RE: Allied aircraft production figures (Full Version)

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



Message

Andy Mac -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 1:08:00 PM)

Jim I am not disagreeing with you BUT apart from Hellcats and perhaps some form of higher skill level for navy pilots after the elite pool is exhausted (no I am NOT going to repeat my various whinges on this issue[;)]) I have never in any game ran short of allied fighters after P40N's become operational in April 43.

It just doesnt happen the allies dont lose that many land based aircraft.

I am getting my arse seriously kicked in a non AAR game and even in that game my pools are in good shape.

I think the game actually models the pinch points in 42 pretty well for allied fighters I just wish it was easier to switch P39's and P40's interchangably in that crucial period in PDU games but thats a minor gripe. Overall if the numbers are wrong I dont think it matters as in game terms USAAF domination almost always follows history no matter what the Japanese produce.

In my game with PZB which is an outlier and is probably the high water mark for Japanese production I have never even ran close to being out of good quality landbased fighters. I could equip my whole AF with P47's or P38's with the numbers I have in the pool the variety and quality is daunting by early 44.

So while I agree with your point in general from a GAME point of view I am less concerned (apart from Hellcats and Navy pilots please [:D][:D]!!!!!)

p.s. the more the Japanese build their industry the more VP's I get from destroying it not to mention shooting down scores of extra planes. My perspective is I dont care if the Japanese produce more it just means more for me [:D][:D]

Andy



treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 1:29:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
but it is probably closer to IRL than you think.


Oh Jesus, I give up. All the friggin Japanese fanboys will question ANYTHING that threatens their fun till the damn cows come home.

This is an estimate, there are planes that went longer or shorter than the damn 8 months. I even told you how many air frames to add if you don’t like my 8 month estimate.

It is OBVIOUS the US is neutered, you don’t want to admit it fine I can’t force you to see reality.

If you want to do a plane by plane comparison YOU DO IT. I’m fed up with the whining Japanese.

Jim




So I start to analyize your numbers and with the first three aircraft I look at, I find your estimate is short by at least 5,000 aircraft.

As I stated I wasn't asserting that the Allied aircraft production was correct, merely that by making a broad assumption your analysis was in error.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 1:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
from a GAME point of view I am less concerned


Hi Andy,

I understand completely. I am not saying that the allies can't win with what they have. I am an historian first and gamer second. I prefer to game history and want my games to reflect history as best as they can. Your game simply highlighted the problem.

A little more digging into the numbers shines a very bright spotlight on it. Do the allies need more air frames? Probably not in most games from a gaming perspective. Do I want them to have what they had historically whether needed or not? You bet.

I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well. But given the resistance just investigating getting the allies right has caused I doubt 2x3 or Matrix will ever expend the effort to “get it right”, lest they create a bunch of screaming Samurai launching a Banzai charge against their home offices.

Jim



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 1:38:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Not well organized but full of statistics:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf



Just to throw another wrench on the fire, take a look at page 14 of the document. Statistics of note:

Total marine and naval action sorties for the war:

284,073

Total operational losses for the war concerning the above total sorties:

1345

Definately does not seem to support increasing the games operational losses.

Jim





treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 1:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well. But given the resistance just investigating getting the allies right has caused I doubt 2x3 or Matrix will ever expend the effort to “get it right”, lest they create a bunch of screaming Samurai launching a Banzai charge against their home offices.

Jim





So actually looking at historical numbers is resistance?



treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:03:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Not well organized but full of statistics:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/nasc.pdf



Just to throw another wrench on the fire, take a look at page 14 of the document. Statistics of note:

Total marine and naval action sorties for the war:

284,073

Total operational losses for the war concerning the above total sorties:

1345

Definately does not seem to support increasing the games operational losses.

Jim





You forgot to add the 3045 "Losses on Other Flights" and the 1313 "Losses on Ship or Ground". I refer you to pages 4 and 5 of the same referenced document for defintions of the data.

So there is a total of 5703 "Operational Losses" depending on how "Operational Loss" is defined.



pauk -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:06:26 PM)

Jim, can you make up your mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well.



quote:

All the Japanese fanboys seem to be missing my point entirely. I am not advocating the reduction of Japanese industry. I am simply pointing out the glaring fact that Japan out produces the US for the entire game due to fixed factories that cannot upgrade for the most part.



treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:25:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Sorry Treespider I was venting and the jist of my post wasn't really aimed at you personally. Just seems like I'm talking to a brick wall sometimes. To me it's obvious the US is way underrepresented, so doing a plane by plane analysis seemed like an utter waste of time.

