Questions regarding Production

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Questions regarding Production

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 >> Questions regarding Production

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Questions regarding Production - 6/6/2003 12:05:53 PM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

Now that we know that we will be able to control some or all aspects of production, could you possibly tell us to what extent the player has control over production?

How about ship upgrades, weapon upgrades, or building new ships/aircraft/ground forces(tanks/artillery)? Do we get to control R&D (New ship classes, aircraft, tanks, artillery, radar, etc.....)

Is the R&D/production going to be a HOI type or more of a scaled back type, like PTO II?
Either way, this is going to be the greatest strategy/war game ever to be produced, and I can't wait for this game to come out!

Thanks, and for Matrix and all those involved, keep up the great work!!

Post #: 1

- 6/6/2003 12:08:08 PM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

one more question, will we be able to edit the aircraft upgrade paths, weapon upgrade paths on ships, aircraft, etc using the editor?

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 2

- 6/6/2003 12:49:57 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

I dont think anyone can answer this w/o violating NDA.
I could of course be wrong.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 3

- 6/6/2003 2:00:15 PM

Fred98

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

Hypothetically, if you have too much control, you are taking resources from the European front.

Then after Japan falls you will need to go after Hitler��.

.
.

The other option is that certain resources were allocated to the Pacific theatre and then you control how they are used.

It means that if you change a aircraft upgrade path, then some other asset loses its upgrade path. It must be give and take.

Otherwise you could get jet fighters in 1942 together with B52s

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 4

- 6/6/2003 8:41:06 PM

showboat1

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

Hopefully we will have some control over upgrade paths but I agree that there must be a tradeoff. Everything comes with a cost.

_____________________________

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 Flying fortress)

Post #: 5

- 6/9/2003 11:06:51 AM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

I completely agree with you about the upgrade paths. Of course if playing a campaign, there should be a tradeoff, but in my opinion, it should be included in the editor just so that people would be able to mod and create their own unique hypothetical/historical scenarios.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 6

THE REAL QUESTION.... - 6/9/2003 3:51:39 PM

Mike Scholl

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

Production "lead times" being what they were (if the Japanese
laid down a New BB in December of 1941, at their normal rate of
production it wouldn't be finished until the war was over)---many
"production choices" should be "no brainers". Simply BUILD WHAT
YOU WILL RECIEVE IN TIME TO BE OF USE! The real question in
a historical situation will be, can the player convert "TYPE' con-
struction from one type to another. Can you cut back on "Oscars"
and "Sallys" and have the aircraft lines build more "Zekes" and
"Betties"? Increasing overall production levels will (and should)
be a long-term process---will it be possible to divert "current
effort" into more rewarding products?

For the kind of "Production Choices" most players seem to be
talking about, A preliminary "production game" starting in maybe
January 1940 would be needed.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 7

- 6/9/2003 7:21:29 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

Hopefully you won't have too much control over production. Most games where you control production it comes down to picking the best weapon/aircraft/ship and cutting all other production to push your favorite/best through.

Off the top of my head, lets say you decide that you won't build mine-sweepers and instead you will put those resources into producing more DDs because you will "sweep" mines with the extra DDs you produce and have the benefit of more speed and firepower. The reality is that your DD crews (and captains) would pitch a bitch if they knew they were being used that way etc.

This of course is not a perfect example but you can see what i am getting at.

:)

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 8

Re: THE REAL QUESTION.... - 6/9/2003 9:13:10 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]Production "lead times" being what they were (if the Japanese
laid down a New BB in December of 1941, at their normal rate of
production it wouldn't be finished until the war was over)---many
"production choices" should be "no brainers". Simply BUILD WHAT
YOU WILL RECIEVE IN TIME TO BE OF USE! The real question in
a historical situation will be, can the player convert "TYPE' con-
struction from one type to another. Can you cut back on "Oscars"
and "Sallys" and have the aircraft lines build more "Zekes" and
"Betties"? Increasing overall production levels will (and should)
be a long-term process---will it be possible to divert "current
effort" into more rewarding products?

For the kind of "Production Choices" most players seem to be
talking about, A preliminary "production game" starting in maybe
January 1940 would be needed. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is no need for a 'pre-lim' phase. Just shorten the REAL
build times on the singular ships. For example the Yamato class.
If a player wanted to build the Shinano as a BB then he could
and it would simulate the pre-war building phase.

