Managing factories

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Managing factories

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Managing factories

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Managing factories - 1/6/2003 5:11:02 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

To play Uncommon Valour, you must be more than a strategist, you must also be an expert in logistics.

Many of us never expected that. It isn�t all bad, because it provides a good feel for the problems encountered in the region.

But from the screen shot in a nearby thread, I get the impression that we will also have to be factory managers.

If the idea is that the player can shift production from aircraft to ships or visa versa, then I understand the thinking.

But it�s important that there is an option for production to be automated and that it follows historic lines for those of us who are soldiers and take what ever we are given, form a battlegroup, and use the assets we have to complete the mission.

Post #: 1

- 1/6/2003 7:48:37 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

A general or admiral is allowed to make requests to the government about what sort of weapons they need to persecute the war.
If you think you'll be able to resist tinkering with production you're a better grognard than me. :)

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 2

- 1/6/2003 8:54:30 AM

demonterico

Posts: 292
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Seattle WA
Status: offline

I recently read "Crusade in Europe" by Eisenhower. One of the main threads throughout the book was of course logistics. As CinC Europe, Eisenhower was constantly concerned with this responsibility. To say he did not have influence over factory production would be completely wrong. The Joint Chiefs refered these types of questions to the theater CinCs all the time. After all what kind of military system would push the production of pistol ammunition when the infantrymen in the field was suffering shortages of rifle ammunition. This wasn't the friction that affected the CiC in the field, however. The friction was time. For example, the planning and production of landing craft in adequate numbers for the D-Day invasion started well before Operation Torch got anywhere close to North Africa. Eisenhower had a direct line to Marshall and could request anything he believed would be benificial to the ultimate end. And, we can be sure that Marshall gave serious consideration to Eisenhower's requests. But there were no magic wands, and it could be many months if not years before the items requested would see the battlefield. And, we all know what that means on the changing face of warfare. That highly prized item of today will be only so much extra weight to carry next week.

_____________________________

The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 3

- 1/21/2003 8:12:59 AM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

HOWEVER, how often did Eisenhower micromanage how much small arms ammunition was to be sent over from North America?

Each GHQ had an entire corps of officers dedicated to munitions. They recommended equipment to be used in the frontlines, however, their influence is very limited. The perfection of production was impossible. Sherman tanks were still used as the main allied battle tank in 1945 even though they were obsolete by 1943. This was not done at the request of the military commanders, but in the central command (i.e., King and Marshall) who thought that large numbers of weaker tanks is better then fewer tougher tanks.

Generals do have some influence, but this is limited to the desires of the central command. As they not only have multiple theatres to worry about, and changing production to suit just one theatre can completely throw off the other. We cannot ignore that there is another 'hidden' theatre of war that influences production just as much as the theatre that is involved in the particular game. The War in Europe had a lot more influence over production then the War in the Pacific. You simply could not retool a M4 Sherman factory to produce M3 Lee tanks in WitP because realistically this factory was producing M4 Sherman tanks in North America, X many are sent to Europe, Y amount are sent to the Pacific. Allowing the WitP player (i.e., Pacific Commander) to change this factory to suit their needs is unrealistic, as it will affect the European theatre (which although is not represented in the Game, we must assume that it exists).

Realistically, the Pacific theatre of war did not influence production of military weapons beyond ships (and these did not really change much from pre-war plans). Shortages of all sorts of equipment was rampant in the Pacific as late as mid-1943, primarily because all equipment (even shipping) was given to Europe over the Pacific.

Things were not built FOR a theatre, but sent to a theatre of war after they were produced. Should the Pacific Theatre face a shortage of P-51's, there would be no possible way in increasing production (as if you change P-47 factories to P-51 this affects the arrival of P-47's to Europe). The P-47 Factories produce planes for the North American aircraft pool, then sent out to various theatres. Should factories be changed at all you have to change it 100% (you cannot merely change a section of a factory to produce a different aircraft, unless you want to destroy efficiency). So, if you change a P-47 factory (in WitP) to P-51, you realistically change it for both the Pacific and European (non-existent) theatres.

Rarely does one theatre commander have enough clout to independently determine the course of national production due to the events of a minor theatre of war.

When you understand that factories do not represent factories (at least when it is Allied factories), but merely allocations of equipment, you realize that production is not quite as easy to tinker with, unless you want to abandon reality, then why play a wargame?

