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: Economics 101--Japan

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Economics 101--Japan Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 4:05:33 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Every engine or plane built costs 18 HI


Note that airframes cost 18 HI per engine. All 2 engine planes cost a total of 72 HI, 36 for 2 engines and 36 for the airframe.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 571
RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 4:08:50 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks Mike,
sorry I was talking about 1 engine planes and yes I said "or", meaning 18 each...but I didn't realise that a 2 engine airframe cost double ... I'll have to check that I have that right ... it was months ago I programmed that...

Thanks for the heads-up!

---Damian---

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 572
RE: Minefield Allegiance - 5/27/2008 4:09:49 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I had something happen the turn after Rangoon fell.  I moved a bunch of barges from Moulmein to Rangoon for continued evacuation of Japanese troops are I had 20 of them hit mines and sink.  The only mines there are the ones I had sown...

Do minefields change allegiance the moment a base falls? 


Not exactly. There are two types of minefields, offensive and defensive. Offensive can hit ships of either side while defensive can only hit enemy ships. If you own a base and have your own minefield there, it's a defensive minefield. (Any enemy minefields there are offensive.) If the enemy takes that base from you, your minefields become offensive and the enemy minefields become defensive. So, in the case you described above, your Rangoon minefields became offensive.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 573
RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 4:11:35 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Engine factories are builds per month so the above is actually 480 + 430 + 48 + (1440/30) = 1006


Thanks Mike!!

So back to WitP Chart and Tracker I have these numbers (per day):
HI - 15250
Oil - 2191 x 6 = 13146
Naval - 1366 x 3 = 4098 HI needed
Merchant - 981 x 3 = 2943
Amrament - 248 x 6 = 1488
Vehicles - 121 x 6 = 726
Planes - 1769/30days = 59/day x 18 = 1061
Engines - 2168/30days = 72/day x 18 = 1300

Thus, HI needed each day to run things is 11,616
Subtract the saving (shutdown of plants this turn ) using Mike's new numbers that means 11616 - 1006 = 10610 HI needed per day.

How much HI should I try to budget daily to be put into reserve??



I mentioned this earlier. It's 18 HI per engine for the cost of an airframe so this is actually a low estimate.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 574
RE: Economics 101--Japan - 5/27/2008 4:18:19 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Engine factories are builds per month so the above is actually 480 + 430 + 48 + (1440/30) = 1006


Thanks Mike!!

So back to WitP Chart and Tracker I have these numbers (per day):
HI - 15250
Oil - 2191 x 6 = 13146
Naval - 1366 x 3 = 4098 HI needed
Merchant - 981 x 3 = 2943
Amrament - 248 x 6 = 1488
Vehicles - 121 x 6 = 726
Planes - 1769/30days = 59/day x 18 = 1061
Engines - 2168/30days = 72/day x 18 = 1300

Thus, HI needed each day to run things is 11,616
Subtract the saving (shutdown of plants this turn ) using Mike's new numbers that means 11616 - 1006 = 10610 HI needed per day.

How much HI should I try to budget daily to be put into reserve??



Good question. The easy answer is as much as possible. I try to build up a hefty reserve of HI, engines, oil, resources and "good" planes. They can't be destroyed by Allied bombing. My goal is to have at least a million HI in the pool by mid 44.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 575
RE: Mos Eisley PTs! - 5/27/2008 5:09:52 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline 		I must get this Tracker tool up and running now I see how to use it....

Anyway three game observations:
1. Re PT boats - I too have a house rule, of 2x 6 boat TFs max per base hex.
2. Tori Shima Mega Port - if your opponents ships are refuelling from the port (fuel and ammo) then I too would complain. HOWEVER If he's using Replen TFs (AOs and AEs) to refuel 'at sea' then that to me is acceptable. They spend Op Pts when you use them, so can only replenish a limited number of ships per turn.
3. If you are going to bombard Iwo Jima with BBs do it before you loose control - we don't want to see your BBs hit the 8500 mines that then become hostile to both navies


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 576
Fair use of PTs - 5/27/2008 5:13:55 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so

Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI

Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.



