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: SBD-3 production is wrong

 
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: SBD-3 production is wrong Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 12:50:38 AM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline 		XXX

< Message edited by Termite2 -- 6/4/2010 1:19:08 AM >

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 31
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 1:01:38 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		If the Allied Player had the ability to fight 4 "bloody" carrier battles and a number of other skirmishes during 1942 and still have enough SBD-3s to maintain his (remaining) carrier VB and VS squadrons at something like full strength while at the same time giving the USMC a few SBD-"3"s I wouldn't have any problem with the game's numbers.

But it was the IJN that showed up for "The Decisive Battle" (Midway & Aleutians) borrowing attack planes and Zeros from land based squadrons to man its carriers. The game theoretically allows the IJ Player to correct whatever deficiencies in IJ production which led to this situation but no such option exists for the Allied Player. It would therefore seem absolutely vital that the numbers allowed in Allied production be correct and that no assumptions about where the planes were deployed be allowed (Such as that the New Zealanders got shiny new airplanes for their No.25 Squadron instead of bullet riddled and broken down rejects from MAG-14 (already deployed to SOPAC and not until several months after deliveries of SBD-5s began).

So maybe there are assumptions implicit in the citing the "Locations of Navy Aircraft" reports. But none of the "Locations of Navy Aircraft" reports (every two weeks or so in 1942/43) support the contention that very many SBD-3/4s went to the Atlantic at any time (thus operational/combat losses were insignificant). On the other hand there were quite a few SBD-3/4 aircraft shot down or lost in combat in the Pacific which would tend to account for the depressed numbers present at any given time.

The effect of the low replacement rate for SBD-3s is that the Allied Player is incapable of fighting the campaigns which were actually fought for lack of one of the principal aircraft which fought them.








(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 32
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 1:25:59 AM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2
SBD-4 production by Douglas production numbers

Yeah? Same stuff as the last 5 threads and actually less than the data we got; but keep trying.

So do you have a point that hasn't been made and dealt (repeatedly) with over the last six months?



Sorry, just noticed your post, won't post again

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 33
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 1:58:48 AM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1210
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

The effect of the low replacement rate for SBD-3s is that the Allied Player is incapable of fighting the campaigns which were actually fought for lack of one of the principal aircraft which fought them.


I agree with this.
In my campaign (scen1, Human against Jap AI) Andy Mac's evil genius forced a couple of carrier battles on me early in 1942 (Jan to March). Most battles were of the skirmish type, and the heavy dive bomber losses were mostly due to inexperienced US fighter pilots unable to protect the divers.

Now, May 31, I have 69 US Navy Dive Bombers left (61 SBD-3 and 8 SBC-4) for 5 US carriers.
I should note that this is only because I have disbanded all groups flying DBs which were land based (excluding A-24).
There are 4 SBD-3 in the queue and the production rate is 21.
Then again, if done to slow down the Allies in the early phases of the conflict it seems to be working nicely.

I know, that all doesn't prove anything, but it still seems to be a bit tight.
Is it my fault? In part yes. I upgraded SBD-1 and SBD-2 without checking on the availability of the SBD-3 (never had a problem with that in earlier versions).

Frankly, I don't have a clear cut opinion on the whole thing.
IF the US Navy had a remarkable shortage of dive bombers in 1942 we probably would not have that discussion. On the other hand, game campaigns (either AI or PBEM) tend to quickly develop their own dynamics - that's where the fun comes from.
So while I'm not that happy with the current supplement of dive bombers I regard the whole situation as sort of game variance and increased excitement.

Just wish the devs will make it clear if and when they change the production rate, so I know when I start my next campaign

_____________________________

WitP/AE
1.7.11.26b
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW / Torch
1.01.37 - 1.01.44 beta

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 34
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 8:11:43 AM   
castor troy


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

ORIGINAL: Termite2

XXX



Is there any reason to do three XXX posts in a row? Just curious

edit: actuall four of them

< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/4/2010 8:12:22 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 35
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 11:31:06 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Production data is MEANINGLESS  , the only data that is relevant is what is in Theater we dont know if they had 300 sitting on the east coast etc. If you want to deal on production you need to account for every one. Here is a start there were at least 36 in the med ( ranger + 2 escort CVs  which participated in Torch)  and some of the units that apear later were in training on the east coast.

Have a look at the book SBD Dauntless Units of World War

in dec 1941 it list lexington & Enterprise as having a few SBD3s , mainly SBD2.  Sara and Yorktown as SBD3. ( about 99 or so ) (Wasp & Ranger had SB2Us and Hornet SBC-4)




_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 36
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 12:38:32 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		OK because some people want to count all of their pennies...