BUT I can tell you right now that the most effective items for the Jaoanese will be DE and anti-sub units.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 9

Re: Re: THE REAL QUESTION.... - 6/9/2003 10:51:17 PM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]There is no need for a 'pre-lim' phase. Just shorten the REAL
build times on the singular ships. For example the Yamato class.
If a player wanted to build the Shinano as a BB then he could
and it would simulate the pre-war building phase.

BUT I can tell you right now that the most effective items for the Jaoanese will be DE and anti-sub units. [/B][/QUOTE]

Somebody PLEASE tell me Chiteng is wrong and that build
times aren't going to be "telescoped". What's the point of an
"historical simulation" game that totally ignores history?

As for the Shinano, the player has no choice to lay her down.
Construction started in 1940 (before the war). She would have
completed as a BB sometime in 1945 (if not delayed by produc-
tion shortages). Conversion of the hull to a carrier configuration
simplified construction and she was do to complete in 1944---
Archerfish got her on the way to being "fitted out". Giving the
player a choice to make the conversion SHOULD be in the game.

But for any MEANINGFUL changes in wartime construction, the
game WILL have to include a "pre-war" construction period---
maybe as an option for those designing scenarios.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 10

Re: Re: Re: THE REAL QUESTION.... - 6/9/2003 10:55:47 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]Somebody PLEASE tell me Chiteng is wrong and that build
times aren't going to be "telescoped". What's the point of an
"historical simulation" game that totally ignores history?

As for the Shinano, the player has no choice to lay her down.
Construction started in 1940 (before the war). She would have
completed as a BB sometime in 1945 (if not delayed by produc-
tion shortages). Conversion of the hull to a carrier configuration
simplified construction and she was do to complete in 1944---
Archerfish got her on the way to being "fitted out". Giving the
player a choice to make the conversion SHOULD be in the game.

But for any MEANINGFUL changes in wartime construction, the
game WILL have to include a "pre-war" construction period---
maybe as an option for those designing scenarios. [/B][/QUOTE]

It was a suggestion. That type of simplification is used by MANY
simulations.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 11

Pre War - 6/10/2003 12:51:16 AM

mogami

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

Hi, A possible method could be to convert all ships under construction on Dec 7 into "Ship build points" The player on turn 1 spends these points (up to the limits of his yard capacity)
This would result in personalized construction without bending reality too much. After turn 1 as ships finish and more construction points are produced he can control his ship production. But I think what is going to occur in game is the historical ships are laid down historically with the player able to speed up some by delaying others (or keeping hands off and allowing normal arrival. This type system is required for the AI)

Before starting a long game it will be possible for both players to modify the scenario. This will take some time. (Say a week for each player) but should meet most persons desire to tweak their fleets before beginning.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 12

- 6/10/2003 5:50:34 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Naw. Shipyards can't just stop building DDs and instead build a BB or a CV. If the ways for a big hull aren't there, the BB can't be built there. If the ways for small hulls aren't there, no small hulls may be built there.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 13

- 6/10/2003 7:09:32 AM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

""Production "lead times" being what they were (if the Japanese
laid down a New BB in December of 1941, at their normal rate of
production it wouldn't be finished until the war was over)---many
"production choices" should be "no brainers". Simply BUILD WHAT
YOU WILL RECIEVE IN TIME TO BE OF USE! The real question in
a historical situation will be, can the player convert "TYPE' con-
struction from one type to another. Can you cut back on "Oscars"
and "Sallys" and have the aircraft lines build more "Zekes" and
"Betties"? Increasing overall production levels will (and should)
be a long-term process---will it be possible to divert "current
effort" into more rewarding products?""

Being a supporter of being able to take control of production, I completely agree with you about the aircraft lines. Because, what's the harm in being able to control production? But If you are all for historical accuracy, all you have to do is follow the historically accurate production schedule, and not change any production schedules, and voila! There is your historical production.

