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  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 9:56:03 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 271
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 10:05:45 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-


Thirded!

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 272
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 10:40:19 PM   
FeurerKrieg


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We have disbandments, withdrawals and renamings in AE plus splits that allow small units to be on map at start but you need to combine them for the Divs you will NEED later in the war.

I hate attacking with Bdes they are just too fragile...


Well that is very cool!

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 273
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 10:41:18 PM   
FeurerKrieg


Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline 		Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn? I play Japan, but I'd rather my opponents have their CV's when they should And given that planning/ordering took place before the losses of 42, I really don't understand the logic behind the whole respawn deal.



quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-


Thirded!



_____________________________


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

(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 274
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 11:05:46 PM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn? I play Japan, but I'd rather my opponents have their CV's when they should And given that planning/ordering took place before the losses of 42, I really don't understand the logic behind the whole respawn deal.



quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-


Thirded!




The Allied production is fixed otherwise, so re-spawn make no sense. If there were a mechanism to adjust Allied production to battlefield experience, then cases of extreme carrier losses, or extreme losses of anything else for that matter, could be addressed through changing of priorities. That's not going to happen for AE of course, but would be the ideal for the future. I'll settle for the "re-spawn off switch"

How do re-spawns affect pilot pools? I thought the airgroups were reinforment squads just like any other.


_____________________________

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 275
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 11:39:18 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

How do re-spawns affect pilot pools? I thought the airgroups were reinforment squads just like any other.


When I pulled up the ship reinfocement screen, the respawn-CVs have their CAGs listed but with zero planes.  I presume they'll arrive with zero planes, and then have to accept replacments and pilots from the pools.

-F-



_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to bilbow)
Post #: 276
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 11:45:45 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: Feinder
Thank you.


You're welcome.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 277
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 11:46:36 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

How do re-spawns affect pilot pools? I thought the airgroups were reinforment squads just like any other.


When I pulled up the ship reinfocement screen, the respawn-CVs have their CAGs listed but with zero planes.  I presume they'll arrive with zero planes, and then have to accept replacments and pilots from the pools.

-F-




So we don't know this for certain yet? Does anyone out there have the diffinitive answer?

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 278
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 11:48:44 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
I really don't understand the logic behind the whole respawn deal.


Play balance pure and simple. With Japan dominating the CV game for 42 and 43 and the allies for 44 and 45, they get a balanced game…

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 279
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/17/2008 11:56:59 PM   
FeurerKrieg


Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline 		Well, I like the game and all, but that isn't a good reason though.

IMO - The 'Average' Japanese player should be able to expand until late 42 (isn't that when P-38's arrive?) and then have to hold on for the push from the Allies for the rest of the war.

Now, a GOOD player should be able to win some victories and maybe can keep expanding into early 43 - fine. But certainly, Allied stuff should be arriving on time.

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).

_____________________________


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

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 280
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 12:00:21 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).


My vote as well.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 1/18/2008 12:01:05 AM >

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 281
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 1:41:41 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: treespider

IMO respawn was included as a passive  incentive to the Allied player to use his ships agressively in the earlier part of the war...afterall if he loses one he will get it back later and in better form....and any damge he inflicts with these "disposable" assets the Japanese won't be replacing because the Japanese don't respawn...at least for the larger vessels.

So as the Allies if you don't use your ships agressively early on you lose out on the potential respawned ships...

It's all about attrition.




Well, a more realistic carrier combat model will go along way to make the Allied player more aggressive. Pre AE carrier combat is not representative of historical capability.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 282
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 1:58:27 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		You know, given how ardent the community is over respawn every time the phrase is utterred, perhaps it is time to add an official non-respawn scenario. We got PDU out of the blue, why not a non respawn scenario?

I'd love to see a poll on this. It's not that respawn will be removed, just another choice being added.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 283
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 2:00:37 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I know we have gotten a wee OT, but speaking of unit removals/withdrawls...are LCUs and Air Groups open to withdrawl?

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 284
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 2:11:58 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		LCU's can withdraw (leave theatre with all devices - e.g. 5th British Div, 7th Armoured Bde off to Italy)
disband (devices are returned to pool e.g. Indian 267th Armoured turning its tanks in and converting to Infantry, several AA units converting to Infantry)
or
manually disband (removing small understrenght units or disbanding a Bde to cannibalise replacements for other units)

Andy

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 285
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 2:28:32 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Perhaps awarding players for withdrawing airgroups with VPs might convince players to disband extraneous units. For example, many carrier squadrons were disbanded permanently after their CVs were sunk.

_____________________________





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 #: 286
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 3:15:04 AM   
ctangus


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You know, given how ardent the community is over respawn every time the phrase is utterred, perhaps it is time to add an official non-respawn scenario. We got PDU out of the blue, why not a non respawn scenario?

