RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

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 > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:20:27 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Well, transfers to and from the Altantic fleet occured all the time

Transfers from with the currt production pools within all theathers. And that was my own final point in the above post.

But the assumption I've heard is that the US industry would ramp up production in light of losses, not transfer from one theather to another. And for that matter...looses in the PTO would have not induced transfers from the ETO as the casablanca conference made it clear that air power priority was set against Germany not Japan.

Worr, out

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 61

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:22:00 PM

worr

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

I really don't think the US economy was as flexible as the Axis economies for the simple reason the US economy went to a total war footing immediately.

Worr, out

< Message edited by worr -- 10/18/2005 8:23:51 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 62

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:26:23 PM

mdiehl

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

quote:

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

Actually, you can, and the US did. In a number of ways. For one, aircraft manufacturers that were gaming the political system to the detriment of the war were put under direct US military control. Brewster being the primary example there. For another, US aircraft manufacturers in general were more willing to drop the political stuff and cooperate than were any of the Axis manufacturers. Thus, for example, there were no long harangues over proportion of profit for manufacturing rights. Because of this, the US did unique things in 1942, like convert manufacturers of unlike heavy industry products to produce new equipment. Thus you had Ford building B24s and some lighter a.c. GM producing FM2s and TBMs to take the burden off of Grumman so that Grumman could run full bore on F6Fs and develop the F8s. Typewriter companies manufacturing actions for rifles. etc etc. The US production system was both more flexible and rational.

By mid-1944 you had contracts being scaled back because the US was capable of far outproducing its needs. And that includes the lend lease export of very capable advanced aircraft like the Bell P63 (kingcobra) and the P39Q to the USSR. If the US had needed more late model P40s and P39s in the PTO they could and would have made them available with scarcely a raised eyebrow.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 10/18/2005 8:34:41 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 Yamato hugger)

Post #: 63

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:32:47 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: worr

But the assumption I've heard is that the US industry would ramp up production in light of losses, not transfer from one theather to another.

Worr, out

Ohhh. Well unless you have 2 parallel universes and look at production in 1 and then change it in the other to see how they react, that would be awful hard to "prove".

But, pushing that aside. Look at the Liberty ship as just 1 example of how they "ramp up production in light of losses". How many examples would you like?

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 64

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:40:06 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

I really don't think the US economy was as flexible as the Axis economies for the simple reason the US economy went to a total war footing immediately.

Worr, out

Hmm. I don't believe that German economy was that much more flexible. The German Industrial might did not get into full swing (wartime footing) until 42 or 43. The output of fighter aircraft, for example, was greater in '44 than the previous years, despite the full scale bombing effort by the Allies. The German economy was left at peacetime production longer for two reasons: 1) The war was assumed to be a short one, and 2) The populace needed to be appeased, in that, the regime in Germany needed to make it seem as if it was better at running this war (and the economy) than the Weimar government, and to combat any potential war worries.

In the prewar years, the bf-109 was awarded the lucrative Luftwaffe contract despite being beat by the Heinkel entry. This favoritism to Krupp, Messerschmidt, and so forth continued during the war years. The President/Chancellor might have been a tyrant, but he still needed the industrial czar's to fund and equip his war aims.

Ditto for Imperial Japan. I can make a similar assumption for Italy.

USSR is a big blank to me...

Point being, in terms of flexibility, the US was as flexible as anyone else. Maybe more so, as the US President did not have as much legal power as the German one... but that is speculative.

I have never claimed that the US would produce stuff out of thin air faster than it historically did, just because Australia or the West Coast was invaded. But I did postulate that stuff earmarked for the ETO might get diverted.

< Message edited by mlees -- 10/18/2005 8:43:06 PM >

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 65

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:43:21 PM

spence

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

(in reply to Yamato Hugger) How foolish of me to ignore greed: a uniquely American trait. There is absolutely no possibility that the heads of Mitsubishi and the other industrial consortiums in Japan were anything other than altruistic patriots whose only interest was to put the best possible weaponry in the hands of the Japanese soldier/sailor/airman. Likewise their only interest in Manchuria, China and the SRA was to bring the benificence of Japanese culture to the deprived and oppressed masses of Greater East Asia. GEEZ!!! How silly of me to infer anything so ridiculous as the idea that greed is anything other than A UNIQUELY AMERICAN TRAIT.

< Message edited by spence -- 10/18/2005 8:46:56 PM >

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 66

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:46:58 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Hmm. I don't believe that German economy was that much more flexible. The German Industrial might did not get into full swing (wartime footing) until 42 or 43. The output of fighter aircraft, for example, was greater in '44 than the previous years, despite the full scale bombing effort by the Allies.

