Matrix Games Forums

Hannibal: Terror of Rome goes into BetaBattle Academy Mega Pack releases on SteamDeal of the Week Da Vinci's Art of WarCivil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and Salute
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: P-47 Production Gap Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 11:20:07 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7601
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I've read ops losses in combat missions usually ran about 6% on average (don't remember where, it was a long time ago). The game doesn't go to this level because players complain loudly any time ops losses start to approach reality.

In game it's common practice to put non-carrier trained but carrier capable units on carriers. The ops losses a a little higher, but if they were realistic nobody would do it because you'd run through an entire squadron's worth of planes and pilots a month in such a situation. Training a pilot for carrier ops is not easy and learning on the job is going to get a lot of the trainees killed.

I wasn't involved in the decision to cut P-47 production in mid-44, but I do believe it had to do with the situation in Europe. At D-Day the 9th AF stepped up operational tempo to a much higher level. They started out with the 8th AF's cast offs as the 8th re-equipped with Mustangs, but pretty soon the 9th was soaking up all the P-47 production.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 91
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/4/2013 12:53:31 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3858
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
The whole game is based on the historical record. Of course the IJ Players will be quick to tell one that the IJ records were destroyed prior to their surrender in 1945 so Allied perceptions of any IJ foibles are mere propaganda.

Meanwhile every Allied plane that shows up in the Pacific Theater requires 3 notarized letters from 3 consecutive American Secretaries of War/Navy/Defense certifying that that particular aircraft airfame# was assigned to a unit West of 110 degrees West Longitude subsequent to December 1941 and prior to September 1945.

It would be nice if there was a scenario that purported to illustrate reality as it actually occurred. Unfortunately we have a selection of IJ Player slanted scenarios OR MORE IJ Player slanted scenarios. In real life the IJ Player had no chance. Assuming total Allied incompetence and decadence IAW the IJ Propaganda Ministry as a prerequisite to declaring war in 1941 the sheer mass of American (alone) production assured that Japan could not win in a real sense if the US continued to play the "game". The historical Victory Conditions have already been adjusted to allow only 2 American atomic attacks without a decrease in Victory level. Really. If the Russians (which historically were the ONLY reason anybody in the US cared about the population of Japan at all in 1945) wanted to command all that lives in a radioactive wasteland then what was the downside to making sure that as Halsey said "when we are through with them the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell". And if the USN objected to a Russian presence in Japan in 1945 what basis would the Russian Navy have to dispute the issue.

The IJ Player has all manner of strategic options in the game that have no foundation in reality. Most egregiously, the game allows the IJ Player to win the war in China (it will take a major commitment of resources but not so much that the initial conquests are significantly affected). Yep. All that was ever needed to beat China was to get involved in a war with most of the rest of the world - that makes perfect sense. Yep. The horse-drawn IJA could supply any number of troops hundreds and hundreds of miles from a railhead. Yep. Just like real. After we conquer China let's take on Russia. Then Brazil. Then we'll have secured our Northern and Western flanks and can threaten the Americans from the South. Yep. Just like real.

I realize that IJ Players would be few and far between if reality intruded on their little fantasies. I'm not really against allowing them to play - they just need to realize that they are playing rather than changing history due to their incredible brilliance. The list of options should not include "Historical First Turn" - that should be a given. But it should include things like "IJN/IJA doesn't lie to the IJN/IJA when planning operations", IJA devotes more resources to "logistical tail" instead of relying on "local supply", IJA/IJN devote more resources to pilot training, IJ starts preparing for war in 1900, IJ builds self-sufficiency with large enough merchant fleet, etc. Then the Allied Player and IJ Player could agree on how IJ changes to be something or other than the real IJ before starting the game.

A historical game like the old "USN" (boardgame) ending in mid-1943 is a real need. If there are masochists who want to command kamikazes then we can have a "historical" scenario for them to experience the strategic futility of Japan's situation in 1945.


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 92
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/4/2013 8:28:51 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6288
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The whole game is based on the historical record. Of course the IJ Players will be quick to tell one that the IJ records were destroyed prior to their surrender in 1945 so Allied perceptions of any IJ foibles are mere propaganda.

I realize that IJ Players would be few and far between if reality intruded on their little fantasies.



Seriously?

Get a grip. No one playing this game is under any delusion that Japan could have won the war. No player on the Japanese side is fanatically driven to prove they could have led Japan to victory. There are no 'fantasies,' just variations in a game. For fun.