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 4

- 1/22/2003 2:27:20 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B] Sherman tanks were still used as the main allied battle tank in 1945 even though they were obsolete by 1943. This was not done at the request of the military commanders, but in the central command (i.e., King and Marshall) who thought that large numbers of weaker tanks is better then fewer tougher tanks.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I also believe it had something to do with the fact that a large number of LCT's tailored made to the demensions and weight of the Sherman had already been built or were in the process of being built. Switching to a larger heavier tank like the Pershing would make them almost useless and cause unexceptable delays. In the end the powers that be felt that shear numbers would surfice well enough.

Jeremy I couldnt agree with you more. I think being able to "tinker" with production is a slipperly slope, better suited for all those fantasy empire building games, than a historical war sim. That being said, I dont have a problem with it being included as long as there is a AI controlled historical production only option available as well.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 5

- 1/22/2003 3:27:07 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

Rather than any real changing of production, I would like to see a way to alter, slightly, priorities on a limited basis. Maybe you can change the priority of which ships to a small amount on the first of each month. this was done by both sides during the war and this would represent the Theater Commanders input to the central command. I would also like to see the introduction of new aircraft have a small random factor on the availability date of new models( something like +- 3 weeks). Also again, some input on the priority of which aircraft are going to the Pacific.

As the Commander of the Pacific, you can not dictate what will be produced, but you should be able to tell them what you need first to win the war.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 6

- 1/22/2003 4:53:17 AM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

I guess I am on the other side of the debate. I prefer more control over production. If I want to scrap IJN CL production to get more depth charge throwing destroyers, I should be able to. It�s not like I�m getting something for nothing. I�m making a choice.

I don�t see my role as that of any particular human in WitP�the game�s too big for that. Instead I see myself more as a divine guiding force guiding one country. Sort of a national will with the ability to make concrete decisions. Maybe like a turn-based Populous with a historical framework.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 7

- 1/23/2003 7:59:42 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

Here we go again . . .:rolleyes:

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 8

- 1/23/2003 8:30:06 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Here we go again . . .:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]

Is this where I get to say "bite me!" ? :D

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 9

Production - 1/23/2003 8:49:50 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I think this issue is largely "Much ado about nothing"
By the time any player input production begins coming out the war will be largely decided.
(I'm assuming we all agree pre war building will remain the same)
The only real production issues are ships and aircraft.
The ships take too long for player ideas to reflect in operations.
And the aircraft....well what just can you do? Allied aircraft production already works fine. And the Japanese it's not really a matter of model.
Having said all that I do hope the player has the option of controling production. Only I would not place any "Great Expectations" there in. Production does have a vast impact on the outcome of conflict. However it is that part that exists prior to the outbreak that matters. Gearing an economy up for war from scratch versus restarting a massive idle machine.
Wars are mostly about production. But you win with what you start with. (I'm sure I am stating this incorrectly) The USA had more doing nothing before the war then the rest of the world could build going full tilt to increase production. The Japanese player will find no magic solution in doing "better production"
He must have a workable long range plan and and enourmous amount of luck (thats where all the fun is) (the allied fun is doing the right thing at the right time and not losing)

For purposes of planing Japanese operations
6xCV
2xBB
4xBC
22xCA
100xDD

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 10

- 1/23/2003 10:02:37 AM

demonterico

Posts: 292
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Seattle WA
Status: offline

I would like the player to have the ability to make requests for allocations of equipment or for increases in production. However, I must agree with those who already have eloquently explained why this ability should be very limited in effect. I think we all agree that in many cases changing production was quite difficult if not impossible. And of course, if it was possible to increase production of one item, this meant there would also be reduced production of other items. Having this option, and I do feel it should be an optional component to the game, will require the game designer to create an accurate model of the national production for each of the combatants involved in WITP. I have no idea how difficult that might be, but it sounds like a big job to me. Maybe to big to be worth the effort, and cost, because as I said earlier the effect of this option must be limited. I don't say this because of the difficulties that were faced when factories were retooled, or because of shortages of resources, even though these were major factors. These were factors that could be minipulated by the hand of man. If the president, war minister, or chiefs of staffs felt that the situation warranted they had the authority to order the changes to be made. But the factor of time is not controled by the hand of man, and the time it took to make significant changes in production will dramaticly limit the effect this option can have on WITP. Frankly I agree that most significant changes in production would take so long that the war would be over before their effect could be realized. Having the possibility of getting an increased allocation at the expense of another theater is perhaps a more realistic manner of dealing with this subject in WITP. But again this ability would have to be quite limited. After all every theater was short of almost everything especially during the first half of the war. So its not very likely that the CinC would have many options for favoring allocations in one theater over another. We should also remember that for the allies, it was agreed that Germany should be defeated first. So in my opinion this makes Europe the theater most favored to get allocations.

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 11

Re: Production - 1/23/2003 10:04:56 AM

demonterico

Posts: 292
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Seattle WA
Status: offline

For purposes of planing Japanese operations
6xCV
2xBB
4xBC
22xCA
100xDD [/B][/QUOTE]

Could you please explain what you mean by this.
Thank you

_____________________________

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 12

IJN OPs - 1/23/2003 11:09:18 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Without any intention of being a know-it-all, I mean for purposes of fighting the war the Japanese player should consider the limit of his naval forces at:
6 CV Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu,Soryu, Zuikaku, Shokaku. While there are CVL and other CV
on hand or arriving these 6 CV are the ones that will be the work horse's. You can't replace them.
2 BB (The Yamato's) The other BB's consume too much fuel, are too slow and are out matched. The exceptions are Mutsu and Nagato. They should see some service in the war.
4 BC The Kongo class BB. If not for their speed they would be near worthless, but because of their speed they are the main heavy unit.

22 CA As any one who has ever ran the IJN knows the CA are the main surface unit.
These ships will be the core of any surface TF.

100 DD There are of course more then 100 IJN DD.But I am supposing many of them will not be available for use since they will be used as escorts.

I did not mention IJN CL. I use them mainly as destroyer leaders. They can not do any thing special (excepting Kitikami and Oi which I suppose every Japanese player has great hopes for)

Production will not alter this. These ships are what you must plan with. (By the time any extra CV arrive it will be too late to matter)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 13

- 1/23/2003 3:48:52 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

Prehaps this would be the time for one of WiTP designers to step in and discuss what they have got planned for the game in regards to production?

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 14

Re: IJN OPs - 1/23/2003 7:49:05 PM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Without any intention of being a know-it-all, I mean for purposes of fighting the war the Japanese player should consider the limit of his naval forces at:
6 CV Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu,Soryu, Zuikaku, Shokaku. While there are CVL and other CV
on hand or arriving these 6 CV are the ones that will be the work horse's. You can't replace them.
2 BB (The Yamato's) The other BB's consume too much fuel, are too slow and are out matched. The exceptions are Mutsu and Nagato. They should see some service in the war.
4 BC The Kongo class BB. If not for their speed they would be near worthless, but because of their speed they are the main heavy unit.

22 CA As any one who has ever ran the IJN knows the CA are the main surface unit.
These ships will be the core of any surface TF.

100 DD There are of course more then 100 IJN DD.But I am supposing many of them will not be available for use since they will be used as escorts.

I did not mention IJN CL. I use them mainly as destroyer leaders. They can not do any thing special (excepting Kitikami and Oi which I suppose every Japanese player has great hopes for)

Production will not alter this. These ships are what you must plan with. (By the time any extra CV arrive it will be too late to matter) [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, the inclusion of IJN CVL's and Escort CV's (the Junyo Class) are very useful in extending the IJN's power beyond what you state. The addition of these extra smaller carriers are vital to Japanese strategy. They give you many options.

#1. Use them as decoy TF's. Since you see a CV as a CV your opponent cannot tell if it is a Junyo or a Shokaku. You can also scatter them around, providing local air support for 1941 amphibious landings. (historically what happened until Midway)

#2. Scatter them throughout your regular CV TF's. Instead of 1 CV TF of 6 modern CV's, split off your modern CV's into 3 groups of 2. Beef up each one of these 2x CV groups with a Junyo CV and/or a CVL. While the CVL/Junyo CV may be weak in armour, chances of them being targetted over a tougher regular carrier is much less (due to 1:3) and they will last much longer. Plus, the CAP and striking power of a Junyo CV is very strong (almost equal to a Hiryu Class CV). (historically what happened after Midway)

These IJN CV/CVL's and even CVE's (which can be very useful in adding to Transport TF's as air cover) used more aggressively and as an immediate component of your main battlefleet can expand the size and power of your main striking force. Traditionally, the IJN kept their CVL's operating individually, untill they lost 4 Carriers at Midway, then they used them in coordination with major fleet carriers. In a way, early 1942 production and the use of pre-war CVL's managed to temporarily mitigate the loss of the 4 CV's at Midway. However, had the IJN used these ships as fleet units from the get-go (i.e., as a part of the main striking force, not as individual units which accomplished nothing on their own) their fleet would have been a lot tougher to destroy. Yamamoto said after Midway that one of his major mistakes was to keep the Zuiho in the rear area with the Battleships instead of as a part of the main carrier strike force.

You cannot replace the Kaga, Akagi, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Soryu or Hiryu, but using these CVL's and light CV's aggressively and as a part of the major carrier fleet will probably result in your 6 major units sticking around much longer. The USN CV force Does not really start expanding until 1943. The USN has 6 major CV units until this point, while the IJN have 6 major CV units. However, the 6 IJN units are augmented (quickly) by 2 weak CV's, 3 CVL's and 2 CVE's. This more then makes up for some qualitative differences between the Japanese and USN ships, and if done correctly can give the Japanese 2x the CV capabilities as the USN until 1943.

HOWEVER, all of these useful IJN CV/CVL's are all outside of the control of the player to get, since they were under construction years/months before the game started. The next most useful major unit will be the Taiho, which appears in December 1943 (by that time the addition of one CV will make no difference either way).

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 15

- 1/24/2003 4:09:56 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Jeremy

Although I agree that IJN CVLs were useful and a intregal part of IJN strategy. I think their lack of speed (20-23kts), severely limited them from effectively operateing with the CVs (30-32kts) in the same TF.

Regards

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 16

- 1/24/2003 4:30:33 AM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

Here are the speeds of Japanese Auxilliary and Light Carriers. They are not quite as dismal as percieved.

Junyo CV (x2) 25 kts
Zuiho CVL (x2) 28 kts
Ryujo CVL (x1) 29 kts
Taiho CVE (x2) 21 kts

Here are the fleet carriers
Shokaku CV (x2) 34 kts
Hiryu/Soryu CV (x2) 34 kts
Akagi CV (x1) 31 kts
Kaga CV (x1) 28 kts

The Zuiho and Ryujo CVL's can be added to a 30-34 kt CV TF (28 kts if Kaga is in the TF) without much loss in manoevering or fleet speed. Remember, rarely did a fleet move at flank speed (moved at this speed only in combat situations).

Junyo CV's can be added to any TF with the Kaga in it (28 kts) without much loss in total TF speed (just 3 kts less).

The addition of the lighter ships will slow down the TF's, but only slightly (unless you add the CVE's). Some of the IJN CV's are already slower then 30 kts, equalling the speed of, and even slower then, some of the CVL's.

Their inclusion into the battlefleet in 1941-42 is critical to maintain not just parity with the USN, but superiority. By mid 1942 the IJN would have 1.5x the carrier power of the USN by the addition of the CVL/CV's mentioned above. The lower maximum speed of the auxilliary carriers does not affect the combat capability of a carrier TF. Maximum speed and ship manoeverability come into effect only when the individual ship is being attacked. All of the light/auxilliary carriers can keep up with the fleet at cruising speeds, as well as at battle speeds (most ships maintained 20-25 kt speed unless they were under direct attack).

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 17

- 1/25/2003 2:27:32 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Jeremy,

Yes, but I have read that the Junyo & Hiyo never made better than 23Kts due their sub-par machinary. Even a TF with the Kaga in it could cruise between 20-23kts with little strain. Whereas the Junyo or Hiyo would need to be going full tilt. So really your talking about limiting a CV TF to 15-18kts. Yes it CAN be done, but you are severly limiting efficiency and effectiveness.

I agree the Zuhio and Ryujo are a different story though. Certainly they could and in fact did (particularly Zuhio) operate with the fast CVs. Its interesting to note that although Zuhio did operate with the Shokaku & Zuikaku at Santa Cruz. The Ryujo was detached from the CVs in the battle E.Solomons. As were the Junyo and Hiyo in the Battle of Santa Cruz and again in the Battle of Philipines Sea. So you might infere by this that the IJN were in most cases averse to operating the CVLs with the big boys

As I said though I do agree the CVLs are critical to IJN strategy in 41-42. Hell, the Ryujo almost single handely provided close airsupport for the invasions S.Philipines and DEI. In UV I often pair the Shoho with the Shokaku and Zuikaku. The extra CAP it provides has proven to be decisive.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 18

- 1/26/2003 3:31:53 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

Although if I recall correctly in the battle of the Coral Sea the Shokaku and Zuikaku were in a separate task force from the Shoho.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 19

