RE: Why do we play this game?

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: Why do we play this game?

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: Why do we play this game?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 11:20:37 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

Its hard to recreate some of the historical actions which encouraged the japanese to change their actions, such as you have the resrtion on the Kwantang Army until the attacks on the Marianas.
Actions such as the Doolittle Raid & Midway resulted in big shifts in their strategy, problem is you cant recreate either of these in a game and setting randomdates for actions doesnt work.

I also think you are pushing the Allied 4E into a corner with some rules, I think the recent night bombing patch lowers their effectiveness and the restriction of low level naval attacks is through fear of them rather than history.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 31

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 11:27:51 AM

CT Grognard

Posts: 694
Joined: 5/16/2010
From: Cape Town, South Africa
Status: offline

And how about the Japanese fanboys insisting on compulsory US pilot rotation, i.e. that pilots are limited to say 50 missions in a combat zone before they must be withdrawn Stateside?

Or rather, in WITP-AE, once a US pilot has hit 80 exp or higher the Allied player MUST assign that pilot to TRACOM.

< Message edited by CT Grognard -- 2/2/2012 11:31:19 AM >

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 32

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 11:34:43 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Heavy bombers did do low level naval bombing IRL. sorry.

I have been using skip bombing heavies in my mostly house rule less game, they are OK, I wouldnt say they are war winners though. The main reason for them being good is their range and their CAP resistance. Damage is lacklustre though. 500lb bombs simply aren't good enough against Japanese capital ships, especially when you skip bomb because they often hit belt armour. Even Japanese carriers are resistant to this, and a counter would be a BB SAG waiting at 16 hexes or so. The heavies will do nothing, and get shot to little bits by AA. As there are so few heavies this is not sustainable.

At closer ranges you should be more afraid of SBDs and Mitchells anyway, and fighter escort.

As a personal house rule I restricted low level naval bombing with heavies to the USN squadrons.

< Message edited by EUBanana -- 2/2/2012 11:36:26 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to CT Grognard)

Post #: 33

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 11:39:41 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Here's a bit of low level naval bombing with heavies... sort of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVSBtivbUs4

_____________________________

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 34

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 1:52:31 PM

vettim89

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

I think we need to learn to coexist. Thiese type of arguments rear their heads every few months. Keep in mind there are a lot of AFB who want to play Scen 2 also. The reason for that is that the game has a tendency to grind down once you get into '44 and '45. For many, the best part of the game is from mid '42 until the end of '43 when both sides are near parity. Scen 2 does allow for the "interesting" part of the game to be played longer. The only problem I see is that JFB take the extra capabilities in Scen and use them to "take over the world".

There are so many side discussions that could be made here. I guess my feeling is that both camps, if you would call them that, have a place in our larger commmunity. Its is somewhat similar to the old theology debate between Calvinists and Weslyans. Those two sides will never reconcile but in end, everybody gets to Heaven. That is not meant to stir a new religious debate only to point out you can debate some things for centuries and not get resolution

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 35

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 2:06:18 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

All that is really needed is a "base game" that is as historically accurate in OB, capabilities, and play as the designers can make it. After the first 6 months to a year it probably will be an exercise in survival for the Japanese side. That's reality, and that's the way it should be.

That being said, I've no problem with the designers or other players introducing mods to explore other possibilities (from the realistic to the rediculous). Everybody has their own idea of what constitutes "interesting and fun". I think this was Roger's basic point. Make the "base" as accurate and historical as possible. After that, anything goes. Then the historians can have their scenarios, and the "gamers" can have their fantasies.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 36

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 2:13:56 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Why do I play? Simple really, to have fun.

That's it, the only reason I need.

I personally don't care about how 'real' it is, just so long as the game has some semblance of balance and presents me with a challenging but fun gameplay. I get enough 'realism' from real life, I don't need it in a game.

I know some of the will be up in arms when they see this post, but honestly they are not me.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 37

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 2:20:32 PM

vettim89

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

All that is really needed is a "base game" that is as historically accurate in OB, capabilities, and play as the designers can make it. After the first 6 months to a year it probably will be an exercise in survival for the Japanese side. That's reality, and that's the way it should be.

