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: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

 
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: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 3:28:52 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Slaghtermeyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
How many accounts do you have slaughter? This is like the fourth one I've seen....

I have quite a few, they've all been banned because Matrix does not like the political leanings of my avatar and profile. If Matrix had an even-handed policy of banning all political content I would understand, but I think it's unfair to target specific politics for banning while allowing other politics (such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile). Fortunately I have access to variable IP so I can unban myself whenever I want

This is not a publicly-owned forum..Membership is required to enter,(and stay), and admitting you have been banned several times is NOT a good thing..
You have been told you are not welcome.
For whatever reason, you are not welcome.
This is what "banning" means.
You were required to read the rules of the forum before you joined, and promised to abide by them.
You have failed, (by your own admission.)
This seems to show a lack of integrity and honor on your part, (along with any other faults you may have.)

We have done well without your participation.
Go in peace.............


______________________________



< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/18/2005 3:29:03 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to Slaghtermeyer)
Post #: 31
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:09:21 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Its not over the whole war Andrew its really the first 10 months thats important.

As I said I have not yet started my 1st PBEM so I may be exaggerating until I test it I wont know.

In addition I suspect that if Japanese production (not the upgrade path ....production) was fixed then it wouldnt be an issue as both sides would be hamstrung. (But that would be borinjg and frustrating for Japanese side)

As I said I am not disputing the historical accuracy of allied plane allocation to Pacific I think you have all done a great job !!!

It is the ability of the Japanese to increase production and research in the game which ensure's they have reserve airframes where the allies won't have that may cause a one sided battle.

Or where the allies do have the frames (surplus Hurricanes/ Kittyhawks/ F4F's and P39D's) they cannot allocate them to in action fighter sqns because even under PDU's they dont have that level of flexibility.

I cannot do that calculation from my office as I dont have WITP but I will have a look tonight but off of the top of my head.

10 Lancers
10 P38F's
40 P40's
2 P40B's
50 Hurricane IIb's
30 Hurribombers
50 P39D's
40 Wiraways
40 Kittyhawks
70 F4F's

per month plenty of individual airframes but the really competative aircraft cannot be deployed in numbers which is fine but for the USAAF even the uncompetative ones cannot deploy forward as 24 are required to upgrade a sqn. i.e. to upgrade an at start sqn to Lancers or P38F's will take 3 or 4 months because of the need to to wait for 24 frames before you can upgrade or downgrade !!!

a. I personally think the answer would have been quite simple give some even 1 for each type RAAF Fighter (wiraway or other) Sqns the option to upgrade to P400's or Hurricanes or even Kittyhawks to use those pools and give flexibility.

b. Have an at start pool of say 24 or 48 P36, P26 and P36A (to allow USAAF Gps to switch out and upgrade west coast or other sqns to allow some flexibility in USAAF pool forming)

i.e. sqns working up on the West Coast handing over Warhawks for older frames to allow PH Sqns to be brought up to strength.

Giving the USAAF 72 - 144 more obselete replacement aircraft will not hurt balance but may give the allies the flexibility to cope with some Japanese production issues.

i.e. to allow the allies to consolidate the good types into two or three competative squadrons

The really big niggle is over the P38G down from 80 a month to 45 but I suspect from everything I have read that you have that one bang on and the allies will just need to wait that little bit longer to be competative out to range 9 ;P

Anyway I have not played the game yet and I like the variety it will bring to Air to Air I just would like some flexibility to actually use those types i have in my inventory.

(I am not advocating changing F4F at all despite the extreme annoyance of my stock games when I have zero P40's or P38's and over 400 F4F's in pool!!!!!!)

As I said I will wait and see !!!

Andy

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 32
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:11:20 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Matrix does not like the political leanings of my avatar and profile


Just for the record - neither do I. This is a gaming forum, keep the propaganda out please.


(in reply to Slaghtermeyer)
Post #: 33
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:13:58 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

Take away more airpower from the Allies only, and you end up with a game where PBEM will be less interesting than playing the AI.


Does anyone have the time (which I currently lack), and the interest, to make an actual analysis of the numbers of Allied aircraft produced in CHS compared to the official scenario 15, and the actual numbers of aircraft sent to the theatre during the war?


