RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Feinder -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 9:56:03 PM)

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-



The Gnome -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 10:05:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-


Thirded!



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 10:40:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We have disbandments, withdrawals and renamings in AE plus splits that allow small units to be on map at start but you need to combine them for the Divs you will NEED later in the war.

I hate attacking with Bdes they are just too fragile...


Well that is very cool!



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 10:41:18 PM)

Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn? I play Japan, but I'd rather my opponents have their CV's when they should And given that planning/ordering took place before the losses of 42, I really don't understand the logic behind the whole respawn deal.



quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-


Thirded!




bilbow -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 11:05:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn? I play Japan, but I'd rather my opponents have their CV's when they should And given that planning/ordering took place before the losses of 42, I really don't understand the logic behind the whole respawn deal.



quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

The fact most of the respawns don't appear in most game till near the end of 44 more than mitigates 2 possible extra CV's. All those months of no CV's in 1943 and 1944 aren't made up for by a few months near the end of the game with 2 extra CV's.

As an allied player I want my historical CV's on their historical arrival dates please. Screw the two extra repawns, by the time they show up they no longer matter.


Thank you.

That's what I was trying to say, but you were much more succinct about it.

And the other issue with respawn is that they kill your pilot pools as well.

-F-


Thirded!




The Allied production is fixed otherwise, so re-spawn make no sense. If there were a mechanism to adjust Allied production to battlefield experience, then cases of extreme carrier losses, or extreme losses of anything else for that matter, could be addressed through changing of priorities. That's not going to happen for AE of course, but would be the ideal for the future. I'll settle for the "re-spawn off switch"

How do re-spawns affect pilot pools? I thought the airgroups were reinforment squads just like any other.



Feinder -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 11:39:18 PM)

quote:

How do re-spawns affect pilot pools? I thought the airgroups were reinforment squads just like any other.


When I pulled up the ship reinfocement screen, the respawn-CVs have their CAGs listed but with zero planes.  I presume they'll arrive with zero planes, and then have to accept replacments and pilots from the pools.

-F-




Jim D Burns -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 11:45:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
Thank you.


You're welcome. [;)]

Jim



GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 11:46:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

How do re-spawns affect pilot pools? I thought the airgroups were reinforment squads just like any other.


When I pulled up the ship reinfocement screen, the respawn-CVs have their CAGs listed but with zero planes.  I presume they'll arrive with zero planes, and then have to accept replacments and pilots from the pools.

-F-




So we don't know this for certain yet? Does anyone out there have the diffinitive answer?



Jim D Burns -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 11:48:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
I really don't understand the logic behind the whole respawn deal.


Play balance pure and simple. With Japan dominating the CV game for 42 and 43 and the allies for 44 and 45, they get a balanced game…

Jim



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 11:56:59 PM)

Well, I like the game and all, but that isn't a good reason though.

IMO - The 'Average' Japanese player should be able to expand until late 42 (isn't that when P-38's arrive?) and then have to hold on for the push from the Allies for the rest of the war.

Now, a GOOD player should be able to win some victories and maybe can keep expanding into early 43 - fine. But certainly, Allied stuff should be arriving on time.

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).



GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 12:00:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).


My vote as well.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 1:41:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

IMO respawn was included as a passive  incentive to the Allied player to use his ships agressively in the earlier part of the war...afterall if he loses one he will get it back later and in better form....and any damge he inflicts with these "disposable" assets the Japanese won't be replacing because the Japanese don't respawn...at least for the larger vessels.

So as the Allies if you don't use your ships agressively early on you lose out on the potential respawned ships...

It's all about attrition.




Well, a more realistic carrier combat model will go along way to make the Allied player more aggressive. Pre AE carrier combat is not representative of historical capability.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 1:58:27 AM)

You know, given how ardent the community is over respawn every time the phrase is utterred, perhaps it is time to add an official non-respawn scenario. We got PDU out of the blue, why not a non respawn scenario?

I'd love to see a poll on this. It's not that respawn will be removed, just another choice being added.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 2:00:37 AM)

I know we have gotten a wee OT, but speaking of unit removals/withdrawls...are LCUs and Air Groups open to withdrawl?



Andy Mac -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 2:11:58 AM)

LCU's can withdraw (leave theatre with all devices - e.g. 5th British Div, 7th Armoured Bde off to Italy)
disband (devices are returned to pool e.g. Indian 267th Armoured turning its tanks in and converting to Infantry, several AA units converting to Infantry)
or
manually disband (removing small understrenght units or disbanding a Bde to cannibalise replacements for other units)

Andy



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 2:28:32 AM)

Perhaps awarding players for withdrawing airgroups with VPs might convince players to disband extraneous units. For example, many carrier squadrons were disbanded permanently after their CVs were sunk.



ctangus -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 3:15:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You know, given how ardent the community is over respawn every time the phrase is utterred, perhaps it is time to add an official non-respawn scenario. We got PDU out of the blue, why not a non respawn scenario?

