:56 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12284
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

To be fair one shouldnīt 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:

quote:

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 Canīt be used offensively
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB Canīt be used offensively
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

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



If you sum that up you get 501 AC if you include the Hellcat. Personally Iīm 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 canīt. I just donīt 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.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 2/28/2013 3:13:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 29
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 3:14:44 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15176
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> P-47 Production Gap Page: [1] 2 3 4   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

0.125