Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

quote:

Original: Kitridge
Hey Sarge,

Does deviating from the historical Luftwaffe production with the new research penalties make research a much less favourable strategy to just leaving the AI in charge of production and letting it upgrade everything mostly historically? Is it possible to effectively play ahistorically with these production and research changes?

oh, you should be able to make changes, go after what you want, with no major issues, just, don't expect to get late war, after war planes in Jan 44

and as Harley said, the closer you are to having the plane come online, the easier it is, to "push" it some, to get it a little earlier

like the 262, you can push to try and get it earlier, but don't expect to be able to bring it in, in 43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The allies are locked into historical replacement rates.
That is unfair, because the German is NOT.

The truth is that the allies could have easily quadrupled ALL their plane production.
They didnt need to. So they didnt.

The game should allow the players to boost their production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

This question would be resolved with an editor, openly let the player mod the game for his AI ventures (??60-75% of sales??)

What if?

The Allies fell behind so put ?10%? more effort into the Meteor or P80, or the P51H or P47N or the Hawker Fury were available in time.

If the Allies concentrated on "Germany First" and kept Pacific distractions to a minimum, at a major penalty in VP of course.

Equally the Axis has a myriad of what-ifs.

Some call it gamey to manipulate the Axis Production, either make it impossible or make it too expensive in VP to try, not jump on those who have found strategies which the game allows, some have said the Ta152/He219 plan flawed, well lets see it in action and make our minds up. We have been presented with the Devs view of the period, what ia to say there aren't others views.

Again, TOAW & WITP/WITPAE are made superb by the provision of an editor, EDBTR needs it too, FAST!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

The way the game works the player can calculate exactly how many planes he needs "research build" before it will enter production. In reality it wouldnt work that way. You would be guessing on when it would be possible to enter production, now matter how many resources put into the research! It would be nice to be able to simulate "setbacks" and possible overruns in research although it will probably not be possible with this game engine.

Just my two cents.

well, you will never really know exactly, to much/many maybes are tossed in, I would say you may be able to get a best quess idea, but never a 100%, if I do A, I got B

ps: Looking at the Nazi hierarchy never stops to suprise me. A government system so perverted and screwed up.... Scary ****.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

The reality is that of course only a ruthless dictatorship could 'force' a conversion to
only two types. But isnt that what we all claim the Nazi's were?
Or was that merely hype and PR?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

so will the Axis economy run itself if there is minimal to no input? (outside of reaction to bomb damage)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitridge


I quite enjoy the sandbox aspects of this game and I hope the production changes don't make it unfeasible to play ahistorically. It really doesn't interest me to re-play the same mistakes the Germans made historically enforced through restricted production controls. If it takes me 500 turns to start seeing the results of my research (I don't gut my production like the people you worry about here just to get TA152's out in a few months; I keep putting my valuable pilots in death traps because I'm a great leader), I don't know how my interest will be maintained... Research and playing 'what-if' is a large part of my gaming experience in BTR.

I don't play PBEM tho, so this concern is simply for my own enjoyment over 700 turns, which, considering the time allotment for 700 turns, is quite important to me.

For those of us who enjoy playing against the AI, would it be possible to add an option for accelerated production so we can keep these sandbox elements intact?

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

Personally I'm all for player control of production and R&D. If someone doesn't want to touch it they can leave the AI control it.

On the question of advancement of late war types into service through R&D it is far to easy to get aircraft into service ahead of the historical time frame. Perhaps a mechanism could be introduced whereby instead of at present 100 research aircraft built automatically advancing the inservice date by one month, a test would be done to see if after the pre-requisite number of research aircraft are built if the R&D was successful and the inservice date moves forward. If the test fails the inservice date stays the same, when the next batch of research aircraft are built the test is repeated. In this way the more production allocated to research the more chance of bringing forward the in service date but with no garauntee.

One variable that could be used in determining if a R&D project advances the inservice date is the difference between present game date and actual real life date the type entered service, further way the actual type entered service the less chance of advancement. As the actual inservice date approaches the game date the chance of success could increase.

von Shagmeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

Combined with Carl's earlier question this is an interesting idea. Say 1% per day for failure? But this would pretty much rule out anything appearing sooner than 3 months prior to the historical date.

But, what if it never advances the entry date -- a possibility?

TS

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Shagmeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: TechSgt

Combined with Carl's earlier question this is an interesting idea. Say 1% per day for failure? But this would pretty much rule out anything appearing sooner than 3 months prior to the historical date.

But, what if it never advances the entry date -- a possibility?

TS

Can you explain the first part, I don't follow.

I was thinking something like base chance of advancement is 40% - 1% for every month before it was available in real life.

ie when 100 research a/c are built the chance of advancement for an a/c that in real life entered service in 12 months time would be 28% (40-12), and the advance need not be a month it could be a week.

As for not advancing the entry date, that's the chance you take, all the extra production capacity that was allocated to R&D was wasted and the aircraft comes in on the actual real life date.

von Shagmeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaybayray

My thoughts on this topic...

Yeah I was a bit surprised in the original game that the Allies were not able to control production in the same way the Axis is. However the Allies do have some ability to modify the Aircraft of squadrons. You can change the Airframe of any squadron to fill it with that of your choice. But then you are limited by the quantities being produced and deposited into the pool. So you cant really build the Air Force from the Allied perspective that you can from that of the Axis.