SBD-3 & SBD-4 LOSSES

EAST COAST THROUGH JUNE 1943

TOTAL = 44 

410621		SBD-3	4556	VA			
410806	VS-5	SBD-3	4551	WHITEHURST	FIELD	VA	
411103	VS-5	SBD-3	4635	LITTLE	CREEK	VA	
420507	VC-24	SBD-4	10754	AT	SEA	NY	
420929	VGS-29	SBD-3	6560	ELIZABETH	CITY	NC	
421125	FERRY	SBD-4	6811	ATLANTA	NRAB	GA	
421215	VGS-28	SBD-4	6681	FENTRESS	FIELD	VA	
421229	VS-22	SBD-4	6881	CREEDS	FIELD	NAAS	VA
430102	FERRY	SBD-4	6906	NEW	CANAAN	CT	
430112	VB-16	SBD-4	6925	PROVIDENCE	RI		
430204	VSB#3	SBD-3P	6608	DAYTONA	BEACH	NAS	FL
430208	VS-9	SBD-4	10449	NORFOLK	NAS	VA	
430210	VS-23	SBD-3	6878	PARRIS	ISLAND	MCAS	NC
430212	UNKNOWN	SBD-4	6858	PARRIS	ISLAND	MCAS	NC
430222	VS-9	SBD-4	10455	NORFOLK	COUNTY	VA	
430226	VS-16	SBD-4	6874	COCKEYSVILLE	MD		
430313	VB-23	SBD-4	10516	WAKEFIELD	RI		
430318	UNKNOWN	SBD-4	10676	LITTLE	CREEK	VA	
430325	VC-24	SBD-4	10528	BROOKLYN	NAS	NY	
430329	VSB#3	SBD-4	10366	DAYTONA	BEACH	NAS	FL
430329	VSB#3	SBD-4	10370	DAYTONA	BEACH	NAS	FL
430330	VB-42	SBD-4	6826	SWAMPSCOTT	MA		
430408	VMSB-341	SBD-4	10675	HOG	ISLAND	NC	
430413	CQTU/G	SBD-4	6932	LAKE	MICHIGAN	IL	
430414	CQTU/G	SBD-4	6976	LAKE	MICHIGAN	IL	
430422	VSB#3	SBD-4	10374	ORMOND	BEACH	FL	
430424	OTU#1	SBD-4	10721	MILEBRANCH	FL		
430427	VSB#3	SBD-4	10493	DAYTONA	BEACH	NAS	FL
430428	VB-23	SBD-4	6873	USS	LEXINGTON	MD	
430502	OTU#1	SBD-4	10720	FOREMOST	FIELD	FL	
430512	OTU#1	SBD-4	10706	CECIL	FIELD	FL	
430514	OTU#1	SBD-4	10726	CUMMER	FIELD	FL	
430519	VSB#3	SBD-4	10492	ORMOND	BEACH	FL	
430520	VC-24	SBD-4	10563	WILDWOOD	AT	SEA	NJ
430520	OTU#1	SBD-4	10703	LAWTEY	FL		
430523	VSB#3	SBD-4	10499	BANANA	RIVER	NAS	FL
430525	OTU#1	SBD-4	10727	CECIL	FIELD	FL	
430525	VC-24	SBD-4	10788	CHESEPEAKE	BAY	MD	
430609	CQTU/G	SBD-3	4541	HALFDAY	FIELD	IL	
430610	VB-27	SBD-4	6548	CREEDS	FIELD	NAAS	VA
430619	VSB#3	SBD-4	10363	DAYTONA	BEACH	NAS	FL
430620	FERRY	SBD-4	6729	MIDLAND	AAF	TX	
430622	OTU#4	SBD-4	10709	CECIL	FIELD	FL	
430623	VSB#3	SBD-3	6493	DAYTONA	BEACH	NAS	FL


ADDITIONAL EAST COAST LOSSES July 43 - June 44

TOTAL = 17 


430701	OTU#1	SBD-3	12305	LEE	FIELD	FL	
440501	OTU#4	SBD-4	10770	HERLONG	FIELD	FL	
440511	OTU#4	SBD-4	6903	HERLONG	FIELD	FL	
440511	VMB-612	SBD-4	9697	PETER	FIELD	NC	
440512	OTU#4	SBD-3	28089	CECIL	FIELD	FL	
440512	VD-2	SBD-3	10441	SUFFOLK	AAF	VA	
440513	OTU#1	SBD-4	10711	BRANAN	FIELD	FL	
440514	CQTU/G	SBD-4	10577	DOUGLAS	AIRPORT	IL	
440515	OTU#1	SBD-4	10573	BRANAN	FIELD	FL	
440515	OTU#1	SBD-4	10799	HERLONG	FIELD	FL	
440517	OTU#1	SBD-4	10705	BLACK	CREEK	FL	
440517	OTU#4	SBD-4	10712	CECIL	FIELD	FL	
440528	CQTU/G	SBD-4	10694	USS	SABLE	IL	
440606	OTU#4	SBD-4	6905	CECIL	FIELD	FL	
440611	OTU#1	SBD-4	10425	BRANAN	FIELD	FL	
440618	OTU#4	SBD-4	10571	BRANAN	FIELD	FL	
440628	CQTU/G	SBD-4	10603	DOUGLAS	AIRPORT	IL