One thing though - Do make sure your house rules cut both ways. You've replenished BB ammo lockers from small bases in the past etc so I think that it is only fair to let your opponent gain the benefit from his clever strategem ( taking Tori Shima before moving onto Iwo ). I know it hurts to take losses etc but you are taking them because he did something that worked well and you ordered a raid on Tori Shima which you should never have done. It was bound to cost more than it would win.

Just take the punches, learn from it and move on. I know you didn't ask for these comments but I think that what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander in this situation.

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 5/27/2008 5:21:34 PM >

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 577
Here to Eternity - 5/27/2008 6:10:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		tabpub:

That was a nice reminder with the exception that I was doing my replenishment from Suva with a Port of 4 or 5, AEs, MLEs, ASs, and anything else I would need for the Port to be able to realistically resupply these vessels.  I don't think you noticed that there were two PAIRS of BBs who were doing those Bombardments at the time.  This enabled to me to hit Pago Pago every 2-3 days with the two TF.  It worked pretty well and was REALISTIC.

This is the quote from my AAR at the Time:

Put simply, the war revolves the American bastion of Pago-Pago (Samoa). For the last six weeks, the entire focus of the Pacific War has been squarely placed on this island. When I set about to conquer the ENTIRE SE Pacific, I knew I might get a chance to destroy enemy units that were not, historically taken out. I accomplished this while taking New Caledonia, Nandi/Suva, and Canton--plus everything else in between--and had set my sights on the last American outpost in the SE Pacific.

Intelligence and Recon had placed resistance at about 7 units and 20,000 defenders. Figuring that that the actually numbers might be close to double this, I planned accordingly and landed with two complete Infantry Divisions, two Independent Brigades, and several supporting units. To my shock and somewhat horror, I found that I was confronting the 2nd Marine Division, 2 Marine CD Units, a Para Btn, and five BF! YIKES!!! Thankfully, I had enough strength to land and HOLD my beachhead!

The decision then became what to do.
Once my initial shock wore off at the opposition, I realized that I had been given a golden opportunity. No matter how many American Carriers and Cruisers I sank, they would all be replaced. A Marine Division COULD NOT! That realization changed everything.
In the six weeks that we have struggled for the island, I have moved two more Independent Brigades and most of the Java Island Campaign Force--three more ENTIRE divisions--to this island. During that time I have also withdrawn two of the more severely beat-up Brigades.

Everything has now assumed a pattern:

1. As I moved my convoys carrying all these troops back and forth, they have concentrated US SS throughout the area and have been having a field day hitting my AK/AP. I have moved nearly 50 ASW ships in to try and counter the threat. The Marine CD fire has been murderous as well!

2. I have accumulated a HUGE amount of airpower here. My airfields at Nandi (AF-3 near 4), Suva (AF-3 near 4), Canton (AF-4), Upolu (AF-2) and Tongatapu (AF-3 near 4) are chock full of aircraft. I, initially could only attack from Tongatapu, but now Upolu has grown to a Sz-2 AF and Kates/Vals have added their weight to the attack. Daily strikes hit the Marines, AF, and other targets.

3. The Combined Fleet is TETHERED to this damned island. Have never felt so controlled by an island in my gaming life! I have 7 CV (Akagi/Kaga, Shokaku/Zuikaku, Soryu, and 2 CVL) staying close enough to keep my opponents from trying to reinforce or evacuate the island. The island (actually islands) is bombarded 2-3 times a week by two BB TF from Suva. I have a highly useful screen of about 10 Glen SS that are in an arc about 12 hexes from Pago-Pago that have allowed me to know when the American Fleet has been sniffing around. My warships are all tired and not at peak efficiency. Once the island falls, then I will rest and refit my capital ships.


Thanks for reminding me of that fight though.  It was along, tough brawl that gutted a ton of my units!