This was my original point.

Perhaps "flexibility" is the wrong word.

All that aside, if the US economy could have produced more planes to supply more to the PTO it would have...becuase the needs were there then...and not just in our varriants to history in game.

Worr, out

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 67

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:49:05 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Ohhh. Well unless you have 2 parallel universes and look at production in 1 and then change it in the other to see how they react, that would be awful hard to "prove".

That is my point.

Production was production regardless of theater.

I thought you changed the subject to transfers which is after the fact of production.

Worr, out

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 68

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:53:24 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

(in reply to Yamato Hugger) How foolish of me to ignore greed: a uniquely American trait. There is absolutely no possibility that the heads of Mitsubishi and the other industrial consortiums in Japan were anything other than altruistic patriots whose only interest was to put the best possible weaponry in the hands of the Japanese soldier/sailor/airman. Likewise their only interest in Manchuria, China and the SRA was to bring the benificence of Japanese culture to the deprived and oppressed masses of Greater East Asia. GEEZ!!! How silly of me to infer anything so ridiculous as the idea that greed is anything other than A UNIQUELY AMERICAN TRAIT.

Well since you mentioned Mitsubishi specifially:

A6M means this:
A = attack (ie fighter)
6 = consecutive number in the design process
M = Mitsubishi

A6M used Nakajima engines rather than Mitsu engines

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 69

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:54:56 PM

Yamato hugger

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

doubled up

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/18/2005 8:57:27 PM >

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 70

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 8:55:33 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: worr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Ohhh. Well unless you have 2 parallel universes and look at production in 1 and then change it in the other to see how they react, that would be awful hard to "prove".

That is my point.

Production was production regardless of theater.

I thought you changed the subject to transfers which is after the fact of production.

Worr, out

Did you stop reading?

quote:

But, pushing that aside. Look at the Liberty ship as just 1 example of how they "ramp up production in light of losses". How many examples would you like?

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/18/2005 8:56:36 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 71

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:00:01 PM

spence

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

Just a couple of quick questions:
1)of what immediate use to the Army is a ton of iron ore?
2)a ton of aluminum ore?
3)a barrel of crude oil (forgeting the desperation 1944 IJN idea to burn it for fuel)?

The traditional role of the Samurai is to serve his lord. Who are his lords?

The traditional lords of feudal Japan became the "captains of industry" as Japan began to modernize.

Jap economy WAS controlled by the military. YEAH RIGHT!!!!

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 72

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:00:24 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Hehe. I think the word "flexible" is what some of us got hung up on...

In my mind, the most "flexible" economy is one where major changes in production lines (as in item/models produced) are possible, where the most growth is encouraged, where the private R&D teams have the funds and freedom to explore new avenues to old problems, and where the workforce (in general) is able to adapt to new tasks (and job locations) quickly.

All of these traits are definately exemplified by the US industrial war effort.

The German economy ran a close second by this definition, with Japan and China bringing up the rear.

The Russian economy, while largely unskilled and unrefined, beats out the Japanese here due to the huge manpower reserves of the USSR. With the industry in the Ukraine being devasted (by the advance of the German Army) and rebuilt east of the Urals shows a remarkable tenacity in the face of what must have been a devasting situation morale-wise.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 73

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:00:51 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

So, how is this thread helping to determine if CHS has the appropriate air industry for Japan?

I would bet that they got US production closer to history. But, the original question is whether Japan is too high, US is too low or is it just right. None of the last two pages is helping to determine if CHS is close to accurate.

bc

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 74

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:02:51 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Just a couple of quick questions:
1)of what immediate use to the Army is a ton of iron ore?
2)a ton of aluminum ore?
3)a barrel of crude oil (forgeting the desperation 1944 IJN idea to burn it for fuel)?

The traditional role of the Samurai is to serve his lord. Who are his lords?

The traditional lords of feudal Japan became the "captains of industry" as Japan began to modernize.

Jap economy WAS controlled by the military. YEAH RIGHT!!!!

Wow.

Are you under the impression that I said there was an army commander in every building in Japan? Is it your belief that the Military was not in control of the German economy during WWII also?

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 75

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:09:01 PM

rtrapasso

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

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.

Until WW2 (i.e. around 1939), most production was in the hands of small business - it was something like 75% of manufacturing. After WW2 started going, the Roosevelt admin (which was Democratic) started awarding contracts in such a way that resulted in Big Business scarfing up the contracts in such a way that reversed the situation - i.e. Big Business ended up with about 75% of manufacturing. It has slowly slipped from this number.