For example, as the Japanese, I would like the option of cutting or completely stopping the Oscar production and increasing production of the zero, or use the freed up production points to speed up production of a better plane. Ie, Ki-84, A7M2, P1Y,etc..... or maybe use the production points on R&D, such as radar, new ship classes, AA&Naval guns, etc? But of course for those looking for complete historical accuracy, they would simply have to take the historical moves that the Japanese/Americans made during that time period. (Not tampering with default production when given chance to change)

Just by doing this, the historical crowd and the what-if crowd could perhaps agree on the production system?

Just my 2C

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 14

- 6/10/2003 7:34:18 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flying fortress
[B]""Production "lead times" being what they were (if the Japanese
laid down a New BB in December of 1941, at their normal rate of
production it wouldn't be finished until the war was over)---many
"production choices" should be "no brainers". Simply BUILD WHAT
YOU WILL RECIEVE IN TIME TO BE OF USE! The real question in
a historical situation will be, can the player convert "TYPE' con-
struction from one type to another. Can you cut back on "Oscars"
and "Sallys" and have the aircraft lines build more "Zekes" and
"Betties"? Increasing overall production levels will (and should)
be a long-term process---will it be possible to divert "current
effort" into more rewarding products?""

Being a supporter of being able to take control of production, I completely agree with you about the aircraft lines. Because, what's the harm in being able to control production? But If you are all for historical accuracy, all you have to do is follow the historically accurate production schedule, and not change any production schedules, and voila! There is your historical production.

For example, as the Japanese, I would like the option of cutting or completely stopping the Oscar production and increasing production of the zero, or use the freed up production points to speed up production of a better plane. Ie, Ki-84, A7M2, P1Y,etc..... or maybe use the production points on R&D, such as radar, new ship classes, AA&Naval guns, etc? But of course for those looking for complete historical accuracy, they would simply have to take the historical moves that the Japanese/Americans made during that time period. (Not tampering with default production when given chance to change)

Just by doing this, the historical crowd and the what-if crowd could perhaps agree on the production system?

Just my 2C [/B][/QUOTE]

The problem is that no one is able to 'KNOW' what the historiocal production WAS. It is all guess work. A good example is electircal
generators. How many did the USA make? Where do you get that info. What was the attrition rate? What kind of generator are we talking about?

That is just ONE example. How about, How much Tungsten ore
was mined per month during the war? How about Iron, how about copper.

Plus, if you give the player control of production, you just stepped off the 'wildly speculative' cliff. I can tell you there is at least one poster that wont like that.

I myself would like to see at least the BoB system implemented
and in addition the options of various types of ships. Including of course REAL options, like alternative BB.

But if the game is going to merely port UV to a bigger format,
then production should be limited to Japan only.
Because if you allow the US the magic bullet of the UV B-17
then they will make them. In fact they will make them in preference to any other plane. Except fighters of course.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 15

- 6/10/2003 7:38:24 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

We may not have figures for ore production (or do we?) during the war, but we do know with absolute certainty what divisions, ships and air units were created. By abstracting the production of natural resources somewhat, we can create a workable game.

As far as the "wildly speculative cliff", isn't it possible to put some sort of control on PBEM games - such as the warning in UV when someone's altered the file? In this way if someone wants to produce thousands of B-17s or Nothing but BBs against the AI to see what happens, they can, but PBEM is still safe.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 16

- 6/10/2003 7:51:15 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]We may not have figures for ore production (or do we?) during the war, but we do know with absolute certainty what divisions, ships and air units were created. By abstracting the production of natural resources somewhat, we can create a workable game.

As far as the "wildly speculative cliff", isn't it possible to put some sort of control on PBEM games - such as the warning in UV when someone's altered the file? In this way if someone wants to produce thousands of B-17s or Nothing but BBs against the AI to see what happens, they can, but PBEM is still safe. [/B][/QUOTE]

There is a difference between outright cheating, and simply modifyng production to get what you want.

The system Matrix is using with UV works against 'casual' cheaters, but has no defense against a dynamic editor.
Because the encryption is in the save files NOT the executing program. Therefore anyone with a dynamic editor can cheat freely.
However only programmers normally use dynamic editors, so why worry?