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/27/2008 6:26:25 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 578
RE: Here to Eternity - 5/27/2008 6:51:39 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

tabpub:

That was a nice reminder with the exception that I was doing my replenishment from Suva with a Port of 4 or 5, AEs, MLEs, ASs, and anything else I would need for the Port to be able to realistically resupply these vessels.  I don't think you noticed that there were two PAIRS of BBs who were doing those Bombardments at the time.  This enabled to me to hit Pago Pago every 2-3 days with the two TF.  It worked pretty well and was REALISTIC.





sorry John, while it worked surely pretty well, it was also surely not realistic. None of the bombardments we do in the game are realistic. Okay, perhaps some are realistic. But the number of bombardments we do is 100 times higher than what the Japanese could do because they would not have the gun barrells to do so.

So it works, yes, is it realistic? no

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 579
Commentary - 5/27/2008 7:24:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Guys--I LOVE the comments!  Tallyho and Castor provide excellent thoughts and cogent appraisals.  I'm simply frustrated at these developments and venting.  Please keep the opinions rolling!

Dan sent an email saying that he thought I might be upset regarding these delvelopments and that he took Mos Eisely because he feared running low on Sorties.  IT IS FALL 1943!  He is supposed to fear this.  This is the exact reason why the Americans never leaped 2,500 miles in a single jump.  It was inherantly dangerous.  Going from Midway to Iwo Jima is a monstrous risk and should never have occurred in a sane world. 

I know this isn't a sane world.  It is a situation I have to deal with.  I am preparing to roll the dice as per Nemo's thoughts and my own evaluations.  We shall see how it goes.  Will post a screenshot of the battlezone with the next turn.

Comments on the proposed Battleplan will be MOST welcome! 

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 580
RE: Commentary - 5/27/2008 7:27:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Castor--I meant realistic in terms of supplying the ships.  I totally agree with your point about BB Bombardments!  We have both been on the receiving end of 'nuclear' bombardments. 

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 581
RE: Commentary - 5/27/2008 7:40:48 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		As Economics Minister, I will refrain from comments about the battleplan. However, my concerns would be a secondary landing at Okinawa (or Formosa) in the near future to cut of all Oil from the SRA.   The fragile economy would collapse in a matter of weeks, not even months as their is not enough surplus in HI, Oil, and Fuel to keep the Japanese fleet running. While John has done a masterful job of expanding the Empire, the logistical situation is stil on the knife's edge even with improvements made over the last 2 months of my "attempts" to get this economy running.

As a potential defense for the Americans striking out, I have reduced the size of AK/TK TF trying to keep the economy running. I fear less the sub menace than the American CVs running full speed to the west, launch strikes, and return back to the safety of Iwo Jima (which seems ready to fall asap).

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 582
RE: Commentary - 5/27/2008 8:36:09 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		I hope this email has the proper effect.

quote:

Grand Admiral Cochran,

Now that Iwo Jima has fallen, we need to take some drastic measures.
1) I will take away all escort to the AK/TK being used for movement of supplies/fuel/resources/oil. Why?? Right now those escorts are too short legged to help and there has not been any sub menace to speak of. Those TF will use up Op Points to refuel them and those slow down their movement to and fro.
2) AK/TK TF between Formosa and Japan will travel at full speed (everywhere else at cruise). This will lessen their time available to enemy air attacks.
3) Route all TF to the northern side of Japan and/or to Osaka through the north not south side of the islands.

The War Minister is STRONGLY urged to start moving any and all fighters from everywhere but Rangoon area back to the Home Islands and will form a defensive wall to Formosa/Luzon. Those being used for any counter attack from the Marianas or the Allied LOC back to Midway are excluded.
"IF" Dan is able to take Okinawa/Formosa (and maybe Luzon), our economy will die a swift death. This wall needs to be given priority number 1A (right behind the Home Islands).

The battle plan you devises needs to take into account that our economy is like a glass jaw. If your game is going to get into late '44, protecting our supply lines is critical.

Your next turn needs to be a lot of "what if" thinking as you shift your defense.
"IF" Dan invades here.....(fill in the location), how will it be defended??

Sorry for being so blunt, but the Rise and Collapse of the Japanese Empire could be very sudden!!

Minister Benoit




_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 583
RE: Is THIS why? - 5/27/2008 11:17:22 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I just re-read your note and saw what you said. Dammit. I remember it but it really didn't make a solid connection until Mike's comment.

Does this change things? He still as to move back-and-forth with supply and fuel. He has dozens of damaged ships as well. Need to think on this and not get too riled up.