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-7.pdf

Of note is the numbers for naval aviation roles at the time of Okinawa:

quote:

Naval Aviation now numbered
41,000 aircraft, 60,000 pilots,
33,000 nonpilot officers, and almost
338,000 enlisted personnel.


41,000 aircraft. Even if only half were in the Pacific, that's over 20,000 naval aircraft in operation in the Pacific after years of heavy losses had already taken their toll and air losses had begun to diminish dramatically. But I bet a lot more than half were in the Pacific by the time Okinawa rolled around.

Note the number of extra pilots, I doubt the US even gets half of 60,000 pilots for all services for the entire game combined.

Jim




So now you are suggesting that there are too few Allied units in the game? No matter what the production rate is for a side the true limiter will be the number of units available to allow those produced aircraft to enter play.

from Statistical Analysis by Ellis

Total US Navy Aircraft Strengths (including Marine Corps), by type, and Total First line Combat Strengths in the Pacific 1941-1945


Year.....Combat..........Trans...........Trainer..........Other..........Total..........Total 1st Line Combat Pac. Th. (Hawaii to India)
12/43...15,164............1367............9057.............304.............25892........8268
12/44...25780.............2437............7883.............621.............36721........13065
8/45.....19402.............2876............7280.............977.............30535........14648


None of these statistics, nor the outstanding links that you provided, give us a nice simplified listing of aircraft produced and the number sent to the Pacific Theater. Although I imagine with some work those figures could be extracted.

Concerning the 60,000 pilots I will make the assumption that that figure includes co-pilots and the like which the game does not account for. Do not take this to mean that I am suggesting the game is accurate. I am merely stating that you cannot say because the US had 60,000 pilots IRL, we should get 60,000 pilots - because the game does not track pilots as they were tracked IRL. I imagine most of the US bomber force utilized more than one "pilot" per plane. "Pilot" meaning an individual who completed flight school.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:30:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk
Jim, can you make up your mind?



LOL, not advocating an issue does not mean I wouldn't like to see a change. I am not advocating a change to Japanese production because I think Japan NEEDS those extra air frames due to the bloody air combat routines. That said, I think the allies NEED extra too. Don't you?

Jim



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:40:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
So now you are suggesting that there are too few Allied units in the game? No matter what the production rate is for a side the true limiter will be the number of units available to allow those produced aircraft to enter play.


I never meant that those 41,000 naval aircraft were all in operational front line groups. But they were available (aircraft pools) during the Okinawa campaign whether on the front or in operational reserve at rear area bases.


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Concerning the 60,000 pilots I will make the assumption that that figure includes co-pilots and the like which the game does not account for. Do not take this to mean that I am suggesting the game is accurate. I am merely stating that you cannot say because the US had 60,000 pilots IRL, we should get 60,000 pilots - because the game does not track pilots as they were tracked IRL. I imagine most of the US bomber force utilized more than one "pilot" per plane. "Pilot" meaning an individual who completed flight school.


You seem to forget these were the total naval pilots, not the total for all of the US. There were PBY's, PBM's etc. that had co-pilots, but not many other naval air frames other than their patrol craft had two pilots. 60,000 naval aviators, I bet USAAF aviators double this at least.

Jim



aztez -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:45:36 PM)

This is getting actually quite funny! [:D][:D][:D]...on the other hand we are discussing the Allied Historical production and on the other hand we comparing to Japanese "fantasy" production a'la Gary Grigsby. That is somewhat ironic? (at least to me)

I think it is safe to say that allied production needs to be tweaked. (Just way too many obsolete planes are being produced) I doubt anyone can say that when comparing US vs Japan aircraft production this game comes even close reality.

What IF scenarios/production are nice, nothing wrong about them but keep in mind that currently just 1 side (Japan) can do any changes to its industry. To say that Allied production is ok in currently in Witp is lunacy.

Another funny thing is we haven't had any comments from Matrix personel. I mean we can agree/disagree all we want but unless they are willing to make an input nothing will change in the game engine.

I would say that the key question here would be whether Japan could come even close to what US industry are capable doing? In all fairness that the answer would be 100% no. It would be like dwarf (Japan) beating an giant. (US) That is what Jim is pointing out or that is the way I understand this debate.








Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 2:46:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
So there is a total of 5703 "Operational Losses" depending on how "Operational Loss" is defined.


Well sure add those (they were not counted in the total action sorties so I excluded them as we don't have total sorties for their mission types to add to our total). My point stands, pretty insignificant given almost 300,000 sorties. About 2% I think.

What we should really be looking at is aircraft destroyed in combat. Notice how total losses from combat for the entire war is exceeded in about 1 years game time. I add up about 3,000 total US marine and navy losses (adding losses to both AA and enemy air) for the ENTIRE WAR.