WEST COAST LOSSES THROUGH JUNE 1943

TOTAL = 40 


411004	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4621	SAN	DIEGO	BAY	CA
411106	VB-3	SBD-3	4601	BORDER	FIELD	CA	
411110	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4653	BORDER	FIELD	CA	
420319	VS-3	SBD-3	4583	SAN	DIEGO	NAS	CA
420328	VS-8	SBD-3	3195	OTAY	MESA	NAS	CA
420430	VS-3	SBD-3	3214	OTAY	MESA	NAS	CA
420506	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3252	JAMUL	CA		
420511	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3260	OTAY	MESA	NAS	CA
420515	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3258	REAM	FIELD	CA	
420520	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3262	OTAY	MESA	NAS	CA
420612	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3272	SAN	DIEGO	NAS	CA
420616	VB-3	SBD-3	3283	FORD	ISLAND	CA	
420617	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3271	REAM	FIELD	CA	
420715	VMSB-142	SBD-3	3267	MIRAMAR	NAS	CA	
420813	VMSB-141	SBD-3	3269	RANCHO	SANTE	FE	CA
420815	VS-72	SBD-3	3362	PACIFIC	COAST	CA	
420819	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4605	KEARNEY	FIELD	CA	
420825	CASU-5	SBD-3	3358	MIRAMAR	NAS	CA	
420827	BMDAG-42	SBD-3	6613	SANTA	BARBARA	MCAS	CA
421109	VMSB-243	SBD-4	6757	SANTA	BARBARA	MCAS	CA
421120	VMSB-244	SBD-4	6734	SANTA	BARBARA	MCAS	CA
421120	VS-12	SBD-4	6719	SAN	DIEGO	NAS	CA
421120	VS-12	SBD-4	6739	SAN	DIEGO	NAS	CA
421215	CASU-5	SBD-4	6797	MIRAMAR	NAS	CA	
421226	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4587	POINT	LOMA	CA	
430111	CQTU/P	SBD-4	6977	REAM	FIELD	CA	
430112	VS-3	SBD-4	10329	EL	CENTRO	MCAS	CA
430114	CQTU/P	SBD-4	6932	USS	LONG	ISLAND	CA
430201	VS-12	SBD-4	6916	POINT	LOMA	CA	
430202	VMSB-235	SBD-4	10394	EL	CENTRO	MCAS	CA
430210	VB-12	SBD-4P	6724	SAN	DIEGO	NAS	CA
430213	VMSB-235	SBD-4	6664	EL	CENTRO	MCAS	CA
430217	VMSB-232	SBD-3	6534	EL	TORO	MCAS	CA
430313	FERRY	SBD-4	6854	BAKERSFIELD	CA		
430313	FERRY	SBD-4	6921	TEHACHAPI	CA		
430318	VMSB-236	SBD-4	10533	MOJAVE	MCAS	CA	
430414	VC-34	SBD-4	10701	WHIDBEY	ISLAND	NAS	WA
430522	VB-8	SBD-4	6942	ALEMEDA	NAS	CA	
430611	VMSB-243	SBD-4	6712	PALMYRA	NAS	CA	
430630	VMTB-134	SBD-3	6600	SANTA	BARBARA	MCAS	CA


Now as some may recall the unanswered question for TimTOM was how many aircraft were assigned to ACTG and CASU units...which are not represented in the aforementioned LOCATION SUMMARIES...which some are espousing as the HOLY GRAIL of aircraft numbers

ACTG AND CASU SBD-3 and SBD-4 LOSSES
(Note some of these are duplicate entries of the EAST and WEST Coast Losses)