This is something I would never do. Guess for others it is OK.


Just remembered a bit of history: The USN did EXACTLY this same sort of gamey stunt in the invasion of Okinawa... they seized a nearby group of tiny islands and turned it into a supply base, using it to resupply BBs and such... my wife's (second) cousin was on an LST tasked with ferrying BB ammo to and from this island (btw, half of the LSTs on this mission were blown up in action, iirc.)

"The first Americans ashore were soldiers of the 77th Infantry Division, who landed in the Kerama Islands (Kerama Retto), fifteen miles (24 km) west of Okinawa on March 26, 1945. Subsidiary landings followed, and the Kerama group was secured over the next five days. In these preliminary operations, the 77th Infantry Division suffered 31 dead and 81 wounded, while Japanese dead and captured numbered over 650. The operation provided a protected anchorage for the fleet and eliminated the threat from suicide boats."

As mentioned, it also served as a resupply base.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 5/27/2008 11:18:47 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 584
RE: Is THIS why? - 5/28/2008 1:02:40 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel and it isn't a train. Well maybe it is with the Americans parked off shore.

The economy seems to be functioning better.
The HI reserves have gone up 4000 last turn and 10000 over the last 4 days to be at 45,487. I know this isn't much at this point in the game (7 Sept '43), but considered where it was, its significant progress.
Most of the Merchant Ship Building is off, the last of the Japanese HI which I turned off is being turned back on , the last 180 Repair Shipyard was turned back on (somehow, they were turned off just about everywhere), and 150 out of 300 Armament was turned back on.
The aircraft production looks OK, but we will wait a few turns to see what needs to be done here.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 585
RE: Is THIS why? - 5/28/2008 1:05:52 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		The big picture as of 7 Sept.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 586
RE: Fair use of PTs - 5/28/2008 1:45:47 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so

Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI

Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.

Thanks Nemo,
if your figures are correct then, I have it right & it is what I thought... I'll do some testing to check again (I like to verify everything).

quote:


Well, there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel and it isn't a train. Well maybe it is with the Americans parked off shore.

The economy seems to be functioning better.
The HI reserves have gone up 4000 last turn and 10000 over the last 4 days to be at 45,487. I know this isn't much at this point in the game (7 Sept '43), but considered where it was, its significant progress.
Most of the Merchant Ship Building is off, the last of the Japanese HI which I turned off is being turned back on , the last 180 Repair Shipyard was turned back on (somehow, they were turned off just about everywhere), and 150 out of 300 Armament was turned back on.
The aircraft production looks OK, but we will wait a few turns to see what needs to be done here.

Looking much better Minister Benoit, but remember it takes quite a few days to get from the SRA to Japan, and now with a northerly route, a little longer ... maybe send the rest of the oil offloading at Formosa to either Sth China or Japan. And I hope there are TK's on route to Java & enough to load at Sumatra and Borneo ...

Otherwise, I like the assessment about the economy & the plan to make a defensive line, a ring of fire if you will ... Yes the war hinges on the military victories in the next few turns, but as you say, any interdiction to the transportation, will result in ignominious defeat by production.

---Damian---

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 587
RE: Fair use of PTs - 5/28/2008 2:49:24 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so

Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI

Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.



Not sure about this. Here's the quote from the manual:

13.2.2 Industry

For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed. For example, to produce a 2 engine plane, 36 Heavy Industry will be consumed, while a single engine plane consumes 18 Heavy Industry.

-and later on about engines-

For each engine built, 18 Heavy Industry will be expended.

Therefore, a 2 engine plane will cost 72 HI.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 588
Thanks - 5/28/2008 4:35:36 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Things look far better economically just in time for Japan to potentially lose the war.

I am going to come up with a couple of possible battleplans for imput from the reader base.  The only way I can do this is to NOT have two screaming, crying, attention-needing sons at my side.  Once this house goes to sleep, I will go to work.

Also plan to do the Combat Report for Sept 5 & 6.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 589
RE: Fair use of PTs - 5/28/2008 11:14:29 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so
Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI
Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.