That being said, I've no problem with the designers or other players introducing mods to explore other possibilities (from the realistic to the rediculous). Everybody has their own idea of what constitutes "interesting and fun". I think this was Roger's basic point. Make the "base" as accurate and historical as possible. After that, anything goes. Then the historians can have their scenarios, and the "gamers" can have their fantasies.

Mike I 100% agree with you. Any focus on OOB, balance, etc should be confined to scen1 and mods based on scen1. Scen2 and other mods are by definition intended to "go off the reservation"

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 38

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 3:31:55 PM

fcharton

Posts: 1112
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: France
Status: offline

I play wargames for the fun of it, and believe "historical wargames" is an oxymoron.

No matter how detailed the design, rules, map, OOB, scenarios, all "historical" wargames are developped and played in hindsight. This is all the more true as games like this one tend to attract history and military buffs, who have a lot more knowledge (and therefore hindsight) than the average tabletop/computer game fan.

It gets even worse for games with a steep learning curve, as good players will not only know a lot about the history the game is supposed to model (eg, what proved good or bad ideas, what ended up being the decisive factor, whether the enemy could be taken head on at some point of time), but will also develop a lot of understanding of how the system works, as they learn how to play. Just think of the understanding you have of enemy capabilities and warfare (as modelled by the game system, it is only a model, remeber) as you restart your second or third game.

Finally, knowing that the "war" will last 1600 days, and may be shortened by a few hundreds (but not much more unless someone quits or blunders) is a very important factor. Why do people do Sir Robin? Because they know their time will come in 1944. Why do they fight for Palembang? Because in a war that is coded to last four years, oil eventually becomes the most crucial resource. Why do Japan embark on crazy pilot training programs? Because they'll need those guys in 45, as Allied production kicks off? Why do they accelerate their research/construction? Because they have a pretty good idea of enemy plane/ship availability schedule, together with the characteristics of those devices.

Now, is any one of the above remotely "historical"? I don't think so. Yet, that kind of questions are at the heart of most of our game strategies. In this respect, is it really less historical for this JFB to strat bomb China, or embark on a mad pilot training program, that for that AFB to try and defend Java or Sumatra at all cost, while abandoning Rangoon, HK or Singapore to their "obvious" fate?

In my opinion, it is not a matter of one side being advantaged, or a trade off between realism and play balance. It is just that wargaming can teach you hard facts about the eras and battles, it might give you a feel for warfare (provided the model is correct), but you can't expect it to allow you to "replay" history, or put yourself "in the shoes" of those who lived it.

Francois

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 39

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 3:46:47 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

Hindsight is a part of the what-ifs, really. Japan RL didn't prepare for a long war, the first 'what-if' is what about if they /did/. Something which almost all players will do.

I'm not expecting history to be repeated, I only expect historical inputs and unit capabilities. My irritations with the game are minor, and revolve around things simply not behaving as they should. Worthless battleships, shipboard radar that is basically junk, shockingly incompetent Allied crews, Hellcats that are also junk, butchery of fighter escorts, B29 ops losses being apparently unsustainable, Japanese ASW being far too good, etc.

_____________________________

(in reply to fcharton)

Post #: 40

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 4:10:39 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

I play the game because I love the game. The game resembles the actual war in terms of the kinds of planes and ships and unit names and map, but it's not a simulation. It's more akin to chess, with the board and pieces altered to look like the war in the Pacific. At least, that's the case with Scenario Two, and it's why I prefer that scenario.

But it does take some mental adjusting to the situation. Scenario Two truly is Star Wars. In the game between rader and GJ, rader has lost something like 38,000 aircraft through late 1944. The Allies have lost half that number. And rader is still fighting well. But the flip side would not be possible - GJ would be finished if he had lost 38,000 and rader half that number.

So, with Scenario Two, you have to adjust your mind to conditions far beyond just what the scenario gives Japan. If you can do that you'll enjoy a match much more like chess....with the very real possiblity that the white side can earn an auto victory about six moves into the game. That'll give the Allied player some sleepless nights....