It is hard to see how the Roosevelt admin could have done otherwise - they just went with the big players because (a) small business could not have ramped up to do the job fast enough; and (b) it was easier to negotiate with 100 or so big companies than 10000 small ones.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 76

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:09:04 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

So, how is this thread helping to determine if CHS has the appropriate air industry for Japan?

I would bet that they got US production closer to history. But, the original question is whether Japan is too high, US is too low or is it just right. None of the last two pages is helping to determine if CHS is close to accurate.

bc

I dont play CHS personally, dont have room on my computer for 2 versions. I havent over anaylized it, but I cant think of a time from '43 onwards that the US forces were short on anything really except ground troops. Oct 42 seems to be the turning point. Guadalcanal situation was stabilized, acceptable numbers of F4Fs were stationed there, ect. Up to then things were on a shoestring. At least on the line. But most of these units were training in the rear. But I guess training is training and it doesnt matter if you do it in a F2A or a F4U.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 77

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:13:36 PM

spence

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

It is my contention that the Japanese produced such undergunned and relatively obsolete a/c as the Nate and Oscar/Oscar II because the Zaibatsu explained to the Army that it would be far too expensive and disruptive to his factories to convert over to some of the more modern designs.
The US economy stopped converting industries over to war production in late 1943. It was already demobilizing in 1945. To me that indicates a bit more flexibility than WitP allows it.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 78

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:29:14 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It is my contention that the Japanese produced such undergunned and relatively obsolete a/c as the Nate and Oscar/Oscar II because the Zaibatsu explained to the Army that it would be far too expensive and disruptive to his factories to convert over to some of the more modern designs.
The US economy stopped converting industries over to war production in late 1943. It was already demobilizing in 1945. To me that indicates a bit more flexibility than WitP allows it.

You are missing the point. Your own words: "the Zaibatsu explained to the Army".

"the Army" in this case is the player. The allied player in the game doesnt play Roosevelt. The allied player in the game doesnt make the decision to send the 1st infantry division to Europe. The allied player can look at his stockpile of P-39's and P-40's and decide which squadron gets what (as his real life counterpart can). If you cant decide if you get to use the 2nd armored division in the PTO, why would you think you get to control something like aircraft production?

On the other side of the coin, the Jap military did make production decisions every day. What ships are going to be built, what aircraft, what tanks. They decided all of that.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 79

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:29:15 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Did you stop reading?

Well, I kind of asked you that question first.

My last line in the post you responded to said the same thing you said...so not sure why the change form production to the issue of transfers.

I still find the following a bit of a stretch:

"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."

Anything of is possible, of course...but the above is speculative in nature and doesn't take into consideration that the allied production course was planned out far better than the axis plan. The reasons for less deviation is because they got it right the first time. You change you game plan when you start loosing.

This is not to say there were no changes...but just not as many changes. Germany, for example, was all over the map on aircraft production designs. Left hand need to talk to the right hand. I'm sure the Imperial forces had the same problem, though I'm not as familiar with their hisotires.

Worr, out

< Message edited by worr -- 10/18/2005 9:30:06 PM >

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 80

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:32:59 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The allied player in the game doesnt play Roosevelt.

But we are talking about game design, namely the number of aircraft that would be produced and that was Roosevelt's decision. A great book that really gets inside this discussion is Walter J. Boyne's "Clash of Wings." I'll find the pertinent text and post it up later.

Worr, out

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 81

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:34:13 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
To me that indicates a bit more flexibility than WitP allows it.

Does it have any production flexibility?

I wish we could make some trade offs in the US economy in the game.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 82

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:35:42 PM

Yamato hugger

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

The point is worr, they did step up production to make up losses. As I said, the liberty ship is just 1 example of it. The aircraft industry wasnt very large at start, and it continued to grow all along. But, if they had needed more, they would have built more. There is an army ammunition plant in Rosemount MN that was only about 20% complete. They stopped builting it in 1944 (as someone just said, they were already winding down). Had they needed that plant, it surely would have been built, rushed into production if necessary.

And therein lies the problem with CHS. It only looks at production based on what was. Not what could have been. Or what would have been.

Edit: But by the same token, a commander on some island in the pacific isnt going to tell anyone not to make .50 calibre ammo there, he wants 40mm instead. Isnt going to happen. The Jap player (Tojo if you will) could make that decision.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/18/2005 9:39:26 PM >

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 83

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:43:31 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

So, how is this thread helping to determine if CHS has the appropriate air industry for Japan?

I would bet that they got US production closer to history. But, the original question is whether Japan is too high, US is too low or is it just right. None of the last two pages is helping to determine if CHS is close to accurate.

bc

Thread's gone to sh*t, for a change ... :(

Scenario Editor/Design is the place to do this really.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 84

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:44:08 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The aircraft industry wasnt very large at start, and it continued to grow all along. But, if they had needed more, they would have built more.