Not sure about this. Here's the quote from the manual:
13.2.2 Industry

For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed. For example, to produce a 2 engine plane, 36 Heavy Industry will be consumed, while a single engine plane consumes 18 Heavy Industry.
-and later on about engines-

For each engine built, 18 Heavy Industry will be expended.
Therefore, a 2 engine plane will cost 72 HI.


Mike,
you are right, I tip my hat to you! I've done the appropriate testing and my results confirm:-
(Damn THE GOOD BOOK was right!)
Each engine will cost 18 HI
1 Engine airframe = 18
2 Engine airframe = 36
4 Engine airframe = 72

So a:-
1 engine plane = 18 + 18 = 36 HI
2 engine plane = 36 + 36 = 72 HI
4 engine plane = 72 + 72 = 144 HI

Sorry John, for hijacking your forum again, but you seem to like it ... so I'll keep doing it, for now.
Good Luck with the "Real" War.
---Damian---

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 5/28/2008 11:16:52 AM >

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 590
RE: Fair use of PTs - 5/28/2008 2:42:38 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
Guys, an airframe costs 18 HI, an engine costs 18 so
Single engined plane = 36 HI
twin-engined plane = 54
four-engined plane = 90 HI
Twin-engined planes are 50% more expensive than single-engined planes. This is highly questionable but there you have it.

Not sure about this. Here's the quote from the manual:
13.2.2 Industry

For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed. For example, to produce a 2 engine plane, 36 Heavy Industry will be consumed, while a single engine plane consumes 18 Heavy Industry.
-and later on about engines-

For each engine built, 18 Heavy Industry will be expended.
Therefore, a 2 engine plane will cost 72 HI.


Mike,
you are right, I tip my hat to you! I've done the appropriate testing and my results confirm:-
(Damn THE GOOD BOOK was right!)
Each engine will cost 18 HI
1 Engine airframe = 18
2 Engine airframe = 36
4 Engine airframe = 72

So a:-
1 engine plane = 18 + 18 = 36 HI
2 engine plane = 36 + 36 = 72 HI
4 engine plane = 72 + 72 = 144 HI

Sorry John, for hijacking your forum again, but you seem to like it ... so I'll keep doing it, for now.
Good Luck with the "Real" War.
---Damian---


Damian, thanks for testing that. I've never really had the time and we all know how accurate the manual is at times.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 591
The Manual - 5/28/2008 3:51:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		There IS a manual for this game?  Wow...

I've always felt it to be filled with more like 'guidelines.' 

Mike and No148... keep up the discussion.  If we can actually get things verified that this works, this does not, and we have no clue regarding that, then this is useful and good progress for Japanese players.  There is nothing wrong in seeing IF what is claimed matches reality.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 592
RE: The Manual - 5/28/2008 8:28:00 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		1 engine plane = 18 + 18 = 36 HI
2 engine plane = 36 + 36 = 72 HI
4 engine plane = 72 + 72 = 144 HI

Are you SURE about this... A single airframe only costs 18 HI thus where are you getting the 2nd 36 and 2nd 72 in the twin and our-engined planes respectively???

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 593
RE: The Manual - 5/28/2008 8:32:17 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		For a single engine plane it's 18 HI for the airframe and 18 HI for the engine for 36 total.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 594
RE: The Manual - 5/28/2008 9:11:30 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		yes but I thought it was 18 HI for ANY airframe no matter how many engines get attached.

So, 4 engined plane = 18 HI ( for airframe ) + 72 HI ( for engines ) = 90 HI for the total plane

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 595
RE: The Manual - 5/28/2008 10:17:18 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

yes but I thought it was 18 HI for ANY airframe no matter how many engines get attached.

So, 4 engined plane = 18 HI ( for airframe ) + 72 HI ( for engines ) = 90 HI for the total plane


I'm glad someone else saw this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one thinking along these lines.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 596
RE: The Manual - 5/28/2008 11:09:59 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

yes but I thought it was 18 HI for ANY airframe no matter how many engines get attached.

So, 4 engined plane = 18 HI ( for airframe ) + 72 HI ( for engines ) = 90 HI for the total plane


I'm glad someone else saw this. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one thinking along these lines.