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 41

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 7:14:33 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I prefer for my historical wargames (as opposed to scifi wargames, such as Star Fleet Battles) to have a basis in reality. In other words, I am echoing those who say that they want the OOB to be as accurate as possible and for the units to behave in a realistically plausible manner. I do not expect my opponent to follow an historical script but nor do I wish to have an opponent who has learned to "game the system", using exploits to advantage.

Examples of how I restrict myself to historically plausible actions:

The only squadrons that can transfer and perform another action in the same day are those who can perform the transfer within about four hours at cruise speed.

In the early going (first few months of the war) the only units that can take replacements are those near a port which has received a supply convoy.

Only two subs per AS can be prepared for sea in one day (this severely restricts the US subs in Manila at the beginning of the game).

USAAF 4E bombers will not perform naval attacks below 10,000', but USN PB4Ys can. I know that the early skip bombing attacks were done by B17s, but the game makes lower level attacks too effective and so I have placed this self restriction in place - though if a base were to be in a desperate situation I might allow for desperate actions before the fall.

I even stick to historical USN names for those that need renaming (can't have two Lexingtons on the map at once so I just received the USS Constellation).

It's just my style of playihng a game that I love. As for the initial question: Why do I love this game? Because the War in the Pacific is a near perfect example of combined ops - you can't ignore air/gound or naval matters and do well in the game.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 42

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 9:15:24 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

All that is really needed is a "base game" that is as historically accurate in OB, capabilities, and play as the designers can make it. After the first 6 months to a year it probably will be an exercise in survival for the Japanese side. That's reality, and that's the way it should be.

That being said, I've no problem with the designers or other players introducing mods to explore other possibilities (from the realistic to the rediculous). Everybody has their own idea of what constitutes "interesting and fun". I think this was Roger's basic point. Make the "base" as accurate and historical as possible. After that, anything goes. Then the historians can have their scenarios, and the "gamers" can have their fantasies.

Yep, "Scen 1" should be the war as it was. I did buy a game called War in the Pacific.

Other scenario and mods can do what every they want.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 43

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 10:01:23 PM

jeffk3510

Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

I play this game because I am a wargamer, and this is simply the best one available. I really enjoy this community and have made a handful of friends here.

Scen 1,2,5... doesn't matter. It's the Indian, not the arrow..

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 44

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 10:07:39 PM

nashvillen

Posts: 3836
Joined: 7/3/2006
From: Christiana, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I play this game because I am a wargamer, and this is simply the best one available. I really enjoy this community and have made a handful of friends here.

Scen 1,2,5... doesn't matter. It's the Indian, not the arrow..

+1

_____________________________

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 45

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/2/2012 10:27:28 PM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

I play this game because I am a wargamer, and this is simply the best one available. I really enjoy this community and have made a handful of friends here.

Scen 1,2,5... doesn't matter. It's the Indian, not the arrow..

(in reply to jeffk3510)

Post #: 46

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 3:32:46 AM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Heavies might have made low level attacks but against typical convoys but not against a fleet with BB's, carriers and cruisers, they would be downed before arriving over a big one.

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 47

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 7:52:04 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Heavies might have made low level attacks but against typical convoys but not against a fleet with BB's, carriers and cruisers, they would be downed before arriving over a big one.

But is that down to opportunity, or ability.

A heavy at sea level is probably still going to be more survivable than a torpedo bomber at sea level, so... kinda like saying 'all torpedoes bombers would be downed before arriving over a big one'.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 48

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 3:58:15 PM

crsutton

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

A great game. There is one benefit I just never really gave much thought about.

I knew a lot about the Pacific War before buying the game but my knowledge was linear and limited to major events and historical trends. After ten years of asorbing UV, Witp and AE, my knowledge of the Pacific war has increased ten fold and increased in a way that just cannot be done with history books and technical manuals. It is a "big picture" gain where I can clearly see the interlocking relationship between geography, supply lanes, production, air, sea and land power. My understanding of the war is now more intuitative and almost automatic. Someone mentions Sabang, a class of ship or whatever and my mind automatically begins pulling information out of my mental storehouse that quickly defines the term and assigns it a value in terms of the whole. I did not expect this sort of learning curve when I undertook this voyage. Pretty nice really....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 49

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 4:14:30 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

A great game. There is one benefit I just never really gave much thought about.