I am working on trying to figure out the numbers of P-38 a/c sent to the WITP theaters. It is time consuming, expensive (although my library of WW2 books is getting bigger), and somewhat frustrating as so far, i have not found a way to get at the numbers except by inference.

For instance: what IS the WITP sphere - is it just CIB/PTO/Aleutians? What about West Coast? What about Panama? Lots of units were stationed on the West Coast for the first 7 months of the war that were never included in the game (i.e. - just about every P-38 unit in existance was rushed to the West Coast after Dec 7, not to mention large number of bombers and other types of fighters.)

So, do you include those units in the game? Most of them **eventually** went to Europe. The only way i can see to model this is to have some sort of withdrawal system - but the coding doesn't support that.

The whole thing is fascinating and frustrating at the same time. By looking into this stuff, i can see how the whole game design process is making decisions that are going to have someone ranting and raving later on.

BTW - from my preliminary data, cutting P-38s production by half seems excessive, but i have no final numbers yet.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 34
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:16:20 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile


Please tell me you're joking.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/18/2005 4:17:04 PM >


_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Slaghtermeyer)
Post #: 35
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:28:33 PM   
EUBanana


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile


Please tell me you're joking.


Hey, I'm famous!

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 36
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:30:01 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Well, this has been an interesting thread. After all those rants about having favored the allies and screwed the Japanese it's very refreshing to see some allied teeth-gnashing. If everybody thinks their side got hurt, I'd say we did a very good job.

I'd also like to point out that there are a number of modified scenarios out there with different viewpoints and emphasis. Everyone can pick the one that suits them best.







Don !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There never was any merit to the claims of "allied fanboy bias"...It was just a couple of fellas who wanted more Japanese options and did not not know how to ask for them without blatantly asking for a "sci-fi" button.............
The CHS folks have done wonderful historic research...................
I check using Janes,, Ian Allen, etc..................
(BTW, you fellas did include a huge amount of stuff for both sides as requested on these threads, and I know you tried to appeease all, (except for my C54's !!)(LMAO).....



P.S. I am also a huge fan I love the new India command and all the OOB stuff done there and I really love the Prince Robert (I just finished the 1st half of the offical RCN History so to see that Armed Merchant Cruiser in the OOB made my day not to mention all the Flower class Corvettes !!!!)

Andy

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 37
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:35:31 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile


Please tell me you're joking.


Hey, I'm famous!


Infamous?


_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 38
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:43:18 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile


Please tell me you're joking.


Hey, I'm famous!


Infamous?



If starving, he would be "INFAMINE" ??


_____________________________




(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 39
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:49:04 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

The idea behind CHS it to try to make the OOBs and TO&Es accurate. It is true that most of the effort so far in CHS has been directed at the Allies, but I think that is because that is where the interest (and expertise) of the contributors tends to lie.


Starting on Turn 1 whatever accuracy the Japanese OOB possesses goes out the window though simply through the Japanese ability to juggle production and advance the development of more advanced a/c. Wasteful production such as SHINANO or obsolete a/c can be cancelled without the slightest repercussion. Yet IRL it wasn't.
Though I am not knowledgeable enough to cite specific references, IMHO it was the ZAIBATSU (think that's the word): heads of the industrial conglomerates in Japan that manipulated the economic efforts of Imperial Japan. Their well being, rather than military efficiency, was their principal concern. Japan was a still a somewhat feudal society. The military (Samurai) derived their support from the various feudal lords who happened to be the leaders of industry. And thus so and so's shipyard got to build 'the supercarrier' that ate up enough steel and other resources to build 5 carriers, so and so's factory kept churning out Nates long after the plane was totally obsolete.
Without realistic limits on the Japanese Player's strategic options CHS is unlikely to provide anything other than another version of "FANTASY GENERAL".

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 40
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 4:57:02 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

Without realistic limits on the Japanese Player's strategic options CHS is unlikely to provide anything other than another version of "FANTASY GENERAL".


Well, the first thing to do is make sure you have user defined upgrades turned off.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 41
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:02:23 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

P.S. I am also a huge fan I love the new India command and all the OOB stuff done there and I really love the Prince Robert (I just finished the 1st half of the offical RCN History so to see that Armed Merchant Cruiser in the OOB made my day not to mention all the Flower class Corvettes !!!!)