I'd love to see a poll on this. It's not that respawn will be removed, just another choice being added.


Minor disagreement: from what I've seen the community (both AFBs & JFBs alike) have largely been ardent against respawn. From my POV, I have PBEMs ongoing from both sides currently & dislike the rule from both sides.

On the other hand I'd also be very interested in a poll on the issue. My gut call is that it will be highly anti-respawn. And I'd also be very happy to see official respawn & no-respawn scenarios.

If there isn't an official no-respawn scenario, and if no one else beats me to it, I'm already planning to put one together as soon as I download AE. I'll shamelessly use your research if you don't mind. Though I still think it would be better for the game to have an "official" no-respawn scenario.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 287
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 4:49:43 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn?


Yes there are. I play as the Allies and I prefer respawn.

Andrew

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)
Post #: 288
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 4:53:18 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).


My vote as well.


Agree - vote for either remove or have a switch (or substitute scenario).

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 289
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 5:35:44 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 290
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 6:28:29 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Perhaps awarding players for withdrawing airgroups with VPs might convince players to disband extraneous units. For example, many carrier squadrons were disbanded permanently after their CVs were sunk.


Perhaps PPs can be gained for units voluntarily disbanded.

_____________________________

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 Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 291
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 6:34:35 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: spence

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.

_____________________________

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 spence)
Post #: 292
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 6:51:32 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.


I still like the idea of limiting the actual number of factories which are available for the Japanese to expand. At least that should cut down on the speed at which the IJ player can expand his production.

For example: with 5 Frank factories expanding the IJ player can reach 1000 planes per month in 200 days. With only 1 Frank factory it takes 1000 days to expand to 1000 planes per month. The latter is over 3 years just to get to the point where IJ can produce 1000 Franks a month. At that rate, by the time a player ramps up to full production of a single plane type, the plane will probably be obsolete anyway.

Worst Case Scenario: Japanese production is still not satisfactory in AE. Solution: In WITP, as it stands, Japanese device, and A/C production CAN be modded out altogether, while at the same time leaving HI intact to produce supplies and fuel. Of course ship building would need to remain the same as well.

EDIT: Fixed typos.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 1/18/2008 8:50:32 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 293
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 7:06:36 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.


That's a bit OT, but, looking closer at your statement, I will agree that there is, without doubt, a profound lesson to be learned in your illustration about keeping a large standing army. Eventually you will need to use it for no other reason than to secure the resources with which to maintain it. Maybe it would, indeed, make the present oil crisis a moot point if we didn't have a large army which required so much of it.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 294
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 8:19:03 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.



Where are you getting the 40T figure?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 295
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 8:39:29 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Real rough calculation would make that about 4-5 lbs per man per day for the division. Ammunition would account for that weight pretty easily if the division was in action; nevermind POL, food and all the paper needed to insure you get at least the same amount on the next day from wherever you're getting it.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 296
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 8:52:34 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Real rough calculation would make that about 4-5 lbs per man per day for the division. Ammunition would account for that weight pretty easily if the division was in action; nevermind POL, food and all the paper needed to insure you get at least the same amount on the next day from wherever you're getting it.



The reason I ask is the US Army green books site a figure of .244 tons per man per month just for Class I Supply (Rations/Food). A 14253 man infantry division would require 3477 tons of food per month or 115 tons per day....just for food.

[Edit: I'm at the office right now and do not have the book in front of me but iirc it was .244 tons ....it may have been less]

If you look at the average supply need per man per month for the entire Pacific theater it equates to something like 2 tons per month. However this is an average of overall supply consumption for the entire theater - much of this supply is stuff like ammunition, aviation fuel, POL, building supplies etc....

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/18/2008 9:04:37 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 297
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 9:20:10 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		It seems to me (in my limited experience with Japanese production), that the amounts of strat resources (HI, engine/plane factories, etc), is pointed towards the AI being able to produce roughly the historical numbers.  Seems like a good idea to me, since (as I understand it), the AI doesn't mess with production anyway.

Why not just create a PBEM scenario that lowers the starting size of factories etc, that would compell players to expand them in order to reach (and potentially suprass them somewhat, but not to the degree that currently exists).

Or for Japanese players who are either new or can't manage expanding the economy (myself included), you could opt to use the standard at-start quantities (that the AI uses), and then not expand production.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 298
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 9:23:03 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		More rough calculations....that 16 lbs of rations per man per day...I always thought the Navy had the good chow...geezum

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 299
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/18/2008 11:02:48 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

More rough calculations....that 16 lbs of rations per man per day...I always thought the Navy had the good chow...geezum



I imagine some of that is packaging...oh and I had a chance to check it was .244 tons...in Europe it was higher - .261 tons.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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

2.422