I am more concerned with simply dumping the medium bombers
and going soley to heavy production. Since the B-17 in UV
can do EVERYTHING except occupy land, you dont need anything else.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 17

- 6/10/2003 8:03:02 AM

Flying fortress

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline

True, we should not be able to manipulate things to a point where we end up with F-15E Strike Eagles in 46, but we should still be able to manipulate things to a certain point, as long as the IC (industrial Capacity) allows it. That's what I'm aiming at, not a out of control game everyone fears, but a game that allows flexibility for it's players instead of being tied down to pre-set conditions and production standards. The HOI R&D is kind of a thing I'm aiming at? But not like some unrealistic game. Ideas?

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 18

Production - 6/10/2003 8:34:25 AM

mogami

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flying fortress
[B]""Production "lead times" being what they were (if the Japanese
laid down a New BB in December of 1941, at their normal rate of
production it wouldn't be finished until the war was over)---many
"production choices" should be "no brainers". Simply BUILD WHAT
YOU WILL RECIEVE IN TIME TO BE OF USE! The real question in
a historical situation will be, can the player convert "TYPE' con-
struction from one type to another. Can you cut back on "Oscars"
and "Sallys" and have the aircraft lines build more "Zekes" and
"Betties"? Increasing overall production levels will (and should)
be a long-term process---will it be possible to divert "current
effort" into more rewarding products?""

Being a supporter of being able to take control of production, I completely agree with you about the aircraft lines. Because, what's the harm in being able to control production? But If you are all for historical accuracy, all you have to do is follow the historically accurate production schedule, and not change any production schedules, and voila! There is your historical production.

For example, as the Japanese, I would like the option of cutting or completely stopping the Oscar production and increasing production of the zero, or use the freed up production points to speed up production of a better plane. Ie, Ki-84, A7M2, P1Y,etc..... or maybe use the production points on R&D, such as radar, new ship classes, AA&Naval guns, etc? But of course for those looking for complete historical accuracy, they would simply have to take the historical moves that the Japanese/Americans made during that time period. (Not tampering with default production when given chance to change)

Just by doing this, the historical crowd and the what-if crowd could perhaps agree on the production system?

Just my 2C [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Now I think you will be alble to alter aircraft production a bit.
(Like other GG games.) But if you cut out production of the Oscar and go to the Zero your going to have a lot of Zeros sitting around and a lot of IJA airgroups without planes.
IJN flys IJN planes IJA flys IJA planes USAAF flys USAAF planes USN and USMC fly their own planes and on down the line.
The Japanese have to build Oscars because that is what the Army flys. (Of course I would stop building them as soon as the first better IJA aircraft is available.) But both sides will build a lot of what they don't really want because it is all they have.
(Often a few crappy planes are better then no planes)(and then sometimes a few good planes are better then a lot of crappy planes)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 19

GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/10/2003 8:56:37 AM

Mike Scholl

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

CHITENG. When he finds a "hobby horse" he likes, he rides
that sucker totally into the ground. But even if he's right about
his B-17's..., he's wrong! He shouldn't build B-17's, but B-24's.
Longer range, better bomb laod, and also very heavy defensive
armament. Historically, the US realized this, which is why more
than twice as many B-24's as B-17's were built.

What he really needs to complain about is the historical rep-
resentation of the "heavies" in the game. They weren't nearly
as good as the Mediums in anti-shipping, ground support,
attacking airfields, and the like. What they could do is go a
long way and hit large targets with heavy loads. And the real
large targets for which they were designed (Cities and major
Industrial complexes) were few and far between until the B-29
brought Jaqpan itself in range. He needs to complain about the
unrealistic use that the game makes them capable of.

To paraphrase what a critic of mine once said, "It was implicit
in my suggestion of building the best aircraft types available at
any time that the IJA and the IJN would come to an understand-
ing which would give Army pilots access to the Zero rather than
the pitifully armed Oscar until something better came down the
line. The Navy has to have something to fly off of carriers, so
their choices are somewhat more restrictive. But Nakajima could
have built Zeros under licence for the army instead of Oscars.
Mostly I was looking for something that might improve Japanese
chances early in the war when things were still relatively even.

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 20

Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/10/2003 9:09:06 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]CHITENG. When he finds a "hobby horse" he likes, he rides
that sucker totally into the ground. But even if he's right about
his B-17's..., he's wrong! He shouldn't build B-17's, but B-24's.
Longer range, better bomb laod, and also very heavy defensive
armament. Historically, the US realized this, which is why more
than twice as many B-24's as B-17's were built.

