RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (Full Version)

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

Message

Ken Estes -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 1:13:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg .... Allied Production - I do think Allied production should be adjustable. Certainly between types of units (lower one, increase another) but also I LOVE the idea of using PPs to push productions since it represents hardware being pulled from the ETO. And I don't think that gets mentioned enough. Britain and America were not operating in a single theater like Japan. Are you so sure the British could send more tanks to India in 42/43? Weren't they a bit busy the Europe and Med theaters? Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production. Maybe, the allied player could GAIN VP's by shutting things down if he is doing really well. This might be enough to allow the use of an extra A bomb without pushing the victory condition another level to Japan. AP/AK - I do think something needs done here. I do keep all my ships working, but I do think I am able to ship more than Japan did historically. Not to mention, shutting down merchant yards is the first thing I do to try and keep my HI net usage positive. There may be something keying Allied reinforcements to India, because 7th Arm Bde (Desert Rats) showed up after I took Delhi. I have also read that US ground reinforcements are accellerated if one approaches too closely to the US W. coast. Of course, there ought to be the same for the USSR, which could have sent crushing reinforcements to the F.E. by second half of 1943, making any conquest of the USSR impossible. Part of the historical performance of the JA mechant marine is that the plan to release a lot of it back to civilian sustainment was never realized. So there never was any test of how they would have performed with the c.5M tons they supposedly required [but never had]. Setting up an accurate model of JA performance would require the WITP designers to assess what JA economic performance could have been had the army-navy reverted sufficient shipping to commerce [scratching head]? Dunning the economy if they do not??

witpqs -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 1:13:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ken Estes quote: ORIGINAL: VSWG quote: ORIGINAL: Ken Estes I doubt that Allies need any real plus-up. AI [Allied] pools for 11Mar46, after being denied most production sources since I took USA on3May45 still show the following [4 shots to follow]: Of course this raises the question why you were able to conquer the entire map if the Allies produce so much stuff... [;)] No offense, but posting numbers from an AI game in which you slapped the Allies around until they have no opportunity at all to engage the enemy doesn't prove anything about their ability to wage a war of attrition. Don't know what your problem is, so just don't read it. I have already pointed out the failings of Allied AI and why my 'slapping the Allied AI' would not likely work vs. human opponent. My illustration of Allied AI production in a defeated campaign shows they don't likely need to be plused up to any extent. I claim nothing more than to show how their stock production went when under severest pressure. Alles klar? The reason it's not a good example is because the AI isn't up to the task of using the material. So seeing that it's leftover doesn't actually prove anything about production, just that the AI isn't so good.

GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 1:32:49 PM)
As far as the Allied side of things, if air combat isn't as bloody in AE as it is in the current, then I would think that maintaining higher levels of aircraft in the pool for the Allies shouldn't be as difficult. Of course that may also mean that Japanese will have higher a/c pools as well.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 6:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production. This is a great idea. BTW, I think it was earlier than 1/44 for several things. Yes - I have no idea exactly when Allies started to put the brakes on production, which is why I put the ? in there. [:)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 6:25:35 PM)
So, to repeat a question. Has the means to model a semblance of a civilian population been added to balance the economic model? Some say that current manpower centres are enough but I'm not so sure this is the case. Increasing manpower centre sizes really can't help as this just increases the availability of squads. Perhaps altering manpower centre requirements to include editor adjustable quantities of resources and supplies might be desireable (ie, manpower centre values can be adjusted for each base/city). This then leaves the civilian economic issue at the hands of modders.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 6:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg Yes - I have no idea exactly when Allies started to put the brakes on production, which is why I put the ? in there. [:)] Cancellations for things like Destroyer Escorts had begun by the Fall of 1943. But I think they were building LST's right up to war's end. A lot depended on percieved needs....