Andy



Found a line drawing for the Prince class at: Warships of the World (there are many others too!).

Perhaps one of the talented artists on the forum could work on a bmp...








Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 42
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:34:00 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

The idea behind CHS it to try to make the OOBs and TO&Es accurate. It is true that most of the effort so far in CHS has been directed at the Allies, but I think that is because that is where the interest (and expertise) of the contributors tends to lie.

If this has created imbalances in CHS, then they should be addressed, but I think that any changes should be based on research and play(test) results, rather than anecdote alone.


I think trying to get the OOBs as historically accurate as possible is an excellent first step.

Unfortunately, it is going to create game play imbalance due to the nature of the game as the game by design deprives the Allies of two of their biggest weapons: MAGIC decrypts and (many) of the other technological advantages.

Yes, the Allies do get better SIGINT than the Japanese, but it is the far cry from the kind of stuff they actually had in the war (i.e. - when's the last time YOU got the OOB and arrival time of the IJN invasion fleet coming after a major objective, AND what the objective was?? At best you might get that unit X is planning for Y, which is easily spoofed by a canny Japanese player.) Another big ommission is aircraft radar (Swordfish, B-24s) that allowed rather devastating night attacks. There were also ALL KINDS of radar not modelled in the game.

Also, the oversupply EVERYWHERE tends to favor the Japanese. As i have mentioned previously, the IJN couldn't have its BBs running around doing bombardments at the drop of the hat because (a) they didn't have the fuel, and (b) they didn't have the ammo. I think CHO attempts to limit supply more than the standard game, but if they did it to actual historical levels, no one would want to play the game!!

I am NOT saying that this should be stopped because of these issues, but i am saying that the changes will probably give the Japanese some advantages over the Allies in the game that they did not possess in real life. However, this will increase the chances of the Japanese players to win, which, if accurately modelled, are otherwise close to zip.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 43
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:40:00 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile


Please tell me you're joking.


Hey, I'm famous!


Infamous?



If starving, he would be "INFAMINE" ??



I'd say close to death

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 44
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:42:55 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
AB is asking for playtesting results. I'll give you mine, but we'll see if my data is ok to use.

I play as allies vs AI. However, I mod the AI's stuff for a better play. That means that I add engines to the Japanese AI pool. I also slightly increase the production of certain types of AI planes. Japanese carrier bombers and Betties were increased significantly. And, I think I increased the Zero production by about 50. I also increase Japanese pilot replacements to 60 and 30 (army and navy, respectively).

I do this because in the stock games I've played, the AI breaks itself by about March 42.

Anyway, I have tried to play with Tom Hunter's method of air war. I put every allied fighter type into action. There aren't many US navy land based fighter groups, but I got what I had into action, so I could draw on the F4F pool. I put Wirraways into the fight. I got as many P-39's in there as well (they have the best allied USAAF replacement rates).

The AI had me very hard pressed up until the Brits started getting the newer Hurricane and the USAAF started getting the P-38G. Most of my groups were less than 50% full of planes. The P-39's would fall from the sky like leaves in the wind. Only the P40E, F4F and the Spitfires could actually get a 1-1 kill ratio. All other planes got creamed. However, the replacements of the P40E and Spitfires couldn't keep up with the losses. (100 zero's vs 25 P40E's would result in a month of rebuilding on my part, but it never lets up)

So, Here's my analysis. I have had a very fun game vs the AI. My air groups were getting to the full point by early 43. Once you get to the first production of the P-47, you can generally replace your losses across the board. (and, the AI has trashed it's front line units). It wasn't a cake walk for me, and by no means is the AI dead. It is producing better zeros, and they now do well vs anything except maybe the Corsair. In fact, I'm worried about what happens when the 3rd generation zeros come online. I bet they eat the Corsair, but can't confirm that yet.

Yes, I increased production. Yes, I increased Pilot replacements by double. But, I was playing the AI. It doesn't train it's pilots. When I got lucky and got a lot of kills, the AI would send the green replacements into battle the next day and I'd kill a bunch more. Eventually ,the AI will break it's skull vs your airpower. But, I have been thinking through my entire game that I would not be able to do much to stop Japanese air power if I were playing against a human. The AI only needed to rotate it's groups (it has a lot in backwater bases with 80+exp pilots.)

I really have a gut feeling that the Japanese planes perform better than the stock scenario. I also feel that there are just way too many replacements (take that with a grain of salt, as I increased production in my game) for Japanese planes.

I also feel that my example isn't a good enough to do anything with. You really need two players to play each other and switch sides and play again. Or have two players that have played each other a lot in the past and see what they determine.

bc

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 45
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:47:56 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
Just a simple thought,

if one would include certain US (air) units stationed at the WC, one could simply add an asteriks (*) to their unit designation in the database. Would be a simple houserule: Allied player may never convert them to other (unrestricted) commands. One could then add some additional plane production for them that represents the plane production for these groups. When playing without PDU, these units would simply remain where they start (at the WC). When playing with PDU, the Allied player could chose to convert them to the plane-type he wants (and whatever it deems necessary to him for WC defense). This would give the Allied player a certain flexibility with his "plane-management" and allow him to counter developments coming with the Japanese ability to tweak his production according to his needs - and it would still not be too far from history, the WC air units would never appear in the PTO.

K

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 46
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:57:38 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win.


Well there is winning, and there is winning. Could the Japs win the war? I dont think there is anyone then or now that belives that. Could you do better than the Japs did historically? Sure. Thats what I judge "winning" by. If you hold out past 15 Aug 45, you win.


EXACTLY! Somebody who "gets it". In a straight up "Historical" scenario, the Japanese goal is to either hold out longer, inflict more casualties, or in some way "do better" than their historical predacessors---which given that they are probably not saddled with the historical "fight" between the IJN and the IJA should be a reasonable possibility. Only in a "fantasy" scenario should the kind of results often reported in this forum be possible. There is nothing wrong with "fantasy"---but both players should be able to chose it and not have it as the only option.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 47
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 5:59:00 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Just a simple thought,

if one would include certain US (air) units stationed at the WC, one could simply add an asteriks (*) to their unit designation in the database. Would be a simple houserule: Allied player may never convert them to other (unrestricted) commands. One could then add some additional plane production for them that represents the plane production for these groups. When playing without PDU, these units would simply remain where they start (at the WC). When playing with PDU, the Allied player could chose to convert them to the plane-type he wants (and whatever it deems necessary to him for WC defense). This would give the Allied player a certain flexibility with his "plane-management" and allow him to counter developments coming with the Japanese ability to tweak his production according to his needs - and it would still not be too far from history, the WC air units would never appear in the PTO.

K



This is fine for PBEM, not so great for AI games (if you are playing as Japan) if you did some tweaking of units. MOST (but not all) of the P-38 FGs moved away after a few months, so you would have to get some compromise in adjusting units to get the averages right.

This would have the effect of making any attack on the West Coast A LOT more problematic for the Japanese, especially if you did similar things for other (non-P-38) units.

I was trying to think of some way to put something non-movable into the unit (like a giant anchor) that would prevent a player from moving the West Coast Units around, but i don't think you can do that with air units (just LCUs).

Of course, if we were playing the ENTIRE war (all ETOs and all PTOs) this wouldn't be a problem!!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 48
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 6:02:18 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I think the simple solution is to not play with player-defined upgrades. That will help balance things out in 1943+, as half the Japanese Army air force is stuck in Oscar 2s.


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 49
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 6:03:09 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
I don't think fiddling with the Allied side is the answer to this. Keep it is historical as possible.

The problem is with the super-enhanced and overly flexible Japanese industrial machine. Here are a couple of suggestions as to how to reduce the effects:

1) Reduce all Japanese aircraft factories of size > 10 (including r&d) by 50%.
2) Reduce initial supply stockpiles in all Home Island bases by 50%.
3) Convert some Home Islands "Resources" factories to daily "auto-resource". That way supply produced will only come from HI as it should. In fact this might be considered as an option for the whole map barring the places that get invaded i.e. DEI, Malaya & PI.

There is nothing like a lack of supply to put the dampeners on over-active Japanese production optimisation. It would also have the beneficial side-effect of reducing the possibilities of "let's invade the whole map" syndrome.