TOTAL=27 


411004	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4621	SAN	DIEGO	BAY	CA
411110	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4653	BORDER	FIELD	CA	
420506	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3252	JAMUL	CA		
420511	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3260	OTAY	MESA	NAS	CA
420515	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3258	REAM	FIELD	CA	
420520	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3262	OTAY	MESA	NAS	CA
420612	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3272	SAN	DIEGO	NAS	CA
420617	ACTG/P	SBD-3	3271	REAM	FIELD	CA	
420819	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4605	KEARNEY	FIELD	CA	
420825	CASU-5	SBD-3	3358	MIRAMAR	NAS	CA	
421125	FERRY	SBD-4	6811	ATLANTA	NRAB	GA	
421215	CASU-5	SBD-4	6797	MIRAMAR	NAS	CA	
421226	ACTG/P	SBD-3	4587	POINT	LOMA	CA	
430102	FERRY	SBD-4	6906	NEW	CANAAN	CT	
430111	CQTU/P	SBD-4	6977	REAM	FIELD	CA	
430114	CQTU/P	SBD-4	6932	USS	LONG	ISLAND	CA
430313	FERRY	SBD-4	6854	BAKERSFIELD	CA		
430313	FERRY	SBD-4	6921	TEHACHAPI	CA		
430413	CQTU/G	SBD-4	6932	LAKE	MICHIGAN	IL	
430414	CQTU/G	SBD-4	6976	LAKE	MICHIGAN	IL	
430609	CQTU/G	SBD-3	4541	HALFDAY	FIELD	IL	
430620	FERRY	SBD-4	6729	MIDLAND	AAF	TX	
430630	CASU-2	SBD-4	6934	BARBAR'S	POINT	NAS	HA
440514	CQTU/G	SBD-4	10577	DOUGLAS	AIRPORT	IL	
440528	CQTU/G	SBD-4	10694	USS	SABLE	IL	
440608	CASU-10	SBD-4	10411	ESPIRITU			
440628	CQTU/G	SBD-4	10603	DOUGLAS	AIRPORT	IL



SO the question remains how many additional aircraft were assigned to CASU, ACTG and CQTU's units that were not lost...which are not represented in the aforementioned LOCATION SUMMARIES

Doing some data analysis stretching and fudging....I count 101 domestic "Ops" losses...the production numbers being bandied about are 1364...101/1364 = .074047 = 7.4% Op Loss rate ... 27 were lost while assigned to ACTG, CASU, CQTU units... 27 is 7.4% of 364. So theoretically as many as 360 were assigned to units not represented in the game. But lets assume these guys have a higher OP loss rate...since they are in training ---lets say 10%...so 270 total.

Smeulders pointed out 959 arrive in game...959 + 270 = 1229...1229 + 115 (for those assigned to Atlantic squadrons) = 1344. In my HUMBLE opinion....TimTom has it about right....and I agree with JWE.





< Message edited by treespider -- 6/4/2010 4:04:48 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 bklooste)
Post #: 37
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 1:12:32 PM   
Bearcat2

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

XXX



Is there any reason to do three XXX posts in a row? Just curious

edit: actuall four of them


I was curious as to how many were actually produced; didn't have an opinion on on whether the game's rate was right or wrong. I listed the SBD production by using Douglas's production numbers at the various factories. Obviously, some people are touchy on the subject, I usually don't post[6 years and around 200 posts] but this time I must have been drunk to think that something I found interesting could be construed as an attack. I really liked treespider's posts on SBD losses and locations; those kind of posts I find interesting.


_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 38
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 3:00:12 PM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I find it amusing that in what is supposed to be a historic simulation the IJ is swimming in airframes while the allies end up with carriers sitting in dock for years due to airframe shortages. The IJ has more high xp pilots then they can shake a stick at and a training program to keep their pilots elite all the way to wars end, while the allies struggle to field pilots with any experience at all, and have issues trying to keep up with training.

Sure the production rates on allied airframes may be historic, but having a mutual bloodbath carrier battle where both sides wipe out eachothers airgroups, with the IJ recovering in weeks while it takes the allies half a year or more doesn't seem very historic to me lol.

I'm having fun, the games great. I guess the IJ needs a variety of advantages to make for a more even battle.

Just not very historic however.

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 39
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 3:07:06 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline 		Termite same here I personally agree with the compromises the dev team did after rveiewing their numbers in another thread what i was writing about was on another subject which is Data errors in the OOBs which are confirmed errors, and John massacred me he must have been having a bad day sailing around. I respect to much Johns knowledge and opinions to take it as a personal offense in the way he wrote his answer.When I do not agree with the Devs data I just Mod it but till know most of their data has been correct.

< Message edited by che200 -- 6/4/2010 3:10:18 PM >

(in reply to Bearcat2)
Post #: 40
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 3:19:47 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		TimTom did his homework.


_____________________________


(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 41
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 5:05:35 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

TimTom did his homework.



He certainly did and yet we'll have another one of these threads again shortly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 42
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 6:02:18 PM   
chesmart


Posts: 908
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline 		Yep but they are fun watching the usual suspects come upwith differant arguments.Democracy in Action at its best.

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 43
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/4/2010 8:16:38 PM   
ETF


Posts: 1748
Joined: 9/16/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: che200
I am not arguing in favor of  the SBD production John but in regarding other small OOB errors like the 25pounder production and some errors in the ground units which where discussed in the war room. Tweaking should be left to the Modders.