Jim



treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:08:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: aztez

This is getting actually quite funny! [:D][:D][:D]...on the other hand we are discussing the Allied Historical production and on the other hand we comparing to Japanese "fantasy" production a'la Gary Grigsby. That is somewhat ironic? (at least to me)


Where in any of my posts have i compared Historical Allied Production to Japanese Game production?

quote:


I think it is safe to say that allied production needs to be tweaked. (Just way too many obsolete planes are being produced) I doubt anyone can say that when comparing US vs Japan aircraft production this game comes even close reality.

What IF scenarios/production are nice, nothing wrong about them but keep in mind that currently just 1 side (Japan) can do any changes to its industry. To say that Allied production is ok in currently in Witp is lunacy.


Never suggested that Allied production is OK...I merely pointed out that Allied production may be closer to reality than Jim suggests.

quote:


Another funny thing is we haven't had any comments from Matrix personel. I mean we can agree/disagree all we want but unless they are willing to make an input nothing will change in the game engine.

I would say that the key question here would be whether Japan could come even close to what US industry are capable doing? In all fairness that the answer would be 100% no. It would be like dwarf (Japan) beating an giant. (US) That is what Jim is pointing out or that is the way I understand this debate.


Well the argument seems to keep changing...Do you want a game based on historical realities or a game based on relative capabilities?

For a start I feel one has to look at historical numbers for each side...I do not believe anyone has posted a complete analysis of the historical situation as of yet. Once you have the historical baseline then you can start to make adjustsments.

Japanese production may be out of whack but the title of this thread is "Allied aircraft production figures".




pauk -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:21:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk
Jim, can you make up your mind?



LOL, not advocating an issue does not mean I wouldn't like to see a change. I am not advocating a change to Japanese production because I think Japan NEEDS those extra air frames due to the bloody air combat routines. That said, I think the allies NEED extra too. Don't you?

Jim


historically speaking, if you are right with your numbers (i do not have idea - not an expert so lets assume you are right) Allied need extra planes too.

but, i'm pretty sure that will ruin the game to the dust without changing A2A combat model.

What about your start as Japan (did you already started this game or it is currently on hold)? As Chez mentioned, this will give the whole picture of this "issue".




aztez -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:23:17 PM)

Ugh. I did not say that you felt like allied production was ok Treespider. That is misunderstanding if you thought so. (and you did not compare to it game production)

To me this thread has turned into Japanese "fantasy" production vs US historical production. Which is ironic as I said.

Historical realities or actual production? Personally either way is fine to me. Pretty much the same end result if you look at it that way.

I was talking about "general" feeling of this thread. If the game allows Japanese to outproduce or even come close to US production than that is lunacy, Japanese were pushing for quick victory and hoped that US would agree to a peace. Once it became obvious that this was not to be the case than many of the Japanese military officers knew that was lost.

Why? Because they could not compete againts such industrial force US had. (Add those other allied nations and reality will be clear)

If the game is to reflect Histrorical reality well than let it be for both sides not just just for 1 (Allied).

If the game is to reflect "fantasy" production (game based relative capabilities) than let it be for both sides not just for 1. (Allied)

Either way the result would be the same. Just diffrent numbers in production but ratio should be kept balanced.

That is what I'am saying.

Currently that ratio is out of whack. It nonsense to even say that Japanese would have the production capabilities to come even close.




VSWG -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:29:06 PM)

I'm with treespider here: we're looking at Allied aircraft production. If (IF) the numbers are wrong, fix them. If not, don't. I don't care what this means for game balance; WitP will be a better game for every step it comes closer to reality. Japanese production is a different matter, for a different thread.



aztez -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:31:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm with treespider here: we're looking at Allied aircraft production. If (IF) the numbers are wrong, fix them. If not, don't. I don't care what this means for game balance; WitP will be a better game for every step it comes closer to reality. Japanese production is a different matter, for a different thread.


Yeah. Two diffrent issues but you cannot look one without taking a hard look on one since these two go in hand in hand.



treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:35:08 PM)

For all of those people that would like a comparison between the US and Japan here are the actual figures 1939-1945. Figures for the US are Totals...

US Fighters- 99,950
Japan Fighters - 30447

US produced roughly 3x as many fighters...

US Bombers - 97,810
Japanese Bombers - 15,117

US produced roughly 6.5x as many bombers...

US Reconn - 3918
Japan Reconn - 5654

Japan actually out produce the US in one category of aircraft

US Transport - 23929
Japan Transport - 2110

US produced 11x as many transports

US Trainers - 57623
Japan Trainers - 15201

US produced 4x as many trainers.