Personally I would go for options 2 and 3.

The Allies should also get a lot less initial supply on the West Coast.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 50
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 6:46:42 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

Allies produced whatever they needed. If they would’ve needed 5000 more P-40E they would’ve produced 5000 more P-40Es. Same for B-17 and P-38.



Exactly. And thats the problem with any game really is it doesnt take this into effect. Same with CHS. If the fighting is heavier and the losses greater, the industrial machine that was the United States would have pumped out more to make up the losses. Look what happens when the Japs get too close to the US mainland. Reinforcements are speeded up 6 months and additional units deployed.

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 51
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 7:11:59 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

The game does far more than any of the genre, but still more must be done, right?


It actually does not do much more than GGPW did, and that which it does, it does poorly. It has an updated order of battle which is nice. It has a logistical system that is cattywumpus flat out wrong to the degree that it gives the Japanese an ease of deployment and maintenance of units in the field a couple of orders of magnitude greater than their best day. It has an aerial combat model that is complex but could be replaced by a simplistic "lose one aircraft for every twelve friendly aircraft in the engagement" and *that* would do a better job approximating combat losses. It has a whole bunch of ill-defined intangibles like "exp" and "aggressiveness" that seem to be about as well grounded as a live wire dangling in the breeze.

More must be done? Of course not. But it's a poor excuse for a simulation and as games go the 1 day / 3day turn cycle redefines the word "tedious."

quote:

What exactly would WitP (or any game, for that matter) have to do to not be poorly designed?


1. Generate ballpark correct results from combat.

2. Set the strategic challenges and options available to the players such that they more or less conform to the array of challenges and options available to the historical combatants. (That means no invasions of India, Australia, or Hawaii, much less the US west coast).

3. Within these frameworks, allow both players to do whatever they want consistent with historical precedent. "Consistent with ~" would, for example, preclude the absurd CAP %values regularly seen.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 10/18/2005 7:14:30 PM >


_____________________________

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 Andrew Brown)
Post #: 52
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 7:16:07 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This is fine for PBEM, not so great for AI games (if you are playing as Japan) if you did some tweaking of units. MOST (but not all) of the P-38 FGs moved away after a few months, so you would have to get some compromise in adjusting units to get the averages right.


Guess the AI needs all help it can get. Thus I see no problem coming with this, could even make life more challenging when playing the Japanese.

quote:

This would have the effect of making any attack on the West Coast A LOT more problematic for the Japanese, especially if you did similar things for other (non-P-38) units.


So what, any attack on the West Coast should be problematic for the Japanese. The US kept the air units in question there just because they feared a Japanese attack (and certainly reinforcements would have arrived as it is covered by the rules now).

quote:


I was trying to think of some way to put something non-movable into the unit (like a giant anchor) that would prevent a player from moving the West Coast Units around, but i don't think you can do that with air units (just LCUs).


Because of this (no useful means to put static devices into air units) I came with that "asteriks" (*) idea.

quote:


Of course, if we were playing the ENTIRE war (all ETOs and all PTOs) this wouldn't be a problem!!


Ostensibly this is just what most Grognards dream about Maybe, in the future...

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 53
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 7:26:31 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
mdiehl:
quote:

It actually does not do much more than GGPW did, and that which it does, it does poorly


You're having a laugh right?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 54
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 7:30:44 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

. Set the strategic challenges and options available to the players such that they more or less conform to the array of challenges and options available to the historical combatants. (That means no invasions of India, Australia, or Hawaii, much less the US west coast).


I think it would be a little bit of a shame if the Japanese Player didn't have a chance to try one of these things. My objection is to the fact the game allows for the Japanese Player to try all of these things at the same time. READING THE PLANS IN MOST JAPANESE PLAYER AARs IS LIKE READING ABOUT A GAME OF "AXIS AND ALLIES".

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 55
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 7:35:27 PM   
mdiehl

 

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

You're having a laugh right?


Nope.

Compare:

Japanese Invasion of India by sea: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese Complete Conquest of China: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese Invasion of Hawaii: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese Invasion of Australia: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese invasion of the US West Coast: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Reasonable for US CVs to oppose IJN CVs in 1942: GGPW - sometimes; WitP - never.
Optimization of Japanse Production: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Optimization of Allied Production: GGPW - yes; WitP - no.
Japanese hyperexpansion strategy sustained by unrealistically generous logistical model: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.

quote:

I think it would be a little bit of a shame if the Japanese Player didn't have a chance to try one of these things.


The problem is that giving them the "chance" at the root requires an assumption about the quality and quantity of Japanese logistical support (and, for that matter, available transports) that is not realistic. In the real world the problem for example vis India was thus: If the Japanese could find sufficient transports (which they did not have) to move a substantial invasion force to India by sea, where would they find sufficient container ships (which they did not have) to sustain such a force in the field by sea?

The *real* Japanese could scarcely feed their forces in Burma before the US submarine war began to attrite the Japanese merchant pool -- and that was a much shorter line of supply and much smaller force than one required to, for example, invade either India or Australia or the US West Coast. And Hawaii? Where you gonna land other than in the face of major defended positions? Just gonna send your troops ashore in surfboards down the pipeline?

quote:

My objection is to the fact the game allows for the Japanese Player to try all of these things at the same time.


My objection is that they can try ANY of these things without sacrificing any of the historical conquests.



< Message edited by mdiehl -- 10/18/2005 7:43:39 PM >


_____________________________

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 Speedysteve)
Post #: 56
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 7:59:54 PM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

If the fighting is heavier and the losses greater, the industrial machine that was the United States would have pumped out more to make up the losses.


I've heard this assumption three times now in other threads. Perhaps others have repeated it as well. But where is the support for this?

Roosevelt wisely committed the American Industrial Might to air supremacy in larger numbers and in a earlier fashion than any other world leader. He set in motion the wheels to build a huge airforce that was not only capable of assisting the army and navy in carrying out their respective designs, but could effectively fight the war on its own terms as well. No one else did that. Germany, for example, welded its airforce to the whermacht so that when it tried separate adventures, like the battle of Britain it failed.

You just don't throw a switch mid war and say, "Oh, I think we'll change our airforce production philosophy."

Of course, many think there is flexibility built into the production numbers because Germany didn't bring its economy fully on line until it found itself in a two front war. Too late. But this same flexibility, the ability to increase production drastically, isn't built into the allied designs. The US started rationing rubber, tin, fuel etc immediately. US industry was set in full motion from day one.

I don't think it is reasonable to look at what the Germany economy did in 1944 in cranking up airframe productions and impose that on the US model though certainly the US industrial complex was far large and more able to make independent changes.

I think you can argue the case for an increase in production without appealing to this notion that probably doesn't even exist, namely, the US industrial complex would have just made more aircraft to make up for losses in theater. When your losses are greater, front line generals, reduce the number of squadrons they put in theater.

Worr, out


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 57
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:10:24 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: worr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

If the fighting is heavier and the losses greater, the industrial machine that was the United States would have pumped out more to make up the losses.


I've heard this assumption three times now in other threads. Perhaps others have repeated it as well. But where is the support for this?



Well, transfers to and from the Altantic fleet occured all the time (starting with the Yorktown, most atlantic fleet capital ships were sent). B-17 was effectively withdrawn from the Pacific by mid-43 in favor of B-24s yet 8th airforce was just a fledgling in Britan. Europe was never "over-stocked" with troops (Patton had stripped his AA units for infantry replacements for example) yet divisions that were training for europe were committed to the PTO because they were needed there more. (Before you even ask how do I know, my father was in the 96th division. They trained for a year and a half for europe, and then 6 months before they landed at Leyte, they started pacific training instead).

(in reply to worr)
Post #: 58
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:12:43 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
In WitP, the 2nd-4th rate Japanese economy is given enormous flexibility. The 1st rate US economy is given none. JUST LIKE REAL

(in reply to worr)
Post #: 59
RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:18:09 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

In WitP, the 2nd-4th rate Japanese economy is given enormous flexibility. The 1st rate US economy is given none. JUST LIKE REAL


Matter of perspective. US economy was driven by politics and lets face it, the greed of the manufacturers. Jap economy WAS controlled by the military. Seems logical to me that the Jap can control his production and the allies cant.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.688