I understand. I was just trying to let you down gently ... but ...

Anything (ANYTHING), that is a matter of opinion, will not (NOT), that's .. N.. O .. T .. (a one sylable word, easily understood), be included in a future data patch unless something is "demonstrably" and "verifyably" wrong (opinion does not count), including "demonstrable" and "verifyable" primary source data (wikiporkia and 'my favorite website' won't cut it). If you truly think you have something, the folks to talk to are:

Air - timtom: a real hard a$$, you better have your poopie together for this guy; and he talks to Elf.
Nav - me or Don: Don's a sweetie, but I'm a real ba$tard, so you best have your poopie together.
Land - AndyMac: touchable, probably the nicest of us, but has the hardest job; give him a break.


Sounds fair to me!


< Message edited by ETF -- 6/4/2010 8:17:02 PM >

_____________________________

My Top Matrix Games 1) CMO MP?? 2) WITP/AE 3) SOW 4) Combat Mission 5) Armor Brigade

Twitter
https://twitter.com/TacticWargamer

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 44
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 12:12:15 AM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

TimTom did his homework.

and a great job he did making allied aircraft production so historically accurate!
Japanese aircraft production..................not so much
point is there seems to be maybe a smidgen of doubt here and since potential Japanese aircraft production is so skewed maybe the shadow of a doubt might go to the allies.


_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to ETF)
Post #: 45
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 3:15:38 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

TimTom did his homework.

and a great job he did making allied aircraft production so historically accurate!
Japanese aircraft production..................not so much


So now the argument is the Japanese produce too many aircraft ...

1. Play PDU's off...

or

2. Use the editor
2a. - Turn IJ Production off under the scenario tab (page 53 of the editor manual)
2b. - Give the Japanese there historic build rates (p 27 & 53 of the editor manual)

That way you absolutely insure that the Japanese couldn't possibly build more aircraft than history...

or

3. Use the editor
3A. On the devices tab adjust the required resources for LI and HI upwards...thus requiring more resources for industry...thus "potentially" reducing Japanese industrial output...thus reducing potential aircraft builds

or

4. Kwitcherbitchin and enjoy the game already....

< Message edited by treespider -- 6/5/2010 3:16:36 AM >

_____________________________

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 JohnDillworth)
Post #: 46
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 5:11:38 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

TimTom did his homework.

and a great job he did making allied aircraft production so historically accurate!
Japanese aircraft production..................not so much


So now the argument is the Japanese produce too many aircraft ...

1. Play PDU's off...

or

2. Use the editor
2a. - Turn IJ Production off under the scenario tab (page 53 of the editor manual)
2b. - Give the Japanese there historic build rates (p 27 & 53 of the editor manual)

That way you absolutely insure that the Japanese couldn't possibly build more aircraft than history...

or

3. Use the editor
3A. On the devices tab adjust the required resources for LI and HI upwards...thus requiring more resources for industry...thus "potentially" reducing Japanese industrial output...thus reducing potential aircraft builds

or

4. Kwitcherbitchin and enjoy the game already....


I've got to agree with Treespider here.

What a lot of WITP AE players need to start understanding (Mike Scholl already does) is that "PDU on" and "IJN Production on" are about equal, individually, to having non-historic Allied torpedo dud rates. Who has ever played a PBEM that allowed the Allied player good torpedoes? I can't think of any AAR's that have them.

Who plays with PDU on and IJN Production on? I think all of the AAR's (or at least 90% of them) do.

Playing with both of those options on, gives the IJN player a huge, huge advantage over the historical war.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 47
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 12:33:39 PM   
JohnDillworth


Posts: 3100
Joined: 3/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Kwitcherbitchin and enjoy the game already....

fair enough. I have voted with my dollars and my hours (at about a 100 to 1 ratio) so enjoy the game I will!

_____________________________

Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 48
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 2:47:59 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

quote:

TimTom did his homework.

and a great job he did making allied aircraft production so historically accurate!
Japanese aircraft production..................not so much


So now the argument is the Japanese produce too many aircraft ...

1. Play PDU's off...

or

2. Use the editor
2a. - Turn IJ Production off under the scenario tab (page 53 of the editor manual)
2b. - Give the Japanese there historic build rates (p 27 & 53 of the editor manual)

That way you absolutely insure that the Japanese couldn't possibly build more aircraft than history...

or

3. Use the editor
3A. On the devices tab adjust the required resources for LI and HI upwards...thus requiring more resources for industry...thus "potentially" reducing Japanese industrial output...thus reducing potential aircraft builds

or

4. Kwitcherbitchin and enjoy the game already....


I've got to agree with Treespider here.

