From: PDX (and now) London, UK
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.
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.
< Message edited by obvert -- 2/28/2013 8:55:42 PM >
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill