Re: Mid-afternoon ramblings

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: Mid-afternoon ramblings

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 >> Re: Mid-afternoon ramblings

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Mid-afternoon ramblings - 1/29/2003 7:05:42 AM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MemoryLeak
[B]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. [/B][/QUOTE]

This was the actual Japanese Strategy going into the war---and
to a great extent they succeeded in conquering all the resources
they went after. They then discovered just how far up their
backsides their heads had been when they did the economic
planning. Even before the war, Japan had utilized over a million
tons of foriegn shipping to meet her needs. Almost all of this
was lost as soon as the War started. Then the demands of the
military had to be met as the fronts expanded, taking more
shipping. And finally, Japan's Marine Engine production proved
woefully inadequate to meet the needs of what shipping she
did have---leaving almost a million tons "deadlined" for engine
repair and replacement by 1944. When you add in the Allied
Anti-Shipping efforts it's easy to see why having conquered the
raw materials wasn't doing the Japanese War effort all that much
good. They didn't have the means to move it to the factories.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 31

Re: "Poor Nations" - 1/29/2003 7:21:10 AM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]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 [/B][/QUOTE]

I wasn't suggesting that the opportunity to play the game with
"strictly historical" OOB's be abandoned---just that for those
who will play more than once it might be nice to have some
historically based "optional OOB's" that would allow the Japanese
some flexibility in their attempts to expand and hold on. Make
for a somewhat different challenge for both sides and improve
the replay value of the game. The US economy is SO much
larger than the Japanese economy that the end result will never
be in doubt. General Motors produced as much military
equipment (by dollar value) as Japan did during the War (Ford
out-produced Italy), so when the full weight of American
Production began to make itself felt in 1944 it became a pretty
lop-sided fight. Giving Japan a bit more to play with in 1942-43
won't change the outcome---but might change the process.
Just to keep things interesting on all sides.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 32

- 1/29/2003 9:08:58 AM

Jeremy Pritchard

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

I don't know about you guys, but the historic scenarios provided in PacWar really were all that you needed for 10 years. Once you start the game, you have innumerable choices ahead of you (even in the restraints of certain limitations). Having a few different ships really won't change the course of the battle that much, as NUMBERS will be the same (i.e., Japan will outnumber allies until mid 1942, then Japan will get more and more outnumbered by the allies). Wether you have an extra Shokaku or two instead of a Yamato is not going to change the fact that you will rule the seas until mid 1942, then face Essex after Essex.

You also have to take into account the fact that with a carrier (or two) you have to create an entire air group for it, with reserve pilots, etc., etc., etc.

In December 1941 the IJNAF had pilots and aircraft for their 6 CV's and 3 CVLs, as well as for an equivalent of 4 Groups of Fighter Aircraft (bomber aircraft cannot be included in this equation, as they are 2 engine bombers), and maybe up to 2 Groups of Torpedo Bombers.

For every IJN CV you would get, you would draw that many pilots/aircraft away from the active LBA pools. The IJNAF had only around 400 A6M's in 1942 (total). This would be barely enough to equip 2 extra CV's (if you remove all LBA A6M groups). This would really weaken the IJNAF LBA contingent, leaving absolutely no fighter with the range to escort G3/4M's.

While it is an interesting idea, the consequences of changing historic pre-war production would result in innumerable reactions and counter-reactions. More carriers = less IJNAF LBA. Less IJNAF LBA, slower advances and more bomber losses during the 1st 6 months. If you remove the power of the Battleship Admirals from power, you also remove the influence of the Navy (these Admirals had A LOT of influence on the Emperor) on the Imperial GHQ for a war in the Pacific, and influence goes toward the Army, aimed toward war with Russia (when they were busy with Germany).

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 33

Dear Jeremy - 1/29/2003 1:27:27 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Did you READ my original post on this subject from Monday AM?
I specifically mentioned that "swapping" the Yamato's for an
additional pair of Shokaku's would INCLUDE the air groups in
the cost. As a unique design the Yamato's were enormously expensive as compared to expanding a Carrier Class from 2 to
4, and the "savings" could easily finance an increase in both
pilot training and aircraft production to fill the decks. It is a good
deal cheeper to expand existing programs than to start new
ones from the ground up.

If you are completely happy playing nothing but scenarios using the the "historical" OOB's...., great. But why insist that every
other player must live with your preferences? Some people like
to look at other possibilities---and it's far easier to get an
opponant for an "official" scenario than a self- designed one.
Why not make them available if 2by3 is willing to put them in?
That's all that was being asked.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 34

- 1/29/2003 1:42:03 PM

bradfordkay

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

I'm with Mike on this one. I know that playing the historical OOB will lead to many years of playing enjoyment. But since this is a strategic game, it lends itself to more of the "what if?" type scenarios. Of course the final outcome won't be any different, but the flow of play could be very different with a shift in production emphasis. If it doesn't take too many resources away from important parts of the game, having this as an option would be nice.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 35

- 1/29/2003 1:59:48 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Swapping the Yamatos for a couple of Shokakus ... when do you want the game to begin? 1935? 1920? How many historical realities leading up to the decision of what fleet elements to begin building in anticipation of a war in the 1940s do you want to ignore?

I have said it before, and I will say it again (and probably get skewered for my efforts): if you want to change the historical reality that dictated how WWII in the Pacific was fought, fine. Go design, produce, and play that game (and I would love to see it, buy it, and play it myself). WITP is not that game. WITP will begin either at the historical beginning of WWII in the Pacific or, if a scenario alternative or two is provided, shortly before or after that time. I have seen nothing to indicate that wholesale revision of history within that concept is even a remote possibility.

From what I understand, you will have to live pretty much within the historical production constraints presented to the historical commanders. I suspect that some deviation will be possible, as it was in Grigsby's earlier Pacific War release, but nothing as wholesale as many have suggested.

Look forward to the game that is going to be released, not the one you wish someone else would design.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 36

- 1/29/2003 7:39:45 PM

Hoplosternum

Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline

Bradfordkay,

I think that any significant changes in the OOB should be reserved for edited scenarios. Because the period of decision in the pacific was so early on (Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal all occuring within the first year) I doubt that any realistic production model will really have much of a difference on the outcome. I would hate to see the standard historical game completely skewed so that in '44 the Japanese can pump out a few extra (and irrelevent) CVEs.

What I do hope is that they make the editor fairly easy to use and capable of producing all the fantasy scenarios that people require. I want scenarios where the IJN are stronger than they were historically. I cannot think of any real life scenarios where that was especially likely but I want them anyway. In UV most people play, especially PBEM, the fantasy scenarios #17 and #19. Everyone wants a challenging game where both sides have a chance. I want a historical scenario that is pretty much historical but I suspect that, just as in UV, it is not the scenario that will be most often played at least by email.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 37

- 1/30/2003 5:48:01 AM

showboat1

Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline

I haven't bothered to read most of the posts here since this is simply rehashing an OLD arguement. I have but one thing to say.

[SIZE=4]I WANT CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING!!!!![/SIZE]

I waat to pick ships, planes, form new air groups, new commands, new land units... [SIZE=4]EVERYTHING[/SIZE]

To make me happy, just give me a great editor

_____________________________

SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 38

- 1/30/2003 11:14:43 AM

bradfordkay

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

Okay guys, let's ease up a little here. No one is talking about changing WITP into a fantasy game. I have no idea as to how production will be handled. If the factory production remains exactly as historical, I will still be as happy as a pig in ****.

In fact, I know that it is an old argument, and that the decision on this has probably already been made long ago. While waiting to see the game, it is only natural to speculate about the aspects of the game that are not included in UV.

If we are able to change production after the game starts, such as cancelling a major project, then the possiblity exists to change the production of any ship still being built at the start of the game. No, I wouldn't expect to go back to '35 or '20 - though if someone releases an edited ahistorical scenario, I'll take a look at it. But to be able to make a decision to never have started a project that you're going to cancel as soon as the game starts, that would be a nice addition.

Do I consider it a necessity? By no means, but I do feel that it is an addition that I would consider were I a member of the 2by3 crew. I'm sure most of the gang on this forum are forum are quite glad that I'm not...;)

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 39

- 1/30/2003 12:35:44 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
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. [/B][/QUOTE]
Before the war started, indeed - some twenty years before. But that wasn't the reason she was spared. Mutsu survived because she had very good timing - she was commissioned on October 24, 1921, and the [URL=http://www.warships1.com/W-INRO/INRO_Battlefleet.htm]Washington Naval Limitation Conference of 1921[/URL] didn't kick off until November. So she couldn't have been built in violation of the Treaty, because there was no Treaty until months after she commissioned. That's why she was counted in the ships and tonnage Japan was allowed to retain under (NOT "in violation of") the terms of the Treaty. Don't get me wrong - Japan cheated on the treaty like crazy (Can you say "Mogami class"? I knew you could.), and very nearly from Day One. But in fairness, Mutsu wasn't "cheated in," she was part of the process.

This is just another one of Costello's errors - I got the book as a Christmas gift last month and I'm having a great time with it, but I'd strongly suggest looking for independent confirmation of any supposedly "factual" information in that book. For example, check out the raid count for the first wave of the Pearl Harbor attack in Chapter 7 (page 132 in my copy). Somehow Costello got 49 Vals (level bombing Vals with 800kg armor-piercing bombs, no less!), 40 Kates, and 43 Zekes to add up to a total of 183 attackers. The total is correct - but the 49 level bombers were Kates (NOT Vals), the 51 (NOT 49) Vals were dive (NOT level) bombing, were tasked for airfield suppression (NOT anti-ship), and so were armed with HE bombs (NOT armor piercing).

The most charitable explanation I can think of is that Costello "lost" a column in his notes and tried to BS his way through regardless ("Let me see, I know they had Vals, and Kates, and Zekes, and Kates carried torpedos, and Zekes were fighters, so the ones with bombs must have been Vals...") - but the glaring mathematical error still should have been a dead giveaway. (The least charitable explanation is that Costello is an idiot and/or a fraud, but I don't think either of those titles are justified. Yet. I still haven't finished the book...) It's not like this is some obscure bit of military arcana, either - this is basic, factual information that is widely known and readily available. Nor is this the only example, though it is the one that springs most immediately to mind, because it's so blatantly wrong that no amount of "interpretation" or "subjective judgement" can save it. Seriously - if you can't rely on the author to get very basic, very well-known facts straight, if you can't even trust him to add up a column of numbers on a calculator and get the correct result, why would you depend on him for anything more than entertainment value?

_____________________________

Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 40

ONE LAST TIME - 1/30/2003 2:09:55 PM

Mike Scholl

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

The whole point of my original posting monday Morning was
that "IF" 2by3 was going to include the ability for players to
effect production, the ONLY MEANINGFUL changes would have
to be made in PRE-WAR production choices of Japan. If you
start with Dec. 7th, any changes you make won't start showing
up until almost 1944 (unless you think that 2by3 should totally
ignore the reality of production lead times).

If they want to produce a game that is strictly historical..., fine.
No problem with that, and we'd probably all play it without any
complaints. But IF they are going to offer the option for players
to "adjust" production from the historical---then why not make
it "pre-war" so that the effects will actually effect game-play for
the Japanese? THAT was the only point I was trying to make.
IF they're going to offer production alternatives, let them make
the alternatives ones that matter in the play of the game. A few
more or less of anything for the Japanese arriving in 1944 isn't
going to matter much---and by 1944 the Allies will have plenty
of everything arriving so changing it around a bit won't matter
much either. ONLY changing pre-war Japanese production will
offer a game with a somewhat "different" feel that is still
basically the War in the Pacific.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 41

What if's - 2/1/2003 3:01:09 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

First I don't want to just play historical US vs Jap Pac War, been there done that.

Have some limited control over industry vs production where your either have an industry increase it size vs increasing production.

Ability to get support from allies, such as Japan requesting support from Germany/Italy maybe receive technology transfers, or units (aircraft, rader, ground units, ships/subs etc) or even be able to trade oil/material for ships,aircraft.

What would have happened if Russia entered the war sooner or if Japan attacked Russia.

Some things I would like to see or available with the editor. The ability to have what if platforms (Jap Carrier subs, Jap jet Aircraft, allied Jet Aircraft).

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 42

- 2/1/2003 3:46:52 AM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

First, let me start by saying that I am not speaking for Matrix or 2by3.

Here is what I do know about production in WITP.

1. It has not been programmed yet.

2. We, the testers, are still submitting ideas and there are some good ones in this thread.

3. Production will be linked to resources. This will only affect Japan because Japan has to actually transport the raw materials to Japan. I know this because we are currently testing out the Automatic Transport Routines. Which, by the way, will be very different from UV. I do not know how resources tie into production so I can't tell you what effect a lack of raw materials will have.

4. We are also looking at what game preferences need to be available for the player. I will make sure that "Historical Production" (AI Controlled) and "Variable Production" (Human Control) are added to the list. Keep in mind that being on the list is no guarantee that it will make it into the game.

5. You will be able to bomb production facilities.

That�s all I can think of for now. I will try and keep you updated as things develop.

Rick
:)

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 43

- 2/1/2003 6:06:46 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Jesus, I feel like I just walked into an Infogrames forum.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 44

- 2/1/2003 7:35:42 AM

Snigbert

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

[B]Jesus, I feel like I just walked into an Infogrames forum.[/B]

???

_____________________________

"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 #: 45

- 2/1/2003 11:08:18 AM

bradfordkay

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

Thanks, Kid, for the update. I am thrilled to learn that they plan to tie Japanese production to resource delivery. Just knowing that they are trying to do so, even if it ends up not included in the game, has made me quite happy. Any other additions will be gravy...

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 46

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Re: Mid-afternoon ramblings

Page: << < prev 1 [2]