I'd love to see a poll on this. It's not that respawn will be removed, just another choice being added.


Minor disagreement: from what I've seen the community (both AFBs & JFBs alike) have largely been ardent against respawn. From my POV, I have PBEMs ongoing from both sides currently & dislike the rule from both sides.

On the other hand I'd also be very interested in a poll on the issue. My gut call is that it will be highly anti-respawn. And I'd also be very happy to see official respawn & no-respawn scenarios.

If there isn't an official no-respawn scenario, and if no one else beats me to it, I'm already planning to put one together as soon as I download AE. I'll shamelessly use your research if you don't mind. Though I still think it would be better for the game to have an "official" no-respawn scenario.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 4:49:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn?


Yes there are. I play as the Allies and I prefer respawn.

Andrew



witpqs -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 4:53:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).


My vote as well.


Agree - vote for either remove or have a switch (or substitute scenario).



spence -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 5:35:44 PM)

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.



herwin -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 6:28:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Perhaps awarding players for withdrawing airgroups with VPs might convince players to disband extraneous units. For example, many carrier squadrons were disbanded permanently after their CVs were sunk.


Perhaps PPs can be gained for units voluntarily disbanded.



herwin -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 6:34:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.



GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 6:51:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.


I still like the idea of limiting the actual number of factories which are available for the Japanese to expand. At least that should cut down on the speed at which the IJ player can expand his production.

For example: with 5 Frank factories expanding the IJ player can reach 1000 planes per month in 200 days. With only 1 Frank factory it takes 1000 days to expand to 1000 planes per month. The latter is over 3 years just to get to the point where IJ can produce 1000 Franks a month. At that rate, by the time a player ramps up to full production of a single plane type, the plane will probably be obsolete anyway.

Worst Case Scenario: Japanese production is still not satisfactory in AE. Solution: In WITP, as it stands, Japanese device, and A/C production CAN be modded out altogether, while at the same time leaving HI intact to produce supplies and fuel. Of course ship building would need to remain the same as well.

EDIT: Fixed typos.



GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 7:06:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.


That's a bit OT, but, looking closer at your statement, I will agree that there is, without doubt, a profound lesson to be learned in your illustration about keeping a large standing army. Eventually you will need to use it for no other reason than to secure the resources with which to maintain it. Maybe it would, indeed, make the present oil crisis a moot point if we didn't have a large army which required so much of it. [:(]



treespider -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 8:19:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.



Where are you getting the 40T figure?



spence -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 8:39:29 PM)

Real rough calculation would make that about 4-5 lbs per man per day for the division. Ammunition would account for that weight pretty easily if the division was in action; nevermind POL, food and all the paper needed to insure you get at least the same amount on the next day from wherever you're getting it.



treespider -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 8:52:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Real rough calculation would make that about 4-5 lbs per man per day for the division. Ammunition would account for that weight pretty easily if the division was in action; nevermind POL, food and all the paper needed to insure you get at least the same amount on the next day from wherever you're getting it.



The reason I ask is the US Army green books site a figure of .244 tons per man per month just for Class I Supply (Rations/Food). A 14253 man infantry division would require 3477 tons of food per month or 115 tons per day....just for food.

[Edit: I'm at the office right now and do not have the book in front of me but iirc it was .244 tons ....it may have been less]

If you look at the average supply need per man per month for the entire Pacific theater it equates to something like 2 tons per month. However this is an average of overall supply consumption for the entire theater - much of this supply is stuff like ammunition, aviation fuel, POL, building supplies etc....



Feinder -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 9:20:10 PM)

It seems to me (in my limited experience with Japanese production), that the amounts of strat resources (HI, engine/plane factories, etc), is pointed towards the AI being able to produce roughly the historical numbers.  Seems like a good idea to me, since (as I understand it), the AI doesn't mess with production anyway.

Why not just create a PBEM scenario that lowers the starting size of factories etc, that would compell players to expand them in order to reach (and potentially suprass them somewhat, but not to the degree that currently exists).

Or for Japanese players who are either new or can't manage expanding the economy (myself included), you could opt to use the standard at-start quantities (that the AI uses), and then not expand production.

-F-



spence -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 9:23:03 PM)

More rough calculations....that 16 lbs of rations per man per day...I always thought the Navy had the good chow...geezum[;)]



treespider -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/18/2008 11:02:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

More rough calculations....that 16 lbs of rations per man per day...I always thought the Navy had the good chow...geezum[;)]



I imagine some of that is packaging...oh and I had a chance to check it was .244 tons...in Europe it was higher - .261 tons.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.109375