I knew a lot about the Pacific War before buying the game but my knowledge was linear and limited to major events and historical trends. After ten years of asorbing UV, Witp and AE, my knowledge of the Pacific war has increased ten fold and increased in a way that just cannot be done with history books and technical manuals. It is a "big picture" gain where I can clearly see the interlocking relationship between geography, supply lanes, production, air, sea and land power. My understanding of the war is now more intuitative and almost automatic. Someone mentions Sabang, a class of ship or whatever and my mind automatically begins pulling information out of my mental storehouse that quickly defines the term and assigns it a value in terms of the whole. I did not expect this sort of learning curve when I undertook this voyage. Pretty nice really....

Same.

We have the benefit of hindsight though, so many AARs, replays if you have time, and the actual war. We know all the old tropes and the useful bases, not to mention what Japan is likely researching and in what numbers. Paramashimo Jima, Sabang, Sorong, Merauke, Tonies and Tojos, all the rest.

Imagine the plight of the commanders of the day who had none of that, and were dealing with real mens lives...

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 50

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 6:42:49 PM

Schanilec

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline

I play. Therefore I am.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 51

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 9:36:00 PM

Olorin

Posts: 1019
Joined: 4/22/2008
From: Greece
Status: offline

I play the game to be more attractive to some women.

Disclaimer: Do not let them see you while you are actually playing the game, it completely reverses any positive effects.

_____________________________

"Drang nach Osten"
--A TOAWIII AAR--

(in reply to Schanilec)

Post #: 52

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/3/2012 10:03:15 PM

vettim89

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

A great game. There is one benefit I just never really gave much thought about.

I knew a lot about the Pacific War before buying the game but my knowledge was linear and limited to major events and historical trends. After ten years of asorbing UV, Witp and AE, my knowledge of the Pacific war has increased ten fold and increased in a way that just cannot be done with history books and technical manuals. It is a "big picture" gain where I can clearly see the interlocking relationship between geography, supply lanes, production, air, sea and land power. My understanding of the war is now more intuitative and almost automatic. Someone mentions Sabang, a class of ship or whatever and my mind automatically begins pulling information out of my mental storehouse that quickly defines the term and assigns it a value in terms of the whole. I did not expect this sort of learning curve when I undertook this voyage. Pretty nice really....

Same.

We have the benefit of hindsight though, so many AARs, replays if you have time, and the actual war. We know all the old tropes and the useful bases, not to mention what Japan is likely researching and in what numbers. Paramashimo Jima, Sabang, Sorong, Merauke, Tonies and Tojos, all the rest.

Imagine the plight of the commanders of the day who had none of that, and were dealing with real mens lives...

I think you touched on a major factor between real life and the game: lack of political consequences. Sometimes we see operations undertaken that are highly risky but have potentially game changing effects. The logical part of our brains might say that such operations were beyond the historical capabilities of which ever side is attempting said move. Sometimes that is not true; instead, what is true is that the historical leaders not only would not be willing to risk real men's live but their superiors would not allow them to in the first place.

In AE we are free from concerns of a civilian populace as Allies or the Emporer and War Council as Japan. Oops, I lost the 1st Marine Division trying to take Tarawa in June of 1942. No biggie, I just buy it back. In RL, that would be a national tragedy.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 53

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 12:03:03 AM

Grfin Zeppelin

Posts: 1515
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I play the game to be more attractive to some women.

Disclaimer: Do not let them see you while you are actually playing the game, it completely reverses any positive effects.

Well if she looks at the map and sees you have not captured Singapore and its already march.......

_____________________________

(in reply to Olorin)

Post #: 54

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 12:45:41 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I play the game to be more attractive to some women.

Disclaimer: Do not let them see you while you are actually playing the game, it completely reverses any positive effects.

Well if she looks at the map and sees you have not captured Singapore and its already march.......

Of 1943!

_____________________________

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 55

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 3:39:23 AM

crsutton

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gr�fin Zeppelin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olorin

I play the game to be more attractive to some women.