- 1/27/2003 7:24:37 PM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]Prehaps this would be the time for one of WiTP designers to step in and discuss what they have got planned for the game in regards to production? [/B][/QUOTE]

Bump

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 20

- 1/27/2003 7:55:59 PM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]Although if I recall correctly in the battle of the Coral Sea the Shokaku and Zuikaku were in a separate task force from the Shoho. [/B][/QUOTE]

Which proved to be a very successful choice for the Shoho... :D

The Zuiho spent a lot of its post-Midway life as a part of the main battlefleet. The Japanese learned their lesson after Coral Sea/Midway that Light Carriers on their own are just bait, in the face of strong LBA or Carrier Aircraft. They got away with it earlier because Allied Air Power was very limited.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 21

REAL AND INTERESTING CHOICES - 1/27/2003 10:07:55 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

About the only thing the designers COULD do in WitP to make
actual Production choices a meaningful matter to players would
be to allow the Japanese Player to have a few "pre-war"
choices. Perhaps the more modern thinkers in the navy won
out over the battleship gang in 1936, and Japan laid down 4
Shokaku's instead of utilizing the resources for the Yamato's.
(I know the extra 2 CV's would have been much cheaper and
faster to build---but they would also need air groups, which
would eat up the additional resources.)

Or perhaps instead of shoveling resources into the Shinano
from 1940 to 1944 only to have her sunk on her first sea trial,
the 70-odd thousand tons of steal and other resources could
have been used to turn out one 1350 ton "Escort" per month
from 1941 through 1944 to deal with submarines.

Here's an interesting thought. In 1936, the Japanese appoint
"Aberitu Speerakaku" Minister of Armaments, and he joins
with the Industrialists and the Emperor to force the Military
to accept "rationalization" of their equipment. Little things..,
like getting the Army and the Navy to agree on a common
voltage for aircraft electrical systems so that ALL production
effort can go into building and improving ONE line of parts
instead of two completely different ones! Simple elimination
of stupidity could have improved Japanese Production by 20%
at a time before Japan could be bombed to bits.

I'm not talking about changes that would make an actual
Japanese victory possible---just ones which would make the
Japanese more interesting to play and keep them "in the fight"
for a longer period. Maybe provide a suprise or two for the US
player when he finds more AWS forces than he was expecting
this time. Or the Japanese Army scaling down Oscar produc-
tion in favor of having Nakajima produce Zero's for them. I
am talking about variables that would make a second game of WitP different from a first.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 22

- 1/28/2003 11:26:44 AM

Snigbert

Posts: 2956
Joined: 1/27/2002
From: Worcester, MA. USA
Status: offline

I read (Costello's Pacific War 1941-1945) that the reason the Mutsu was built in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty was because the Japanese pleaded that they had already taken material donations from schoolchildren and housewives in Tokyo to complete it's construction. That is how poor their resources were even before the war started.

Also, I think it was the Unryu which Japanese housewives donated pots and pans to melt down for steel to complete it's construction. Sad state of affairs.

Perhaps if there is an option for Japan to begin with a superior armaments minister their output could be increased slightly, but it is more a lack of materiel than resourcefulness on the part of the Japanese that handicapped them.

_____________________________

"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 23

- 1/28/2003 11:41:08 AM

bradfordkay

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

My hope is for us to be able to have the ability to make those decisions on setup. Because of the lead time involved, cancelling the Shinano project in Dec '41 would still mean a huge amount of resources would have been wasted. Thus these main decisions would have to be made in the setup phase of the game (okay, so you can tell that I come from a boardgame background). Having the ability to change pre-war production philosophies would go a very long ways in increasing the replayability of the campaign game.

I am also hoping that if the Japanese player can import more strategic resources than happened IRL, he will receive increased production capability over the historical schedule.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 24

Did you notice??? - 1/28/2003 12:39:11 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]My hope is for us to be able to have the ability to make those decisions on setup. Because of the lead time involved, cancelling the Shinano project in Dec '41 would still mean a huge amount of resources would have been wasted. Thus these main decisions would have to be made in the setup phase of the game (okay, so you can tell that I come from a boardgame background). Having the ability to change pre-war production philosophies would go a very long ways in increasing the replayability of the campaign game.