What he really needs to complain about is the historical rep-
resentation of the "heavies" in the game. They weren't nearly
as good as the Mediums in anti-shipping, ground support,
attacking airfields, and the like. What they could do is go a
long way and hit large targets with heavy loads. And the real
large targets for which they were designed (Cities and major
Industrial complexes) were few and far between until the B-29
brought Jaqpan itself in range. He needs to complain about the
unrealistic use that the game makes them capable of.

To paraphrase what a critic of mine once said, "It was implicit
in my suggestion of building the best aircraft types available at
any time that the IJA and the IJN would come to an understand-
ing which would give Army pilots access to the Zero rather than
the pitifully armed Oscar until something better came down the
line. The Navy has to have something to fly off of carriers, so
their choices are somewhat more restrictive. But Nakajima could
have built Zeros under licence for the army instead of Oscars.
Mostly I was looking for something that might improve Japanese
chances early in the war when things were still relatively even. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have attacked the B-17 modeling. But you see, too many
B-17 promoters exist, they drown out the dissent.
The fact is that the B-17 is the lazy mans answer. You dont need
to work for victory. The UV B-17 will simply hand it to you.

I am well aware that the B-24 was a better plane, BUT in UV it
CAN be shot down. So no one uses it like they use the B-17.

The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. It wasnt used the
way UV allows it to be used.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 21

- 6/10/2003 11:17:18 AM

Aussie

Posts: 122
Joined: 10/3/2002
From: Darwin, Australia
Status: offline

[I]CHITENG. When he finds a "hobby horse" he likes, he rides
that sucker totally into the ground. [/I]

And continues to flog it after that...

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 22

Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/10/2003 5:36:18 PM

Mike Scholl

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]I have attacked the B-17 modeling. But you see, too many
B-17 promoters exist, they drown out the dissent.
The fact is that the B-17 is the lazy mans answer. You dont need
to work for victory. The UV B-17 will simply hand it to you.

I am well aware that the B-24 was a better plane, BUT in UV it
CAN be shot down. So no one uses it like they use the B-17.

The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. It wasnt used the
way UV allows it to be used. [/B][/QUOTE]

My second paragraph backs your case totally. A-historic use
of the Heavies is a real threat to rational play in both UV and
WITP---AND MATRIX NEEDS TO DO SOME SERIOUS WORK ON IT
OR BOTH GAMES WILL BE TOTAL FAILURES!.

My first paragraph was a plea for you to stop wringing your
hands and whining about it (which is doing our case NO good
whatsoever) and go back to offering serious discussion and
researched commentary to disprove the lazy morons who want
to ignore history and reality in favor of making a joke out of any
serious game. One of the main reasons I proposed putting air-
craft altitudes in the hands of base commanders in another thread
was to give Matrix a way to dump this nonsense. Our case needs
serious support, not just a bunch of "sour grapes".

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 23

Re: Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/10/2003 8:08:40 PM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]My second paragraph backs your case totally. A-historic use
of the Heavies is a real threat to rational play in both UV and
WITP---AND MATRIX NEEDS TO DO SOME SERIOUS WORK ON IT
OR BOTH GAMES WILL BE TOTAL FAILURES!.

My first paragraph was a plea for you to stop wringing your
hands and whining about it (which is doing our case NO good
whatsoever) and go back to offering serious discussion and
researched commentary to disprove the lazy morons who want
to ignore history and reality in favor of making a joke out of any
serious game. One of the main reasons I proposed putting air-
craft altitudes in the hands of base commanders in another thread
was to give Matrix a way to dump this nonsense. Our case needs
serious support, not just a bunch of "sour grapes". [/B][/QUOTE]

Well you know....I think Gary has written ALOT of games,
I own most of them. I think he knows REAL critique from hype.
I will even go out on a limb and assume he reads this board
and these threads. Since I have played his games I know he is a
REAL wargamer. That means, he knows the impact of his design.

Now call me an optimist, but I think that my complaints about the B-17 modeling DO have an impact, in fact the extreme reaction
from the B-17 promoters confirms that THEY think it has an impact also.

I could of course be totally wrong, and the end product may indeed suck. But at least I tried =)

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 24

Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/10/2003 9:13:13 PM

Raverdave

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]

The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. It wasnt used the
way UV allows it to be used. [/B][/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: Here we go AGAIN:rolleyes: And what about the way IJN players "use" their CVs with 9 and even 11 CVs in one TF?

