RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

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: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 4:06:15 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

JWE hit the nail on the head when he talked about setting the historical parameters correctly. Japan should be able to produce more than in history because they could have produced more than in history. If they do even better in terms of securing resources then their potential to produce even more should increase accordingly. There are only two caveats:

A) Have the parameters be pretty much correct for Japan's potential production (as good a ballpark effort as practical). B) Have some function whereby Allied production could respond as the Allies would have (and could have).

JWE has pointed out the work they are doing for A. Let's give them some slack to get it done. Having something for B would be great, the only concern is do they have the time to include it for release? Let Joe and others comment. We can complain and lobby until the cows come home but that won't change the physics of time and effort available.

I do not want either a JFB or AFB fan game. I do not want balance for the sake of it. I believe that non-die hard players will find plenty of room to romp (from either side). Everything I have heard indicates that AE will be as close as they can make it to what JWE said - historical parameters. Nobody is talking about creating a 'Civ V' here.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 181

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 9:54:03 AM

Rainerle

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI? Why should japanese tankers and freighters run from the empire and back? What keeps the USN subs from going after warships only then ? Keeping japanese reinforcements strict will lead to less historic play rather than to more.

_____________________________

Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 182

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 2:28:28 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI?

Because if they don't take it and sieze the resources, they won't be able to even maintain the "strictly historical" level of production? Just a thought...

(in reply to Rainerle)

Post #: 183

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 3:00:37 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI?

Because if they don't take it and sieze the resources, they won't be able to even maintain the "strictly historical" level of production? Just a thought...

The primary Japanese strategic goal was to gain and keep the resources (particularly) of the DEI, which were necessary for the long-term health of the Japanese economy (and in the shorter term to sustain Japanese operations past the depletion of oil and resource stockpiles in Japan). To do that, they had to defeat the Commonwealth (a Dutch ally). They attacked the Philippines to protect their lines of communication back to Japan. They attacked Hawaii because it seemed like a good idea at the time (actually to delay the American response to their attack on the Philippines).

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 184

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 3:10:32 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 185

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 3:21:29 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 186

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 5:41:01 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Yeah a new resource called food that HI requires to run would be great. If each HI point required 4 food be consumed each turn in addition to the other resources needed to operate normally, that would about do it. You could then roll for damage to each HI point if at least 2 food don�t make it to the HI point to be consumed each turn.

So if a factory was 1500 HI in size and only 400 food made it to the factory, 1300 HI points would roll for potential damage. Perhas a 10% roll per point would be sufficient. This would give the food resource priority over other resources as it should have. I doubt we�ll see something like this, but it would be nice.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 187

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 5:52:47 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

Right but fixing allied pools doesn�t necessarily make it right. Especially when Japan can build so much more of everything than they did historically.

I made the point earlier as an example, if all the UK tanks in India had been destroyed in a Japanese attack on India, the UK would have made adjustments and sent a lot more tanks to the region, probably doubling or tripling the original number because they had been too few.

But because the UK didn�t need more tanks historically in India (because Japan never really made an effort to take it) we�re now stuck in game with a fixed pool of very limited scope no matter what Japan does or how many tanks are destroyed.

Also Japan only built 2,500 tanks and self propelled guns during the war, so the allies didn�t really need a lot of armor. But Japan can build tens of thousands of tanks if it needs them, but with fixed pools the allies cannot hope to compete, even though they historically built over 100,000 more tanks and self propelled guns than Japan did.

It�s this lack of flexibility that fixed pools hamstring the allies into that makes the game less *right* if you don�t get the Japanese economy done too. The only real way to give the allies enough flexibility to deal with events on map is to simply give them large equipment pools and let on map OOB�s decide how the land game plays out.

After all Japan will always have TO&E strengths near 100% because of their unlimited capacity to build anything they want, why shouldn�t the allies have the same ability?

Historically scarce equipment, only works if you hamper both sides with historical numbers. Hampering one side and not the other simply leads to making one side comparatively stronger than it should be.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/15/2008 5:55:56 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 188

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 5:53:25 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Manpower centers have first claim on resource points, each manpower center burns 10 resource points per day, and there's no way to turn them off. This is a huge drain on IJ, especially in CHS, where they account for about 30-40% of the consumption of resource points. There is no way to build up any sort of reserve unless you manage to capture them all essentially intact.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 189

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 6:27:59 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Thus let's simply introduce some thresholds which simply trigger the doubling of Allied production!

Simple examples (for simplicity sake - numbers are just for making a point):

a)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 fighters per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied fighter production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese fighters per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)

b)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 bombers per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied bomber production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese bombers per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)

What do you think gentleman?

Leo "Apollo11"

I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 190

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 6:46:03 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 191

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 7:12:32 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Manpower centers have first claim on resource points, each manpower center burns 10 resource points per day, and there's no way to turn them off. This is a huge drain on IJ, especially in CHS, where they account for about 30-40% of the consumption of resource points. There is no way to build up any sort of reserve unless you manage to capture them all essentially intact.