I didnt realize that WITP was modeled the same way. I don't really understand that. It seem intuitive that both sides of a Strategic game would have overall similar capabilities with respect to control of Economy, Production, R&D and Force building. Unless of course that was the major point of the game that a particular side had to overcome a particular set of constraints. Perhaps this was the mindset of the original developers. The idea that the Allies overall production plan with Mandatory Targeting constraints was the obstical that had to be overcome to defeat the Axis.

But I dont know....

Later,
KayBay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

I believe GG put production on the map to allow the Allied player to attack and gradually erode the Axis's ability to wage war.

The reason Allied production is fixed off map is that the Ford plant at Willow Run will produce 428 aircraft per month (Aug'44) regardless of what the Axis player does.

However, the one thing I vehemently object to is the ability of the Axis player to use this flexibility to crank up production to ahistorical levels which I believe is tantamount to an exploit of the game system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaybayray

My thoughts on this topic...

Yeah I was a bit surprised in the original game that the Allies were not able to control production in the same way the Axis is. However the Allies do have some ability to modify the Aircraft of squadrons. You can change the Airframe of any squadron to fill it with that of your choice. But then you are limited by the quantities being produced and deposited into the pool. So you cant really build the Air Force from the Allied perspective that you can from that of the Axis.

I didnt realize that WITP was modeled the same way. I don't really understand that. It seem intuitive that both sides of a Strategic game would have overall similar capabilities with respect to control of Economy, Production, R&D and Force building. Unless of course that was the major point of the game that a particular side had to overcome a particular set of constraints. Perhaps this was the mindset of the original developers. The idea that the Allies overall production plan with Mandatory Targeting constraints was the obstical that had to be overcome to defeat the Axis.

But I dont know....

Later,
KayBay

I have had a views on this topic for quite a while as it closely parallels the WITP/AE debate.

I think that most people totally miss the point of having axis production as an in-game function. One vocal fan boy advocate even went so far as to state that having Japanese (Axis) production on map where it was vulnerable to Allied action was to "PUNISH" the Axis player.

I believe GG put production on the map to allow the Allied player to attack and gradually erode the Axis's ability to wage war. As in the real war, axis war effort can be directly affected by attacks on the factories or by the denial of resources necessary for the war effort. This is not only the cornerstone of Allied strategy but central of any analysis of the conflict!!!

The reason Allied production is fixed off map is that the Ford plant at Willow Run will produce 428 aircraft per month (Aug'44) regardless of what the Axis player does. However the Mitsubishi/Messerschmidt plant output is very dependent on the in-game actions of the Allied player. I think the ability of the Axis player to adjust their factories/economy is quite consistent with this concept and allows the player to adjust and re-balance to minimise the impact of the Allied incursions.

However, the one thing I vehemently object to is the ability of the Axis player to use this flexibility to crank up production to ahistorical levels which I believe is tantamount to an exploit of the game system. If the Axis player is on track to a decisive victory, the best he should ever be able to hope for should be to maintain the current levels (I was going to say historical levels but historically they were in a downward spiral). There should be no way possible for the Axis to be increasing output to 600% of starting figures as reported in some AARs. I suspect this is possible by the economy model ignoring real world constraints that were there for a reason (probably not good ones) but are not reflected in the game.

Edit: Reading a few more posts above, I must agree with the sediment that being able to specialise on one or two aircraft types (the best in 'game' terms) is another case of ignoring the constraints of reality for the very reasons they cite.

Just my 2c [/rant off]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

I believe GG put production on the map to allow the Allied player to attack and gradually erode the Axis's ability to wage war.

The reason Allied production is fixed off map is that the Ford plant at Willow Run will produce 428 aircraft per month (Aug'44) regardless of what the Axis player does.

However, the one thing I vehemently object to is the ability of the Axis player to use this flexibility to crank up production to ahistorical levels which I believe is tantamount to an exploit of the game system.

Agree. He probably did put it there for the Allies to impact, and then factored in an Axis ability to manipulate as a means for the Axis player to attempt to cope to a degree to the on map bombing.

Unfortunately....best laid plans......the ultimate result of this delicate balance is that in multiple games....spanning all the way back to Gary's 8bit U.S.A.A.F. , which is a direct ancestor of BTR....motivated and clever players can run with the ball on this as Axis and create unbalancing situations. WitP had same problem. AE has reduced it but jury is still out on ultimate result. We'll see what the new patch does here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Replacement airframes was never an issue. Replacement pilots, life expectancy and morale were the issue. Is he saying that the Allied side is running out of B-17's? Never saw that in the original game, and i'm legendary for my lack of thorough raid planning. Ask Speedy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Replacement airframes was never an issue. Replacement pilots, life expectancy and morale were the issue. Is he saying that the Allied side is running out of B-17's? Never saw that in the original game, and i'm legendary for my lack of thorough raid planning. Ask Speedy.

For once Nik I agree with you

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

my point is, it is not good game play, it is gamy game play

and yes, you should have a good KD rate, the better Allied planes are not around yet

and the changes made, were not made to combat what a player could explot, it was made to correct what the AI was doing wrong, which the players also could do

hmmmm, 7-1 in losses, from what I remember, one of Swifts Allied wins, he had 1-5 for losses as the Allied, so, don't see where you are really doing so well

plus, as I said, I think your idea of good game play, would be exploted by a good player in PBEM, I already see the weak point, I am sure others have also

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lanconic
Except of course that the allies outproduced the Axis more than 20 to 1

You should allow the allies to produce. or if not, then allow them to have MORE.