No quarrel with that...but this illustrates the point that the growth was projected by decisions made at the begining of the war. You really should pick up Boyne's book if you are more interested in this. It wasn't that they were inflexible, but rather that they were wise.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684839156/qid=1129660966/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1270336-7855038?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

$1.14 for used is a steal!

Were there change orders? Sure! But were there greater needs than production? Most definately! And area commanders had to wait for the ramp up to reach its fevored pitch.

I agree that the game presents the production systems with pressures than envisioned by history...namely more losses than were historically acceptable. However, I don't buy the idea that you just ramp up production to over come this. Historically commanders in the PTO were told to cool it for just the reason...so as not to add pressure on production and draw material away from the ETO/MTO.

Guadalcannal is an interesting political development for this reason in WWII.

quote:

And therein lies the problem with CHS. It only looks at production based on what was. Not what could have been. Or what would have been.

Perhaps also the problem with the original game too. I would like some Allied flexibility in production myself...a.nd I'm sure others would enjoy it too. But it was probably a design deceision because of other dificulties with the code.

I know where you are gong with this...and do not disagree with your directoin. I just don't think the speculative arguement advances it as it should be.

Worr, out

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 85

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:48:05 PM

worr

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Hehe. I think the word "flexible" is what some of us got hung up on...

How about "herky-jerky"?

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 86

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:52:38 PM

spence

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

MY POINT IS THAT AFTER THE ZAIBATSU EXPLAINED TO THE ARMY THE DISLOCATION AND HARDSHIP THAT WOULD RESULT FROM SWITCHING PRODUCTION OVER TO SOME NEW DESIGN THE ARMY ACQUIESED AND MADE THE DECISION TO GET BY WITH OSCAR IIs. ("YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND LORD")

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 87

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 9:59:48 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

So, how is this thread helping to determine if CHS has the appropriate air industry for Japan?

I would bet that they got US production closer to history. But, the original question is whether Japan is too high, US is too low or is it just right. None of the last two pages is helping to determine if CHS is close to accurate.

bc

Bolded by me for emphasis. Because the US production (and its potential) is what is being discussed.

The most accurate industrial output model (or at least, the one that can be defended the best) is the one that sets up the game, so that, if the AI controlled Japan, and with nearly the same level of success on the battlefied, the production of aircraft is very nearly the same as was historical.

However, as stated by others, the production model for the Allied player in the game cannot be modified by the player in game. So, despite the success or failure of the Japanese player, the Allied player is stuck with what is hardcoded in the scenerio file.

A human playing Japan will be able to tweak his industry to make more (or at least, more sensible) aircraft, etc. For the sake of game balance (which is needed as much as accuracy, if possible, IMO), the effects of this need to be accounted for with as little SWAGing as possible.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 88

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 10:01:09 PM

Yamato hugger

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

MY POINT IS THAT AFTER THE ZAIBATSU EXPLAINED TO THE ARMY THE DISLOCATION AND HARDSHIP THAT WOULD RESULT FROM SWITCHING PRODUCTION OVER TO SOME NEW DESIGN THE ARMY ACQUIESED AND MADE THE DECISION TO GET BY WITH OSCAR IIs. ("YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND LORD")

"THE ARMY ACQUIESED AND MADE THE DECISION" Next?

worr, as far as acceptable losses goes, in game terms it's called "points"

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/18/2005 10:02:16 PM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 89

RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? - 10/18/2005 10:01:16 PM

Kereguelen

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

Well, trying to come back to the original topic of this thread. Does the perceived problem really lie in the Allied production? Maybe another approach could lead to a better solution.

Some points to consider:

(1) It seems that in the game (both "vanilla" and CHS) the Japanese player is able to produce more (many more) planes than the Japanese did historically.

(2) I've yet to see an AAR that lasts into late 1942 where this (Japanese plane production) did lead to shortages in armament production or ship construction for the Japanese. As far as I know, CHS did not change Japanese production figures (factories and HI), thus one can compare "vanilla" with CHS in this regard.

(3) Thus it seems that is has no (major if any) impact on Japanese production/industry if the Japanese player expands his aircraft production. He "only" has to spend the necessary supplies.

(4) Conclusion: Japanese production capacity in the game seems to be too high in the game (both in "vanilla" and CHS). That is, while the Japanese player should have production options, he should have to "pay" for the chosen path (production focus).

(5) Proposed solution: Reduction of available HI for Japan. HI "governs" production. If the Japanese player wants to expand HI, he has to provide supplies that he should miss elsewhere. Would leave the Japanese player all game-options.

K

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 90

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 ?