Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Works the same way as the allied player knows his Essex CV's are way better and not "floating fire bombs" with a fatal flaw.
Or that this radar is better or this DD is even better. Or that the Corsair, Hellcat are not dogs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't? Don't later model design upgrades rely at least partly on the lessons learned from earlier models?

Actually, changing aircraft group classification makes more sense than having the ability to look into the future and see which aircraft fly the best. Want more fighter groups vs. torpedo bomber groups? Fine, go ahead and make that decision. It may or may not work out depending on how the game goes.

However to say the IJA should only build one model of fighter and scrap the rest doesn't work. They have no idea which model will turn out to be the best. Even during the war, there was a lot of FOW which muddied the waters in terms of grading performance. Eventually they could figure out what was working but it took a long time.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Maybe the Hellcat does turn out to be a dog so the Allied player should produce two seperate carrier fighter lines. This does waste some resources but increases the chances of having at least one really good plane. Once both aircrafts fly some, their performances can be judged. Now you increase production of the better plane and lower the amount of the other one at the same time.

quote:


Good point. I like FOW at every level. As an example, I wanted the dev guys to randomise and mask the ratings of leaders in WITP. Only time and combat would reveal if they were any good. As it is now, players all give Spruance or Yamaguchi jobs, but Fletcher and Nagumo stay ashore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
…If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
…If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same...

So the Americans would be able to choose the mix they want based on the strategic/tactical situation at the time, instead of the mix of P-38s, P-47, and P-51s set historically. I have no problem with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaWolF K
…If you are going to let Japan only produce and field her best A/C, you have to let the Allies do the same...

So the Americans would be able to choose the mix they want based on the strategic/tactical situation at the time, instead of the mix of P-38s, P-47, and P-51s set historically. I have no problem with that.

Actually, I do: As I've said any diversion of 'higher spec' aircraft from ETO to PTO should cost Political Points. Unlike the Japanese player, the Allied player has to consider the requirements of other theatres. With that caveat, however, I can't actually see what's wrong with giving the Allied player flexibility.

Steve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

Are you suggesting that after more than two years of developing a prototype and extensive combat field testing they didn’t know what the aircraft performance was?

quote:

Nusskuchen

You have made an important point because the "free a/c upgrades = 20/20 hindsight and is an exploit" thing is true for nearly every other aspect of the game. Since some people are so desperate to keep others from having free upgrades I demand that only historic task forces can be formed with their historic leaders. After all you could exploit the system by assigning a better leader (did the RL superiours have a value of their men?) or a 20/20 hindsight composition of a Carrier TF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

Are you suggesting that after more than two years of developing a prototype and extensive combat field testing they didn’t know what the aircraft performance was?

Yes, without a doubt. The testing done doesn't always work out in battle. For example, the earlier comment made above about the Buffalo beating out the F4F in Navy testing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
So what you are saying is the aircraft production system should be changed so you can design you own planes from the ground up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude
The more I think about, the more it doesn't make sense to give either side upgradable aircraft with no limitations. How do you know beforehand which models will work out and which won't?

What? Before large scale production begins the aircraft are prototyped and then produced in modest quantities for field testing. Only once field testing is completed is large scale production started.


Prototype

The first prototype, #4401, first flew in August 1940 at Ojima Airfield, Ota. It was quickly followed by two more, #’s 4402 and 4403. Generally, the aircraft displayed satisfactory handling characteristics when airborne, but there were problems. Working furiously, Nakajima reduced the new fighter’s parasite drag. It was estimated, based on these results and on weight calculations, that production examples would reach 360 mph. The Japanese Army decided it was satisfied.

Field Testing

These seven planes, plus the second and third prototypes (which were brought up to the later standards), were sent to China for service testing late in September with an experimental squadron, the Kawasemi Butai. In May of the next year, it was redesignated the 47th Independent Squadron.

Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

So what you are saying is the aircraft production system should be changed so you can design you own planes from the ground up? This might actually make sense. For example, say you feel your current fighters are under armored. Therefore you call for a aircraft with more armor. However you aren't sure if this will slow the aircraft up too much.

Nine months later you learn that the fighter has decent maneuverability after inital test so you call for service trial planes. You put these out in the field a few months later and find they fly well but that the rudder doesn't work correctly. This problem is fixed and a few months later the update test out ok.

Now you start mass producing the plane and introducing it into units. It performs well for awhile in dog fights with enemy fighters. However after three or four months you learn maybe it isn't perfect and that it can be improved. Now you go back to the drawing board and design another improved version. This aircraft then eventually goes out to squadrons but a few months later reports are that the enemy has upgraded their guns and the armor is no longer thick enough.

This is how real aircraft development occured, not by looking at numbers in a database. The database method just allows a player to pick the best aircraft without having to go through the trial and error process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

I hope some restrictions can be found that enable us to have some flexibility. It was going to be one of the joys of the game. One of the hooks that kept you playing through the game months and game years of shuffling supplies and remembering to give objectives to your LCUs For both sides. I wanted to reward my squadren of P40s that saved PM with my first batch of Mustangs and those early P39s who braved the odds to get a few hits on the Japanese invaders with the first of my shiny new Thunderbolts. But the game consigns such sentimentality and humanity to the waste bin pretty sharpish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

Hmmm, 189 votes, let's see.

Either a) WitP sales are very disappointing, or sales are healthy but b) not many buyers frequent here, or c) only 200 or so regard this as important enough a topic to vote. As it's been made clear that bugs have the priority, gameplay/design changes aren't going to show up for a while yet. And even when they do, this is just one area that could be addressed. You could be bumping for no real reason for a long time.