Is THAT historical??? Should we ban that as well?????

Your dis-like of the current modelling of the B-17 is well documented......everyone here knows where you stand. Now can we stop rail-roading good discussions and move back to the topic? [I]Please?[/I]

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 25

- 6/10/2003 10:37:45 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

That's right, Raverdave. The funny thing is that although the B17s weren't generally used this way, there's all this carping about the fact that people in UV may use them in this manner from the same folks who want IJN CV flotillas with hundreds of a/c on CAP, and who want pinpoint accuracy with bunker-busters dropped from pattern-bombing Kates. Frankly, had B17s routinely bombed from 6000 feet, they might well have turned into the ship killers that they were originally advertised to be.

IMO, there should be NO production options. All players get what the factories provide.

On an unrelated note, a previous post said that Army pilots can only fly army planes and so forth. May we assume that the production or distribution mechanism will give the Army the navy planes that it flew (like the A24 -- "SBD" by another name), the PB4Y, the naval operated B25s (I forget, for the moment, their USN designation) and so forth?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 26

Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/11/2003 1:16:54 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B] To paraphrase what a critic of mine once said, "It was implicit
in my suggestion of building the best aircraft types available at
any time that the IJA and the IJN would come to an understand-
ing which would give Army pilots access to the Zero rather than
the pitifully armed Oscar until something better came down the
line. The Navy has to have something to fly off of carriers, so
their choices are somewhat more restrictive. But Nakajima could
have built Zeros under licence for the army instead of Oscars.
Mostly I was looking for something that might improve Japanese
chances early in the war when things were still relatively even. [/B][/QUOTE]

The only snag with assumptions like that is you totally ignore the reality of Japanese procurement and interservice rivalry. IIRC, the IJN and IJA didn't only have completely separate specification and procurement teams and policies, they tended to keep suppliers more or less tied to one service (Mitsubishi, IJN, Nakajima IJA for example). If you change this, or allow it to be ignored, you ignore one of the key constraints in the Japanese war capabilty. IMHO it is in the same league as allowing formation on the USAF in 1940 - just wasn't going to happen. If you ignore these issues, might as well allow Japan to be democracy, and not be prone to hopeless last stands! (I.E. it isn't then Japan!)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 27

- 6/11/2003 3:21:25 AM

Bulldog61

Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/23/2000
From: Aurora,CO
Status: offline

I'm still waiting for someone to mention the the Japanesse should be allowed to produce Tiger and Panther Tanks. I mean it was possible.

_____________________________

You can run but you'll die tired!

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 28

Re: Re: Re: GOTTA HAND IT TO.... - 6/11/2003 3:56:17 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raverdave
[B]:rolleyes: Here we go AGAIN:rolleyes: And what about the way IJN players "use" their CVs with 9 and even 11 CVs in one TF?

Is THAT historical??? Should we ban that as well?????

Your dis-like of the current modelling of the B-17 is well documented......everyone here knows where you stand. Now can we stop rail-roading good discussions and move back to the topic? [I]Please?[/I] [/B][/QUOTE]

Jap CV can be destroyed. B-17 cant be shot down unless you are REAL lucky.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 29

- 6/11/2003 3:57:20 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mdiehl
[B]That's right, Raverdave. The funny thing is that although the B17s weren't generally used this way, there's all this carping about the fact that people in UV may use them in this manner from the same folks who want IJN CV flotillas with hundreds of a/c on CAP, and who want pinpoint accuracy with bunker-busters dropped from pattern-bombing Kates. Frankly, had B17s routinely bombed from 6000 feet, they might well have turned into the ship killers that they were originally advertised to be.

IMO, there should be NO production options. All players get what the factories provide.

On an unrelated note, a previous post said that Army pilots can only fly army planes and so forth. May we assume that the production or distribution mechanism will give the Army the navy planes that it flew (like the A24 -- "SBD" by another name), the PB4Y, the naval operated B25s (I forget, for the moment, their USN designation) and so forth? [/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds like Mdeihl doesnt want a game with production.
I am not surprised =)

_____________________________

(in reply to Flying fortress)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

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