Most players who choose to try the Japanese side are looking for a challenge, like the meticulousness of trying to play the economy, and are actually, believe it or not, fairly knowledgeable about the history of the war.

You simply perpetuate a division amongst players that doesn't exist for anyone else. Give it a break. It's a game.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 93
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/4/2013 9:04:36 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

One thing to remember here is that with the on map training in AE perhaps the biggest disadvantage of the Japanese side was removed. Pilot quality.

No, it wasn't. I won't even argue about historical side of things, but in Scen 1 and its derivatives you very much can make a JFB run out of pilots entirely, so that there simply will be no pilots left to train. I'm not sure if my current ability to draw very green pilots straight from the training program is not a bug, but even with that, you still can push attrition to the point, when there won't be anyone left in the training program anymore, at least for IJN.

Now that is not possible in Scen 2. But, well, that's what Scen 2 is for. Strangling Japanese economy to the point where on-map training goes at the snail's pace due to lack of supply anywhere will work in it too.


_____________________________

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 #: 94
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/4/2013 3:04:54 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4166
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

No, it wasn't. I won't even argue about historical side of things, but in Scen 1 and its derivatives you very much can make a JFB run out of pilots entirely, so that there simply will be no pilots left to train. I'm not sure if my current ability to draw very green pilots straight from the training program is not a bug, but even with that, you still can push attrition to the point, when there won't be anyone left in the training program anymore, at least for IJN.



I did not know that. Thank you for the info!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 95
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/4/2013 10:45:20 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3043
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
The Allies did not enjoy this ratio during the war. I'd say that overall aircraft losses during the war are around 2:1 in the Allies' favor. According to known losses data from Guadalcanal campaign to the air campaign over Rabaul, for most of 1942 and 1943 losses usually were around 1.1-1.2:1 in the Allies' favor.

I won't go into dissecting various number-juggling of the various degrees of bias, used to posit whatever ratios the author feels like seeing,


You can't just cherry pick a few tough attrition battles and then make blanket statements about those kind of losses being the average for the war, it's intellectually dishonest. Then you outright lie and try to infer I somehow juggled the numbers in an historical document created by and published by the Navy department, which I linked it its entirety so it isn't even possible I "juggled" any numbers.

As we've seen in this thread many do not even bother to read the links posted, so this is a blatant attempt to simply defame me as many might believe what you say is true without bothering to actually go in and check the evidence for themselves, you lie, I juggled nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
but I'll point out that your source
a)Admits to using claims as its source of Japanese losses. Which alone merits dividing figures of said losses in two.


Now you are again being intellectually dishonest. Yes claims were found to be over-reported during the war by a large margin. But that was discovered to be occurring during the confirmation process when they tried to confirm claims with eye witness accounts and gun camera footage. The document posted was published after the vetting process so most over-reporting had already been filtered out. Could there still be some over-reporting in the numbers? Sure, but there are no Japanese records available to do the last possible step of filtering out the ones that slipped through, so when it comes to the raw stats these are as good as it gets, there is no better record available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm


Sorry, but this site wants to install something on my computer and won't allow me to back out of the site (had to use ctrl-alt-del to force shutdown the site), so I am not about to let it install whatever it is trying to install.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
In case you try to argue, that operational losses should not count -


Operational losses have nothing to do with combat related air losses when you are comparing the relative combat abilities of the two powers. Sure many of the ops losses were caused due to air to air and flak damage, but there is simply no reliable records to use to filter those out from the ones caused simply because a mechanic needed parts or weather related causes or accidents etc. etc.

My whole point was the allied air power was far superior to Japan in combat. Were all op losses combat related then I'd say sure count them, but the vast majority were not combat related so it really has no bearing on the topic I was addressing.

Jim



< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/4/2013 10:54:54 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 96
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/4/2013 11:37:35 PM   
cplprice

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Chickamauga GA
Status: offline
quote:

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!


Which isn't really bad since he really deserved a Courts Martial for his defence of the Philippines. Same, same for his performance in Korea but that's off topic.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 97
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 1:10:05 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8049
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cplprice

quote:

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!


Which isn't really bad since he really deserved a Courts Martial for his defence of the Philippines. Same, same for his performance in Korea but that's off topic.