I am also hoping that if the Japanese player can import more strategic resources than happened IRL, he will receive increased production capability over the historical schedule. [/B][/QUOTE]

Did you notice the descriptive term "Pre-War" in my proposal?
That would seem to me to refer to events taking place BEFORE
Dec. 1941. And if you read the portion concerning cancelling
construction of the Shinano in favor of ASW Escorts you would
have noticed I suggested recieving 1 per month from 1941 thru
1944---which would have at least 11 of them built when the
War began.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 25

- 1/28/2003 1:02:05 PM

bradfordkay

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

Oh, Mike, I'm sorry... I was posting in support of your comments but worded it poorly.

I was trying to point out that the system would have to include your idea of pre-war refinements in order for any major changes in naval production to take effect within the game's time scale.

My apologies for not having made this more plain to see. Some nights my ramblings are less coherent than on others....

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 26

Efficient utilization of Resources - 1/28/2003 1:04:07 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]I read (Costello's Pacific War 1941-1945) that the reason the Mutsu was built in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty was because the Japanese pleaded that they had already taken material donations from schoolchildren and housewives in Tokyo to complete it's construction. That is how poor their resources were even before the war started.

Also, I think it was the Unryu which Japanese housewives donated pots and pans to melt down for steel to complete it's construction. Sad state of affairs.

Perhaps if there is an option for Japan to begin with a superior armaments minister their output could be increased slightly, but it is more a lack of materiel than resourcefulness on the part of the Japanese that handicapped them. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think you may be confusing propaganda with production.
Japan was limited in resources, and even more limited in money
during most of the 23 years between the wars---but she spent
a much higher percentage of her income and resources on her
military. "Pennies from schoolchildren" is a great publicity ploy
for whatever project a nation choses---makes the population
feel good about "doing their part" and shows the rest of the
world you have broad national support for your project.

The "improvement" I suggested would be from making more
intelligent use of the resources and industrial capacity already
available---not from getting more resources. Like Germany,
Japan's highest production totals during the War came in 1944.
At a time when her access to resources was decreasing as her
Merchant Marine evaporated under the Allied onslaught. Most
of the improvement came from eliminating waste and improving
production efficiency. Like finally forcing the Army and the Navy
to agree on commonality of aircraft systems and designs. In
Germany, Speer discovered that they were using twice as much
aluminium as the British to produce aircraft of similar weight and
performance---the "extra" was waste (and often being sold as
scrap.) The Japanese found the same problems, and as they
eliminated them their output went up. If they had started at
an earlier date, the improvement would have as well.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 27

No "wuckin's" - 1/28/2003 1:11:30 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]Oh, Mike, I'm sorry... I was posting in support of your comments but worded it poorly.

I was trying to point out that the system would have to include your idea of pre-war refinements in order for any major changes in naval production to take effect within the game's time scale.

My apologies for not having made this more plain to see. Some nights my ramblings are less coherent than on others.... [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry if it seemed I was jumping on you. I've managed some
late night incoherancies myself. Mostly I wanted to be sure
this particular "thread" wasn't starting to wobble off into a
sideshow of miss-reading and miss-understanding. It seems
with so many of these threads that by the third page you can't
even tell what the subject of the 1st page was...

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 28

Mid-afternoon ramblings - 1/29/2003 6:30:17 AM

MemoryLeak

Posts: 491
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Woodland, CA USA
Status: offline

Perhaps production could be tied into conquests. The more the Japanese player can take and hold onto the more raw materials become available for war production. Not just number of bases/countries invaded, but countries designated as having oil or raw materials that could be shipped back to Japan. If the base/country is retaken by the Allies, Japanese war production would be adjusted accordingly.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 29

"Poor Nations" - 1/29/2003 6:44:49 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I've always thought it very interesting that the "poor" nations of Germany, Japan and Italy could afford to build their military while the democracies struggled through a depression.

(before anyone jumps on me about Italy, I'll only say she was the first europeon nation to moderize. By the time the war began in earnest much of her equipment was obsolete)

Of the three Italy was by far the poorest in both resource and industry. Both Germany and Japan could have been powers without resorting to conquest.
"We have to expand, we need room, we need material"
were just excuses to cover their real agendas.

I do not really think there is any need to tamper with the Japanese starting OOB. (Or anything under construction)
You won't find a solution in production changes.
Victory (if possible) will be obtained with what is in commision on Dec 7 1941. ( with the limited arrivals thereafter )

In the end Germany and Japan have been described as
Germany:Industial strength with no resource
Japan: Resources with no industry

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 30