What a lot of WITP AE players need to start understanding (Mike Scholl already does) is that "PDU on" and "IJN Production on" are about equal, individually, to having non-historic Allied torpedo dud rates. Who has ever played a PBEM that allowed the Allied player good torpedoes? I can't think of any AAR's that have them.

Who plays with PDU on and IJN Production on? I think all of the AAR's (or at least 90% of them) do.

Playing with both of those options on, gives the IJN player a huge, huge advantage over the historical war.



Well, I want my Japanese opponents to have the ability to be creative and have access to greater resources. It does make the game more interesting. However, the problem is the Japanese player also has a the knowledge of "exactly" what the Allied player has and can do. The inability to react to major losses is a serious handicap and the knowledge that the Allied player is short of a particular aircraft can be used against him. (I think that a smart Japanese player should target P40s and hurricanes early in the game.) After all, who does not think that if the US suffered serious aircraft losses in the Pacific that they would not have altered the flow of aircraft to another source to make good the losses. They did shift CAs and DDs to the Pacific after the large losses in the Solomons campaign. Do you think if the US were losing the campaign in the Pacific that they would be shipping all those P40s to Russia? Of course not. But then again, reducing the flow of aircraft to Russia would have come with political penalty. How could that be reflected in the game?

Oh, wait a minute, we can do that in the game. We have political points in the game. Allow the Allied player to increase the production of a particular aircraft for a month for a PP cost. Say let him double the production of P40s for one month at a cost of 300 pp. Believe me, this will not get abused because the Allies are short of PP until way into 1943. But it can help the Allies out of a tight squeeze and keep the Japanese player guessing. Can this be done without too much work?

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 49
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 2:54:35 PM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Can this be done without too much work?


....No.

_____________________________

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 crsutton)
Post #: 50
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 3:31:06 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I find it amusing that in what is supposed to be a historic simulation the IJ is swimming in airframes while the allies end up with carriers sitting in dock for years due to airframe shortages. The IJ has more high xp pilots then they can shake a stick at and a training program to keep their pilots elite all the way to wars end, while the allies struggle to field pilots with any experience at all, and have issues trying to keep up with training.

Sure the production rates on allied airframes may be historic, but having a mutual bloodbath carrier battle where both sides wipe out eachothers airgroups, with the IJ recovering in weeks while it takes the allies half a year or more doesn't seem very historic to me lol.

I'm having fun, the games great. I guess the IJ needs a variety of advantages to make for a more even battle.

Just not very historic however.


Depends on how you play it ... In quite a number the IJAAF and IJN is on its knees a year before historic. Have a look at Ausies vs Amis .

Most Japanese players with 20/20 hind sight have the option to correct historic mistakes eg Shinano is cancelled which gives a lot of resources , factories are restarted a year earlier than historic eg kates. The US also have 20/20 hind sight and hide their carriers etc . A historic simulation is impossible with 20/20 hind sight except between AIs.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 51
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 3:53:39 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

TimTom did his homework.




As I have discovered when doing F4F-4 research, this is a universal truth. Rule number one when looking at AE Allied airframe production numbers: TimTom is never wrong. Rule number two when looking at AE Allied airframe production numbers: is you think the production numbers are wrong, refer to rule #1

I mean that quite seriously. I thought the F4F-4 numbers were all wrong but after my research and some valuable information from some others, we pretty much agreed they were right. My guess is no matter which airframe you pick, you are going to find that the AE numbers are about dead on.

So if you are going to try to attack those numbers, be prepared to hit a brick wall. Also, in case you haven't noticed this is a bit of a sore subject for the Dev's. To be fair to them, how would you feel if you spent three years getting it right only to have daily threads posted in these forums telling you how you got it wrong.

The one problem I have is that every time anyone tries to challenge the Allied airframe numbers, they are quickly met with all the statistics that prove the AE numbers are correct but when we here that JFB's are producing 200 Ki44 a month AND accelerating CV production AND not having supply issues AND having hundreds of AK's tied up for lack of need AND not having to move resources from the SRA to Japan to sustain all this, we hear ............. crickets chirping.

The Allied production was very painstakingly researched. Kudos to the Devs. I don't begrudge them their right to get their feathers ruffled when people challenge all their hard work.

That said, the Japanese economic capacity is overstated by at least two to three fold. Why all the painstaking research on the Allied production numbers and the ludicrously overstated Japanese economy? I have accepted that AE is a Japanocentric game. Perhaps it has to be in order to get people interested in playing Japan. Just my opinion but when almost every problem the Japanese faced in WWII from an economic standpoint is removed from the game, it loses a lot of its historical feel. I know that as soon as both players plot their turn one orders that we have a departure from history, but the game should feel historical in my opinion even if the battles are being fought in different places.