mdiehl -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 7:27:21 PM)
quote: Japan should be able to produce more than in history because they could have produced more than in history. I do not think that claim is correct. Japan was at full war production starting in 1936. By 1941, something like 50% of their GDP was directed towards armaments --- higher than any other nation during the war as I recall. Despite that, their production growth was relatively anemic as compared with any other major power save, possibly, France (who were knocked out of the war before they really had a chance to start converting to war production), and Italy (who had their own "issues" with rationalization on par with Japan's). By 1939, Japan had conquered all of China and Korea that mattered in terms of metals, coal, a population to try to coerce into production, and by June 1942, all of the oil they were ever going to get their hands on. By comparison, Allied strategic bombing and strategic submarine campaign didn't really begin to bite into their economy until 1944. The plain fact is that Japan was as industrially mobilized as it was ever going to get by 1942 (in terms of rapid expansion). The only way it would have seen production numbers that Japanese players obtain in WitP would have been if there had been unfettered access to western oil and raw materials, coupled with strategic investment in industry, and no war before 1950. There at the very least should always be an option for NO Japanese production control. Especially if there will be no Allied production control.

mdiehl -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 7:29:38 PM)
One other thing. Since we're talking about the interplay of civilian and military production, the plain fact is that allied facilities growth rates (especially airbase expansion) in continental Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii, ought to be substantially enhanced.

mdiehl -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 7:33:15 PM)
quote: Setting up an accurate model of JA performance would require the WITP designers to assess what JA economic performance could have been had the army-navy reverted sufficient shipping to commerce [scratching head]? The problem is that even had the IJA and IJN reverted ALL shipping to civilian use, Japan would have been about 2 million tonnes short of what was needed to maintain their industrial status quo. Prior to the outbreak of the war, that shipping was in large part provided by trade with the United States, the Commonwealths, and the UK. I'm pretty sure Jim Dunnigan wrote a concise summary of this around 15 years ago (and as I recall, part of that was printed in the original Gary Grigsby's Pacific War [SSI] manual). All of the gains that Japan realized in production of aircraft airframes were primarily from rationalizing some production and recycyling. But Japanese heavy industry never kept pace in the expansion of production of engines (for anything -- a.c. or marine), machine tools, infrastructure, etc.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 7:41:18 PM)
quote: There at the very least should always be an option for NO Japanese production control. Especially if there will be no Allied production control. I thought there was a toggle for no jap production? Or is it a scenario toggle? I know that option is currently there somewhere...

Andrew Brown -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 10:55:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker So, to repeat a question. Has the means to model a semblance of a civilian population been added to balance the economic model? Some say that current manpower centres are enough but I'm not so sure this is the case. Increasing manpower centre sizes really can't help as this just increases the availability of squads. Perhaps altering manpower centre requirements to include editor adjustable quantities of resources and supplies might be desireable (ie, manpower centre values can be adjusted for each base/city). This then leaves the civilian economic issue at the hands of modders. Firstly, there has always been a "semblance" of civilian population in the economic model, as has already been pointed out - the need to provide manpower centres with resources. In AE that has been removed and replaced with the need to provide LI (which basically coexist with manpower centres) with resources instead. The problem with using manpower centres to simulate a "civilian" economy is that, when a base is captured, the number of manpower centres is divided by 10. Andrew Edit: Mapower centres require resources, not supplies.