Disclaimer: Do not let them see you while you are actually playing the game, it completely reverses any positive effects.

Well if she looks at the map and sees you have not captured Singapore and its already march.......

Yep, definitely not marriage material if he can't keep to a strict timetable....

< Message edited by crsutton -- 2/4/2012 3:42:31 AM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)

Post #: 56

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 7:39:44 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

Fair enough, but what I'm really after is the relative numbers.... it would appear in the game the Japanese can produce as many if not more than the Allies - whereas I don't think given the industrial muscle - and despite the European theatre this should be the case - but I may be wrong.

Here is detailed Japanese production, divided by quarters. It even includes Allies intelligence estimations.

So far Rader in his game with GreyJoy have lost around 42000 airplanes, and can make 25000 sorties in two days. It is hard to estimate number of front-line planes, as not all make two missions per day, and CAP seems to make even 3 missions, but we can assume, that there are around 10000 Japanese planes on-map.
I do not know, how pools looks like, but it gives us 52000 Japanese planes until end of 1944 (almost). Comparing it to tables:
IRL Japan produced exactly 58822 planes until 1944. Not including trainers (which will show up in-game as Kamikaze), which are actually hard to estimate, as both IDAs, and NATEs were pushed to that role. And not including gliders, both numbers are pretty close. Rader could be slightly better in production, but only by around 10%.

The most interesting thing is that this game could be the only one, which have loses close to historical.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 57

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 8:28:55 AM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

That's fascinating, and as always raises new questions.

1. If the Japanese did produce that many airframes what pilot strength did they have? My sense of the campaign is that after 1943 they had real problems crewing their planes.
2. If they were able to produce that number then how many did the allies produce? There should still be a significant number advantage to the Allies once the mid point of the war comes.......

So maybe the answer is in looking at the difference between japanese ability to change their production of planes, and the ability to support them in the air?

_____________________________

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 58

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 9:22:43 AM

LoBaron

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

That's fascinating, and as always raises new questions.

1. If the Japanese did produce that many airframes what pilot strength did they have? My sense of the campaign is that after 1943 they had real problems crewing their planes.
2. If they were able to produce that number then how many did the allies produce? There should still be a significant number advantage to the Allies once the mid point of the war comes.......

So maybe the answer is in looking at the difference between japanese ability to change their production of planes, and the ability to support them in the air?

@ 1.: This was discussed when one of the latest beta versions removed the ability to pull pilots directly out of basic training when the replacements are empty.
Was reintroduced after the debate, and I agree for the reason: The airforce is one of the least manpower intensive services, simply because the number of planes
is limited.
You can stack 3000 men on a single warship, with this number of crew you can already man a whole airforce.

If the question is: "did the Japanese have problems manning their planes in any period of the war?" the answer is "no", because they always had recruits available.
If you rephrase and ask: "did the Japanese have problems manning their planes with pilots trained to a comparable level as the Allies", the answer is yes.

But this has been debated ad nauseum already and I doubt that the training algorithm will be changed even though I personally would prefer it.

@2.: You forget the deciding factor here. The US outproduced Japan very soon, but they needed the capacity to outproduce Germany first before they could shift
the full industrial weight to the Pacific (as late as mid-late �44). The Europe First strategy ensured that everything in the realms of airframes went to the 8th Airforce
with a priority, after that lend-lease for CW and SU battling with the Pacific TOO as lower priority.

The above is reflected in the Allied production numbers and - in Scen1 - a very realistic representation of the relative production numbers for the Pacific TOO.
That Scen 2 shifts this balance is another story.

_____________________________

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 59

RE: Why do we play this game? - 2/4/2012 9:24:38 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

I think japanese players are producing about historical number of planes, but different models. Maybe we should have a specific HI point cost for plane models, because later models were much heavier than early models. For example Ki-44 should cost about 10 % more than Ki-43, and Ki-84 should cost about 40 % more than Ki-43. Same with bombers, late war Ki-67 should cost almost twice as much as Ki-48.

Also I think this game seriously underestimates difficulties of maintaining planes, for a both sides.

Well, maybe in WITP II...

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 60