< Message edited by vettim89 -- 6/5/2010 4:22:42 PM >

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 52
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 4:42:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Can this be done without too much work?


....No.



Oh well..... took a stab at it anyways..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 53
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 5:36:27 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Can this be done without too much work?


....No.



Oh well..... took a stab at it anyways..


The idea has merit. But, it would take a dev a bit of time to implement and test. I doubt we'll see the feature. Good idea, though.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 54
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 6:35:39 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		The Japanese hitting Pearl Harbor increased the American commitment to fighting Japan by about 20%. If you play my variant rules, PDA on, IJA production on, historical torpedoes, and Japan hits Manila instead of Pearl, you're probably about 20% up on both sides, so it comes out in the wash, and you get as close to the historical balance as is feasible in the game.

_____________________________

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 treespider)
Post #: 55
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 7:32:49 PM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: vettim89

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

TimTom did his homework.




As I have discovered when doing F4F-4 research, this is a universal truth. Rule number one when looking at AE Allied airframe production numbers: TimTom is never wrong. Rule number two when looking at AE Allied airframe production numbers: is you think the production numbers are wrong, refer to rule #1

I mean that quite seriously. I thought the F4F-4 numbers were all wrong but after my research and some valuable information from some others, we pretty much agreed they were right. My guess is no matter which airframe you pick, you are going to find that the AE numbers are about dead on.

So if you are going to try to attack those numbers, be prepared to hit a brick wall. Also, in case you haven't noticed this is a bit of a sore subject for the Dev's. To be fair to them, how would you feel if you spent three years getting it right only to have daily threads posted in these forums telling you how you got it wrong.

The one problem I have is that every time anyone tries to challenge the Allied airframe numbers, they are quickly met with all the statistics that prove the AE numbers are correct but when we here that JFB's are producing 200 Ki44 a month AND accelerating CV production AND not having supply issues AND having hundreds of AK's tied up for lack of need AND not having to move resources from the SRA to Japan to sustain all this, we hear ............. crickets chirping.

The Allied production was very painstakingly researched. Kudos to the Devs. I don't begrudge them their right to get their feathers ruffled when people challenge all their hard work.

That said, the Japanese economic capacity is overstated by at least two to three fold. Why all the painstaking research on the Allied production numbers and the ludicrously overstated Japanese economy? I have accepted that AE is a Japanocentric game. Perhaps it has to be in order to get people interested in playing Japan. Just my opinion but when almost every problem the Japanese faced in WWII from an economic standpoint is removed from the game, it loses a lot of its historical feel. I know that as soon as both players plot their turn one orders that we have a departure from history, but the game should feel historical in my opinion even if the battles are being fought in different places.


If you refer to a few posts above you will see what you need to do to "correct" the Japanese economy...good luck finding a PBeM opponent. I researched the economy for Japan...and the resources requirements to be transported to the HI are still shy by around 3-5 million points per year...if you want to know the tonnage of rice imported from Indo-China just ask...that being said the resource transportation requirements are about 7 times higher now when compared to WitP....so if you want to increase those requirements have it...however due to the nature of the economic model the entire system may just collapse if you go to far.



< Message edited by treespider -- 6/5/2010 7:37:47 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 vettim89)
Post #: 56
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 8:17:04 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

Can someone please change the record , heard it all before


Sorry. Couldn´t resist. Play with speakers maxed out please....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytm4XaRUuiE

_____________________________


(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 57
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 8:37:05 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


If you refer to a few posts above you will see what you need to do to "correct" the Japanese economy...good luck finding a PBeM opponent. I researched the economy for Japan...and the resources requirements to be transported to the HI are still shy by around 3-5 million points per year...if you want to know the tonnage of rice imported from Indo-China just ask...that being said the resource transportation requirements are about 7 times higher now when compared to WitP....so if you want to increase those requirements have it...however due to the nature of the economic model the entire system may just collapse if you go to far.



I agree that most JFB would not be interested in playing a scenario where there was such a heavy burden to keep the economy running. I guess it would make the game not very much fun for JFB if it would take so much effort to keep the economy running.

It sounds like you have done some research yourself as to what really was necessary. The dichotomy to me is interesting. Allied airframe production HAS to be as accurate as possible or else some heresy has been committed. Yet, Japanese production/economy can been out of kilter by several orders of magnitude and its necessary to make the game work. Hmmmm

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 58
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/5/2010 8:57:03 PM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


If you refer to a few posts above you will see what you need to do to "correct" the Japanese economy...good luck finding a PBeM opponent. I researched the economy for Japan...and the resources requirements to be transported to the HI are still shy by around 3-5 million points per year...if you want to know the tonnage of rice imported from Indo-China just ask...that being said the resource transportation requirements are about 7 times higher now when compared to WitP....so if you want to increase those requirements have it...however due to the nature of the economic model the entire system may just collapse if you go to far.