This falls woefully short as a civilian population cost though.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 192

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 7:13:21 PM

Gen.Hoepner

Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

Think so Mike. Maybe the best would be something not so "brutal", so to say some code that says: if you build 500 the allies build x 1.50, if you build 600, 1.70 etc etc...but however that's the right idea imho. This will keep the numbers more or less balanced

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 193

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 7:37:31 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

depending on how it would be timed, not necessarily... if for instance I don't lose a lot of aircraft and have plenty to spare early on, then I can turn those factories off and save up the resources/hi for later on.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 194

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 7:40:39 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I'd rather have smaller numbers of Japanese production...ie more inline with history or plausible what might have beens, not a free for all bloodfest. This game is already too bloody and it is already too easy to bring reinforcements to the front (wiggle one's nose and voila...24 P-39s or Oscars...despite being thousands of miles from a supply hub). We don't need to correct one wrong (pie in the sky Japanese production) with a second wrong (well, just spew out more Allied production).

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 195

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 8:04:29 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

Think so Mike. Maybe the best would be something not so "brutal", so to say some code that says: if you build 500 the allies build x 1.50, if you build 600, 1.70 etc etc...but however that's the right idea imho. This will keep the numbers more or less balanced

Like I said..., I thought it sounded like a basic and simple way to approach the problem. I could probably come up with something convoluted and elegant..., but at this stage in AE's developement I figure only the "basic and simple" has even a hope of inclusion.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)

Post #: 196

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 12:30:01 AM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

I doubt that Allies need any real plus-up. AI [Allied] pools for 11Mar46, after being denied most production sources since I took USA on3May45 still show the following [4 shots to follow]:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ken Estes -- 1/16/2008 12:31:54 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 197

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 12:32:37 AM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

and,

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ken Estes)

Post #: 198

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 12:33:44 AM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

and (3):

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ken Estes)

Post #: 199

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 12:35:48 AM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

and for tanks (4):

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ken Estes)

Post #: 200

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 3:02:03 AM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ken Estes

I doubt that Allies need any real plus-up. AI [Allied] pools for 11Mar46, after being denied most production sources since I took USA on3May45 still show the following [4 shots to follow]:

Of course this raises the question why you were able to conquer the entire map if the Allies produce so much stuff...

No offense, but posting numbers from an AI game in which you slapped the Allies around until they have no opportunity at all to engage the enemy doesn't prove anything about their ability to wage a war of attrition.

< Message edited by VSWG -- 1/16/2008 3:15:16 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ken Estes)

Post #: 201

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 3:16:34 AM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI?

Because if they don't take it and sieze the resources, they won't be able to even maintain the "strictly historical" level of production? Just a thought...

So you'd recommend that the Japanese couldn't do better than historical production-wise, but could do worse? I wouldn't want to play that game from either side.

I'll also say that I would like to see Japanese production toned down - even a best case scenario should still be plausible, and I've occasionally seen some highly implausible figures in AARs. And the median result, IMO, should roughly approximate history whereas in stock the median result seems to exceed it.

If the amount of HI that can be supported is lowered from stock (similar to how CHS now has it) I doubt one will see grossly unrealistic production figures.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 202

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 3:31:18 AM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Manpower centers have first claim on resource points, each manpower center burns 10 resource points per day, and there's no way to turn them off. This is a huge drain on IJ, especially in CHS, where they account for about 30-40% of the consumption of resource points. There is no way to build up any sort of reserve unless you manage to capture them all essentially intact.

With resource & supply production separated, it should be (relatively) easy to force a more realistic draw on Japanese shipping.

Just up the Japanese manpower & also up the resource centers in order to both support the manpower & HI. It make take a lot of tweaking to get it right, but it could better represent the strain that the Japanese Merchant Marine faced IRL.

I stop most merchant shipbuilding in game because I can and I don't need it. But I'd honestly rather have my logistics stretched to the limit & beyond - I enjoy facing similar problems to those my real-life counterpoints faced.

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 203

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 5:06:28 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ctangus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI?

Because if they don't take it and sieze the resources, they won't be able to even maintain the "strictly historical" level of production? Just a thought...

So you'd recommend that the Japanese couldn't do better than historical production-wise, but could do worse? I wouldn't want to play that game from either side. No..., I didn't say that. Rainerle asked "why should the Japanese bother to take the SRA at all?"---and I offered a reason.

I'll also say that I would like to see Japanese production toned down - even a best case scenario should still be plausible, and I've occasionally seen some highly implausible figures in AARs. And the median result, IMO, should roughly approximate history whereas in stock the median result seems to exceed it.
Then we are basically in agreement. I want to control and limit the increase of Japan's production in the game,..., not prevent it from occuring

If the amount of HI that can be supported is lowered from stock (similar to how CHS now has it) I doubt one will see grossly unrealistic production figures.