So in the Pacific theater in terms of fighters assigned to the theater did the Japanese approach US production figures?

IMO probably...In Dec 43 the USAAF had 44 Fighter groups of these 14 were assigned to the Pacific/CBI...In September 1944 the USAAF had 60 Fighter groups of these 18 were assigned to the Pacific...In August 45 22 Fighter groups...So I'll make the assumption that roughly 1/3 of USAAF Fighters went to the Pacific. And from my earlier post roughly 50% of USN Combat Aircraft appear to have been assigned to the Pacific.

So lets estimate 40% of US fighter production went to the Pacific - 40% of 99950 = 39,980 and Japan produced 30,447. Roughly a 4:3 ratio.

Just some numbers to consider when we say that the US should be far outstripping the Japanese in terms of aircraft production...



pauk -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:37:14 PM)

lots of folks forgeting one important thing... if we really want to make the game closer than reality then there is more important things to do. Bigger numbers to Allies (i'm not against that if the numbers are wrong) will mean that game will actually will not be closer than reality.... instead of begining 45 it will be finished in 44...catch 22... right?

is this kind of reality we are talking about?




Sardaukar -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:37:16 PM)

"So lets estimate 40% of US fighter production went to the Pacific - 40% of 99950 = 39,980 and Japan produced 30,447. Roughly a 4:3 ratio."

Some of the production went to Lend-Lease too, so that might change the ratio again.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:44:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
So lets estimate 40% of US fighter production went to the Pacific - 40% of 99950 = 39,980 and Japan produced 30,447. Roughly a 4:3 ratio.


I'm not willing to assume this at all for one reason. First let me say I admit I don't have a document in front of me that says x number of planes went to this theatre, but I do have the reference document I linked and this statistic alone I think proves about 80%-90% of naval aviation aircraft operated in the Pacific theatre.

Total action sorties by theatre for US navy and marine air:

Central Pacific.....152,443
South Pacific.....41,204
Southwest Pacific.....88,358
North Pacific.....790
Atlantic.....1,161
Southeast Asia.....117

Refer to page 18 of the document I linked above bottom of chart.

As you can see it appears the US navy and marines only flew 1,161 sorties outside the scope of WitP for the entire war. I think this is strong evidence that at a minimum 80% of navy aviation production should be allocated to the Pacific (probably more like 90% realistically). 40% of USAAF production is fine pending a source to prove otherwise, but no way you have a case for naval aviation.

Jim






aztez -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:46:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

lots of folks forgeting one important thing... if we really want to make the game closer than reality then there is more important things to do. Bigger numbers to Allies (i'm not against that if the numbers are wrong) will mean that game will actually will not be closer than reality.... instead of begining 45 it will be finished in 44...catch 22... right?

is this kind of reality we are talking about?





Definately not. I would like to see this product be better and more to simulation.

I do agree that there are many issues in the game that needs to be tweaked or changed. (For both sides)

PS: Sardaukar I want the combat replay!!! [:D][:D]




Sardaukar -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:50:17 PM)

Will get it after i get home !! [:'(]



treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 3:52:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
So lets estimate 40% of US fighter production went to the Pacific - 40% of 99950 = 39,980 and Japan produced 30,447. Roughly a 4:3 ratio.


I'm not willing to assume this at all for one reason. First let me say I admit I don't have a document in front of me that says x number of planes went to this theatre, but I do have the reference document I linked and this statistic alone I think proves about 80%-90% of naval aviation aircraft operated in the Pacific theatre.

Total action sorties by theatre for US navy and marine air:

Central Pacific.....152,443
South Pacific.....41,204
Southwest Pacific.....88,358
North Pacific.....790
Atlantic.....1,161
Southeast Asia.....117

Refer to page 18 of the document I linked above bottom of chart.

As you can see it appears the US navy and marines only flew 1,161 sorties outside the scope of WitP for the entire war. I think this is strong evidence that at a minimum 80% of navy aviation production should be allocated to the Pacific (probably more like 90% realistically). 40% of USAAF production is fine pending a source to prove otherwise, but no way you have a case for naval aviation.

Jim


However an "Action Sortie" as defined by the document to which you are referencing is

quote:


ACTION SORTIES Number of planes taking off on a mission which eventuated in an attack on an
enemy t a r g et or in aerial casbat, or both.


This is not an accurate way to determine the number of aircraft assigned to a theater.