I agree that most JFB would not be interested in playing a scenario where there was such a heavy burden to keep the economy running. I guess it would make the game not very much fun for JFB if it would take so much effort to keep the economy running.

It sounds like you have done some research yourself as to what really was necessary.


I was part of the group who helped on the project...and am the one who did the research that got the production numbers changed from what you see in WitP.

quote:



The dichotomy to me is interesting. Allied airframe production HAS to be as accurate as possible or else some heresy has been committed. Yet, Japanese production/economy can been out of kilter by several orders of magnitude and its necessary to make the game work. Hmmmm



No...thats not the issue...the issue is people like yourself who run around like chicklen little saying that Allied airframe production has been nerfed...when it hasn't...

So then you change the argument saying the Japanese can produce too much....and the game is broke....the game ain't broke...and the production capabilites of the Japanese are a far cry more realistic in AE when compared to WitP....(and that is what we were judged by) .....but if you disgaree with the numbers as presented and you want to make it more "realistic/historic/accurate" ...I've shown you the little yellow brick road....have fun on that journey....thanks for fining me a new candidate for the green button.



_____________________________

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 vettim89)
Post #: 59
RE: SBD-3 production is wrong - 6/6/2010 1:10:11 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


If you refer to a few posts above you will see what you need to do to "correct" the Japanese economy...good luck finding a PBeM opponent. I researched the economy for Japan...and the resources requirements to be transported to the HI are still shy by around 3-5 million points per year...if you want to know the tonnage of rice imported from Indo-China just ask...that being said the resource transportation requirements are about 7 times higher now when compared to WitP....so if you want to increase those requirements have it...however due to the nature of the economic model the entire system may just collapse if you go to far.



I agree that most JFB would not be interested in playing a scenario where there was such a heavy burden to keep the economy running. I guess it would make the game not very much fun for JFB if it would take so much effort to keep the economy running.

It sounds like you have done some research yourself as to what really was necessary.


I was part of the group who helped on the project...and am the one who did the research that got the production numbers changed from what you see in WitP.

quote:



The dichotomy to me is interesting. Allied airframe production HAS to be as accurate as possible or else some heresy has been committed. Yet, Japanese production/economy can been out of kilter by several orders of magnitude and its necessary to make the game work. Hmmmm



No...thats not the issue...the issue is people like yourself who run around like chicklen little saying that Allied airframe production has been nerfed...when it hasn't...

So then you change the argument saying the Japanese can produce too much....and the game is broke....the game ain't broke...and the production capabilites of the Japanese are a far cry more realistic in AE when compared to WitP....(and that is what we were judged by) .....but if you disgaree with the numbers as presented and you want to make it more "realistic/historic/accurate" ...I've shown you the little yellow brick road....have fun on that journey....thanks for fining me a new candidate for the green button.




First I did not mean to offend and am sorry if I did so. Second you did not read closely where I said that I 100% agree that Allied airframe numbers are correct. I fully and 100% acknowledge that the Allied production numbers no matter how limiting they are, are accurate. You will not find me argueing against the numbers the AE team has determined are correct.

So the argument has been made that Allied airframe numbers are wrong/nerfed. That has been brought up by several people and each time it has been pretty well disproven. The well researched materials that have been brought forward have pretty much dispelled the myth that the Allied production numbers are spot on. In some cases they may actually be overly generous.

My point was this: those that defend the Allied numbers do so in the name of historical purity. There is a strong interest by many that the game represent as close to the historical realities that were present in RL as can be possible. An amazing amount of work was done to update the OOB of so many units to try to get it right. In short, AE was made to be a truly historical game bordering on a simulation.

But ..... that realism model breaks down when it comes to the Japanese Economy. I have read the Japanese Economy threads. When I read statements like: "I don't even need the LI or the resources to run them", "I have no problem running the economy with just the resources from Manchuko/China as long as I have the fuel from the SRA", and "I will have all the late war IJN CV's by mid '44 at the latest", it rings as wrong to me in the context of "EVERYTHING IS AS CLOSE TO THE HISTORICAL NUMBERS AS POSSIBLE". That is what I meant by a dichotomy.

I understand that manipulating the Japanese Economy and making better decisions on how to allocate the scarce resources available is part of the challenge/allure to the game for JFB's. From what I have read, there doesn't seem to be much scarcity to the resources. I have no problem with the Japanese player making alternative choices but they should be hard choices. It just doesn't seem that way from what I hear.

Again, sorry if I offended you Treespider because I do appreciate your opinions and input a lot. I am sorry if I get green buttoned but that is your choice

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: SBD-3 production is wrong Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

1.594