The only reason I question this is because the manual is very specific concerning this:

"For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed."

I don't see how you read this as 18 HI per airframe for any size airframe.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 597
Combat Report: Sept 5-8, 1943 - 5/28/2008 11:50:18 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Combat Report
September 5-8, 1943

Things continue to perculate in the western Pacific right now.  Let me focus there and will then hit other areas:

The Bonins
Iwo Jima
The small Japanese garrision finally loses control of the island on September 6th.  This is not before Dan must make another combat landing through my mines and gets another 14 ships damaged.  Had his units been prepped they should have taken this base on the first day but since they weren't it took a bit of time.  The survivors are clinging to Mount Surabachi but will soon be driven off pretty quick.

Tokyo Raids
The Japanese continue to launch strikes that have nibbled away at the edge of the Allies Armada:

Sept 5th--24 Z and 57 B blast past 6 F6F and sink 2 DM as well as damage 3 more vessels SE of Tori Shima.  The Japanese lose 1 Zero for 4 F6F.

Sept 7th--A group of Japanese planes commit suicide when they decide to attack the American CVs.  A total of 12 Zero and 25 Helen go up against 177 F6F and lose everything but 6 Helen.  They do shot down 3 Hellcats.

SS Action
I order my SS to enter the combat arena on the 7th and they arrive of the 8th.  There is definite good and bad here!

1.  Good News:  My SS hit a DD, an AO, and sink an AK.
2.  Bad News:  Lose Ro-60 and have 3 SS hit by DC or LBA

KB Concentrates
All of Japan's heavies are now together at Truk:  9 CV and 2 CVL have gathered and following Nemo's advice I am changing out 3 Daitai of DB for 3 of Fighters. 

The CVLs/CVEs are moving down from the south for a rendezvous at Marcus.  These 6 CVE and 3 CVL can also be used.  They are already Fighter heavy being roughly 2/3 Zero and 1/3 Strike planes.

I will fuel at Saipan and then attack.


Any thoughts on how to HIT the Americans?  Dan has a group of about 20 TF clumped together of which only 4 or 5 have CVs in them.  Odds are any strike I send in will be wiped out and the survivors will attack a TF of AOs knowing my luck...

Should I follow Nemo's advice and shift even more fighters out and place them all on CAP to cream (hopefully) the American Strikes and THEN attack? 

It will take 4-5 days to launch this assault so let me know.


Will write on the other theatres in just a minute!
  

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 598
RE: Combat Report: Sept 5-8, 1943 - 5/29/2008 1:22:54 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		"For aircraft to be built, there must be Heavy Industry in the pool equal to 18 times the number of engines required to build each plane; when a plane is built, the appropriate number of Heavy Industry is consumed."

I don't see this mentioning ANYTHING about the AIRFRAME costing 18 times the number of engines at all. It talks about 18 times the number of engines but NOTHING about the number of airframes required.

It seem logical to me that if it takes into account number of engines then it would also account for the fact that it only requires ONE airframe per plane. So ( Number of Engines + 1 x Airframe ) x 18 = total cost.

I've been using this to calculate my HI usage and it turns out really close to reality, a lot closer to what it would be if it cost 72 HI per twin-engined bomber.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 599
RE: Combat Report: Sept 5-8, 1943 - 5/29/2008 1:36:44 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline 		Nemo,
I tested in a closed economy ... nothing else producing. I believed your point of view until I tested ...

As you know engines and Airframes(a/c) are different.
Test1.
I built four engines = 4*18 = 72 stopped production.
and then
1 H6K4 Mavis = 72 extra HI used
So total = 144 HI used
Test2.
Built 2 engines = 36
and
2 engine plane = 36
Total =72 HI Used
Then tested again with engines in pool, same result
etc...

The tests show this, if there is something wrong with my methodology, please let me know

---Damian---
edit: Apollo's chart as extra evidence (disregard the figures) but the highlight paints a picture :)
edit2:
Pic1 No production
pic2 4 engines built
pic3 engines off/ 4 engine airframe on (1 plane built)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 5/29/2008 2:15:42 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Economics 101--Japan Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   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

0.938