I refer you to my earlier post in which I provide the data for US Navy and Marine Aircraft by type.

quote:


Year.....Combat..........Trans...........Trainer..........Other..........Total..........Total 1st Line Combat Pac. Th. (Hawaii to India)
12/43...15,164............1367............9057.............304.............25892........8268
12/44...25780.............2437............7883.............621.............36721........13065
8/45.....19402.............2876............7280.............977.............30535........14648


As can be seen roughly 50% of US Navy and Marine Combat aircraft were assigned to the Pacific.




Sardaukar -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 4:01:26 PM)

Indeed. Number of combat sorties is bit irrelevant since 1000 sorties can be performed by either 10 planes flying 100 sorties each..or 100 planes flying 10 sorties each... It's about airplane production anyway, not about intensity of combat operations. In former case, plane numbers count, not sorties.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 4:06:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

Jim, can you make up your mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I also would like the Japanese curtailed to historical production limits as well.



quote:

All the Japanese fanboys seem to be missing my point entirely. I am not advocating the reduction of Japanese industry. I am simply pointing out the glaring fact that Japan out produces the US for the entire game due to fixed factories that cannot upgrade for the most part.




The first describes a situation he would "like to see...., and the second makes the point that while he would "like to see it", he's not "pushing for it to be implemented". Be fair, Pauk..., grabbing things "out of context" is rarely helpfull.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 4:07:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
As can be seen roughly 50% of US Navy and Marine Combat aircraft were assigned to the Pacific.


All it says is about 50% were in 1st line groups. It does not say they were not in the Pacific if not assigned to the 1st line groups. The games aircraft pools represent these non-1st line units. Or are you saying there were just as many naval aviation groups in the Atlantic theatre as there were in the Pacific? If so I’d like to see some documentation backing up that assumption.

Even if the 1,161 action sorties had 10 times as many non-action sorties flown per action sortie as the Pacific action sortie groups had, it is still a pretty small percentage compared to the total number of sorties flown in the Pacific. Your argument that 50% of naval aviation was assigned outside the Pacific will need a lot more evidence than the table you’ve given I think.

Jim

Edit: P.S. It also makes no sense. Other than convoy escort there was no real need for naval aviation in the Atlantic/European theatre.






treespider -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 4:13:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
As can be seen roughly 50% of US Navy and Marine Combat aircraft were assigned to the Pacific.


All it says is about 50% were in 1st line groups. It does not say they were not in the Pacific if not assigned to the 1st line groups. The games aircraft pools represent these non-1st line units. Or are you saying there were just as many naval aviation groups in the Atlantic theatre as there were in the Pacific? If so I’d like to see some documentation backing up that assumption.

Even if the 1,161 action sorties had 10 times as many non-action sorties flown per action sortie as the Pacific action sortie groups had, it is still a pretty small percentage compared to the total number of sorties flown in the Pacific. Your argument that 50% of naval aviation was assigned outside the Pacific will need a lot more evidence than the table you’ve given I think.

Jim







from Page 6 (page 31 printed on the bottom) middle colum of this document...

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/ww2-11.pdf

quote:

When the war ended in Europe, eight fleet air wings were operating in the Atlantic area, with nine in the Pacific.


9 out of 17 is roughly 50% or to be exact 52.94%

EDIT: My error - this part of the article was solely refering to Patrol Planes.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 4:23:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
9 out of 17 is roughly 50% or to be exact 52.94%


Well now you're cherry picking. There were thousands more aircraft in the land based naval and marine aircraft groups. I doubt many operated in the Atlantic other than some patrol/search groups. I also doubt the air wings operating in the Atlantic were all Fleet CV group size. I think most were probably on the small CVE's.

Jim



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied aircraft production figures (8/14/2006 4:26:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm with treespider here: we're looking at Allied aircraft production. If (IF) the numbers are wrong, fix them. If not, don't. I don't care what this means for game balance; WitP will be a better game for every step it comes closer to reality. Japanese production is a different matter, for a different thread.


Sounds as if someone actually got the point. As long as the Japanese Player has the ability to "fiddle" with his production it's pretty safe to say that he will do better than his historical counterparts. Hindsight makes that almost certain, and I don't think most players object to it in principle as long as it can't be carried to rediculous extremes. But the Allies are stuck with whatever the designers give them - so whatever they recieve should be at least as historically accurate as possible. The arguement that "they don't need it" is a "red herring". That's not the question. The question is "what did they actually get?" as opposed to "what does the game give them?". And there seems to be a significant discrepancy (not so much in number of A/C as in the types recieved and when) that is worth exploring and correcting. It doesn't matter if the F6f's or whatever sit in a "pool" or are used at the front..., what matters is that a reasonably accurate number of them (historically speaking) are available to the Allied player when they should be.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625