Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
....
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ken Estes

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

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.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
Yes - I have no idea exactly when Allies started to put the brakes on production, which is why I put the ? in there.

quote:

Japan should be able to produce more than in history because they could have produced more than in history.

quote:

Setting up an accurate model of JA performance would require the WITP designers to assess what JA economic performance could have been had the army-navy reverted sufficient shipping to commerce [scratching head]?

quote:


There at the very least should always be an option for NO Japanese production control. Especially if there will be no Allied production control.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

So, to repeat a question. Has the means to model a semblance of a civilian population been added to balance the economic model? Some say that current manpower centres are enough but I'm not so sure this is the case. Increasing manpower centre sizes really can't help as this just increases the availability of squads. Perhaps altering manpower centre requirements to include editor adjustable quantities of resources and supplies might be desireable (ie, manpower centre values can be adjusted for each base/city). This then leaves the civilian economic issue at the hands of modders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blam0

I find it quite strange that for all of this talk about "historical production" and what could and could not have been done by the allies/japanese, there is no mention of the "Europe First" strategy.   Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45?

I'm not suggesting that the production model is flawless, but most of the arguments regarding the Allies capabilities smell suspiciously like AFB folks that just want to beat up on the Japanese. 

I for one, want as much control over my economy and upgrades as I can get, to improve upon history if you will.  However, I respect (and expect) that some folks want otherwise, and simply would like to see if they can do better with the same resources.  That's what House Rules are for.  No one is saying that you HAVE to expand production.  No one is saying that you HAVE to use PDU.  If you believe that the game is playable as the Japanese with no expansion, then go ahead and play it yourself that way, or post for a PBEM opponent....and good luck finding one!

As I see it, Production expandability is part of what makes the game playable from a Japanese player's perspective.  Could it use some tweaking?  Sure.  Should it be eliminated ? No.  Should the Allies be given additional resources?  HELL NO.

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

quote:

Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45?

It's not that the idea is inconceivable, but instead that the idea is not supported by the historical facts. The Allies had a Europe first strategy in the real war. That did not stop the Allies from sending men and material to the PTO in the real war. Had the Japanese actually threatened Ceylon, India, Australia, Hawaii, sotheast Alaska, or Panama, going so far as to actually land troops in these places, you can bet that the "Europe First" strategy would have been further modified. Had the Japanese actually show an ability to sustain aircraft production and pilot production levels beyond that which western economic analysis (and actual combat results) of the real war presented, the US in particular would have substantially escalated production to meet the contingency.

Then there's the backstory. Since the backstory assumes that the war in Europe proceeded more or less as it historically did, it is reasonable to assume that allied overproduction (compared with historical levels) would be directed at the PTO, rather than the ETO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blam0
Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up.

Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: blam0
Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up.

Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does

No one understands Production. Not even today.

In a wartime “planned” environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody “knows” the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids.

After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945.

As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute “this” for “that”. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for “this” down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing “thats” from the line and tool up for “this”.

Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

No one understands Production. Not even today.

In a wartime “planned” environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody “knows” the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids.

After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945.

As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute “this” for “that”. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for “this” down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing “thats” from the line and tool up for “this”.

Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I can easily arrange to have Taiho, Unryu, Amagi, Katsuragi, 2CL and 8DD arrive in May 43 while producing 2400 engines and 1600 a/c per month.

This is with having captured Palembang totally destroyed for both oil and resources.

100,000 HI, 1,000,000 oil, and 1,000,000 resources in the bank.

Just seems nuts.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: blam0
Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up.

Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does

No one understands Production. Not even today.

In a wartime “planned” environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody “knows” the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids.

After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945.

As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute “this” for “that”. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for “this” down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing “thats” from the line and tool up for “this”.

Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

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.

His subs seem to be mostly deployed along my forward areas...I hardly ever see a sub in my supply lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

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.

His subs seem to be mostly deployed along my forward areas...I hardly ever see a sub in my supply lines.

As in one of my games, your opponent is a cause of the problem you see. It is the same in this debate on Japanese production. If the allies don't fight of course there is going to be stockpiles of Japanese equipment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You know, when one looks at the inclusion of the strange respawn system which rips away all the ships which were named after ships sunk during the Pacific War (basically it amounts to removing from the 1943 Allied arsenal a force arguably equal in strength to KB) and the inclusion of the add water and stir fantasy Japanese conucopia...ooops, industry, one can really see just how far the original design leaned toward releasing a balanced game...something that has no serious historical context.

Seriously, getting the economies to reflect a little sensibility will probably take alot of time and PBEM games. This being the case I hope that everything pertaining to this is adjustable in the editor so modders can tweak trouble spots, instead of us having to beg for another patch. These guys are not going to support this game forever.