(in reply to ctangus)

Post #: 204

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 5:32:27 AM

ctangus

Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Then we are basically in agreement. I want to control and limit the increase of Japan's production in the game,..., not prevent it from occuring

Yep, I think so. I think may have I mis-read you earlier.

IMO a well-played Japanese game should deserve economic rewards. But those rewards shouldn't stretch the limits of credulity either. I think we're mostly on the same page here.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 205

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 6:56:43 AM

jolly_pillager

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline

Just to throw in my .02

In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's.

This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on.

Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"?

I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever.

I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well...

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 206

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 7:57:26 AM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

Just to throw in my .02

In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's.

This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on.

Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"?

I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever.

I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well...

May I ask how far into the game are you? Is your opponent aggressive with his subs or is he waiting for the new torpedoe? I have two current games of CHS. In one my opponent has used the Sir Robin strategy and I have not seen a sub in some time. In the other the pesky things are always under foot and I have lost a good amount of merchants to sunk or damaged. I agree that it seems the Japanese have way to many merchant ships and it both of my games I have them not producing. But in my one game I believe that I will eventually have to turn them on as my opponent likes and effectively uses his subs.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to jolly_pillager)

Post #: 207

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 9:35:45 AM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

My 2 cents -

First, I will agree with something Jim said:

quote:

If you want historical accuracy as you claim, then why aren�t you advocating Japanese production start from an historical beginning? We know Japan built these figures in 1941:

1,080 fighters
1,461 bombers
639 reconnaissance

So given these numbers we can assume Japan�s monthly output of air frames at the start of the war was:

90 fighters
121 bombers
53 recon

Even if we assume Japan started 1941 with very low production and ramped up some by the end of 1941, Japan should not start with more than

150 fighters (a very generous figure)
150 bombers
70 recon

This would be an honest and historically accurate start point for Japanese production at game start.

I definitely think this would help.

Aside from that my take on a few topics -
PDU - I like PDU - with some limits for both sides. In my experience (albeit not as great as many others here) it will take me a quite a while to phase out my Nates with Oscars. However, PDU is very useful for allowing the continued use of obsolete aircraft for training, Kamikazes, quite theaters, etc.

R&D factories - HR I use is that I repeatedly convert them until they are zero on the first turn of the game. Thus, if I want to use them later, I have to expand and repair from scratch. EXPENSIVE

Japanese Production - I really don't see the problem here. Maybe it is because I play CHS, but I HAVE TO (yes, Jim, I HAVE to) turn off various things in my economy to keep my HI pools from dropping. I cut back on merchant shipyards and planes that have sufficient pools. And that feels right to me. As much as I would love to turn everything on, if I did my economy would crash in 42. Now, I could expand HI (and maybe I will) but that is going to suck up supplies I need for the offensives I have going. Maybe if I stopped expanding earlier, I could spend more supply on economic expansion. Again - it is a choice that seems right to me. In any case - I sure can't imagine hitting some of the number others have posted. Even if I had the CAPACITY to do so, my HI would not support running all those factories for very long at all.

Allied Production - I do think Allied production should be adjustable. Certainly between types of units (lower one, increase another) but also I LOVE the idea of using PPs to push productions since it represents hardware being pulled from the ETO. And I don't think that gets mentioned enough. Britain and America were not operating in a single theater like Japan. Are you so sure the British could send more tanks to India in 42/43? Weren't they a bit busy the Europe and Med theaters?
Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production. Maybe, the allied player could GAIN VP's by shutting things down if he is doing really well. This might be enough to allow the use of an extra A bomb without pushing the victory condition another level to Japan.

AP/AK - I do think something needs done here. I do keep all my ships working, but I do think I am able to ship more than Japan did historically. Not to mention, shutting down merchant yards is the first thing I do to try and keep my HI net usage positive.

Thanks to the AE team for listening and all their hard work!

< Message edited by Feurer Krieg -- 1/16/2008 9:38:33 AM >

_____________________________

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 208

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 1:02:16 PM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ken Estes

I doubt that Allies need any real plus-up. AI [Allied] pools for 11Mar46, after being denied most production sources since I took USA on3May45 still show the following [4 shots to follow]:

Of course this raises the question why you were able to conquer the entire map if the Allies produce so much stuff...

No offense, but posting numbers from an AI game in which you slapped the Allies around until they have no opportunity at all to engage the enemy doesn't prove anything about their ability to wage a war of attrition.

Don't know what your problem is, so just don't read it. I have already pointed out the failings of Allied AI and why my 'slapping the Allied AI' would not likely work vs. human opponent. My illustration of Allied AI production in a defeated campaign shows they don't likely need to be plused up to any extent. I claim nothing more than to show how their stock production went when under severest pressure.
Alles klar?

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 209

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/16/2008 1:11:12 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production.

This is a great idea. BTW, I think it was earlier than 1/44 for several things.

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 210