Inchon was pretty nice. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Yalu River--not so nice.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to cplprice)
Post #: 98
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 2:21:38 AM   
msieving1


Posts: 382
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm


Sorry, but this site wants to install something on my computer and won't allow me to back out of the site (had to use ctrl-alt-del to force shutdown the site), so I am not about to let it install whatever it is trying to install.


http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090608-042.pdf

Same thing, without the Java. It's table 100.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 99
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 11:55:22 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5473
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Seriously?

Get a grip. No one playing this game is under any delusion that Japan could have won the war. No player on the Japanese side is fanatically driven to prove they could have led Japan to victory. There are no 'fantasies,' just variations in a game. For fun.

Most players who choose to try the Japanese side are looking for a challenge, like the meticulousness of trying to play the economy, and are actually, believe it or not, fairly knowledgeable about the history of the war.

You simply perpetuate a division amongst players that doesn't exist for anyone else. Give it a break. It's a game.

+1

Well put.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 100
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 1:05:15 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8049
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Seriously?

Get a grip. No one playing this game is under any delusion that Japan could have won the war. No player on the Japanese side is fanatically driven to prove they could have led Japan to victory. There are no 'fantasies,' just variations in a game. For fun.

Most players who choose to try the Japanese side are looking for a challenge, like the meticulousness of trying to play the economy, and are actually, believe it or not, fairly knowledgeable about the history of the war.

You simply perpetuate a division amongst players that doesn't exist for anyone else. Give it a break. It's a game.

+1

Well put.


+2

And let me say for the Nth time, a GAME whose design allows Japan to win if driven by a skillful player who plays to the design.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 101
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 4:02:47 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2829
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have only one problem with game balance:  the dramatic touches.  When the Japanese player takes Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc., he gets the highly irritating (to me) announcement by Tokyo Rose.  On the other hand, when I take Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc its quiet.  I think this disparity needs to be addressed.  Even a small touch would be nice.  How about when a base holds out longer than historical - say Singapore, Manila or Wake Island - the Japanese commander commits seppuku and is removed from the game?

+1

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 102
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 4:02:52 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2829
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
edit-double post

< Message edited by bigred -- 3/5/2013 4:18:58 PM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 103
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 5:05:40 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3330
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have only one problem with game balance:  the dramatic touches.  When the Japanese player takes Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc., he gets the highly irritating (to me) announcement by Tokyo Rose.  On the other hand, when I take Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc its quiet.  I think this disparity needs to be addressed.  Even a small touch would be nice.  How about when a base holds out longer than historical - say Singapore, Manila or Wake Island - the Japanese commander commits seppuku and is removed from the game?

+1



+2

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 104
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 6:37:09 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5473
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I have only one problem with game balance:  the dramatic touches.  When the Japanese player takes Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc., he gets the highly irritating (to me) announcement by Tokyo Rose.  On the other hand, when I take Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc its quiet.  I think this disparity needs to be addressed.  Even a small touch would be nice.  How about when a base holds out longer than historical - say Singapore, Manila or Wake Island - the Japanese commander commits seppuku and is removed from the game?

+1



+2

Unfortunately, the allies didn't have a singular 'high profile' radio voice like Tokyo Rose. Ed Murrow just doesn't cut it. Maybe some of the GI Jane aka Martha Wilkerson broadcasts could be put in for the later war era? She was prolly as close as it came ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 105
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 6:54:34 PM   
catwhoorg


Posts: 619
Joined: 9/27/2012
From: Uk expat lving near Atlanta
Status: offline
Based on Tokyo Rose, I think the allies have lost more carriers (and battleships) off Rangoon than they built in the entire 20th century.

I still hold it though :)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 106
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 7:22:19 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1657
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
But is your moral doing good 'knowing' so many ships have been lost ?

(in reply to catwhoorg)
Post #: 107
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/5/2013 7:31:05 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1302
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
"To all the men abroad, and all the ships at sea...."

There was a news broadcast at that time, as I recall. It was pretty much PR, but it was there.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 108
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/6/2013 2:13:15 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
Walter Winchell: "Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America from border to border and coast to coast and all the ships at sea. Let's go to press."

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 109
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/6/2013 4:21:34 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 6845
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: cplprice

quote:

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!


Which isn't really bad since he really deserved a Courts Martial for his defence of the Philippines. Same, same for his performance in Korea but that's off topic.


Inchon was pretty nice. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Yalu River--not so nice.


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.... Actually he had his qualities. Frankly, I think he was just too old for Korea and past his prime.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 110
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: P-47 Production Gap Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.109