blam0 -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 10:59:23 PM)
I find it quite strange that for all of this talk about "historical production" and what could and could not have been done by the allies/japanese, there is no mention of the "Europe First" strategy. [&:][&:] Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45? I'm not suggesting that the production model is flawless, but most of the arguments regarding the Allies capabilities smell suspiciously like AFB folks that just want to beat up on the Japanese. I for one, want as much control over my economy and upgrades as I can get, to improve upon history if you will. However, I respect (and expect) that some folks want otherwise, and simply would like to see if they can do better with the same resources. That's what House Rules are for. No one is saying that you HAVE to expand production. No one is saying that you HAVE to use PDU. If you believe that the game is playable as the Japanese with no expansion, then go ahead and play it yourself that way, or post for a PBEM opponent....and good luck finding one! As I see it, Production expandability is part of what makes the game playable from a Japanese player's perspective. Could it use some tweaking? Sure. Should it be eliminated ? No. Should the Allies be given additional resources? HELL NO.[:-]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/16/2008 11:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blam0 I find it quite strange that for all of this talk about "historical production" and what could and could not have been done by the allies/japanese, there is no mention of the "Europe First" strategy. [&:][&:]� Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45? I'm not suggesting that the production model is flawless, but most of the arguments regarding the Allies capabilities smell suspiciously like AFB folks that just want to beat up on the Japanese.� I for one, want as much control over my economy and upgrades as I can get, to improve upon history if you will.� However, I respect (and expect) that some folks want otherwise, and simply would like to see if they can do better with the same resources.� That's what House Rules are for.� No one is saying that you HAVE to expand production.� No one is saying that you HAVE to use PDU.� If you believe that the game is playable as the Japanese with no expansion, then go ahead and play it yourself that way, or post for a PBEM opponent....and good luck finding one! As I see it, Production expandability is part of what makes the game playable from a Japanese player's perspective.� Could it use some tweaking?� Sure.� Should it be eliminated ? No.� Should the Allies be given additional resources?� HELL NO.[:-] Personally, as someone who has always been an advocate of historical accuracy and plausability, I find it so frigging annoying that this constitutes being an AFB. Fine, make the game playable for "gamers" who want to play conquer the world with a fantasy Japanese Empire. Just make sure that there is also a version for those of us who pay the same money for a game we wish is more accurate and plausable. If this is not possible and we accuracy "freaks" have to mod a scenario, please give us something that allows us to modify the economy, not the hardcoded nightmare we have currently. Thanks.

mdiehl -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 12:06:27 AM)
quote: Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45? It's not that the idea is inconceivable, but instead that the idea is not supported by the historical facts. The Allies had a Europe first strategy in the real war. That did not stop the Allies from sending men and material to the PTO in the real war. Had the Japanese actually threatened Ceylon, India, Australia, Hawaii, sotheast Alaska, or Panama, going so far as to actually land troops in these places, you can bet that the "Europe First" strategy would have been further modified. Had the Japanese actually show an ability to sustain aircraft production and pilot production levels beyond that which western economic analysis (and actual combat results) of the real war presented, the US in particular would have substantially escalated production to meet the contingency. Then there's the backstory. Since the backstory assumes that the war in Europe proceeded more or less as it historically did, it is reasonable to assume that allied overproduction (compared with historical levels) would be directed at the PTO, rather than the ETO.

blam0 -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 12:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mdiehl quote: Is it so hard to conceive that additional Allied production would have gone to Europe and not the Pacific before a certain date, say March '45? It's not that the idea is inconceivable, but instead that the idea is not supported by the historical facts. The Allies had a Europe first strategy in the real war. That did not stop the Allies from sending men and material to the PTO in the real war. Had the Japanese actually threatened Ceylon, India, Australia, Hawaii, sotheast Alaska, or Panama, going so far as to actually land troops in these places, you can bet that the "Europe First" strategy would have been further modified. Had the Japanese actually show an ability to sustain aircraft production and pilot production levels beyond that which western economic analysis (and actual combat results) of the real war presented, the US in particular would have substantially escalated production to meet the contingency. Then there's the backstory. Since the backstory assumes that the war in Europe proceeded more or less as it historically did, it is reasonable to assume that allied overproduction (compared with historical levels) would be directed at the PTO, rather than the ETO. I don't have any issue with "threshold" reinforcements, akin to the "West Coast " rule, but I have to wonder (mostly because I don't know) how much of a handle the Allies had on Japanese production until 44 or 45. Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up. Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does

JWE -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 1:37:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blam0 Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up. Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does No one understands Production. Not even today. In a wartime �planned� environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody �knows� the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids. After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945. As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute �this� for �that�. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for �this� down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing �thats� from the line and tool up for �this�. Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis.

jolly_pillager -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 2:51:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: okami quote: ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager Just to throw in my .02 In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's. This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on. Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"? I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever. I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well... May I ask how far into the game are you? Is your opponent aggressive with his subs or is he waiting for the new torpedoe? I have two current games of CHS. In one my opponent has used the Sir Robin strategy and I have not seen a sub in some time. In the other the pesky things are always under foot and I have lost a good amount of merchants to sunk or damaged. I agree that it seems the Japanese have way to many merchant ships and it both of my games I have them not producing. But in my one game I believe that I will eventually have to turn them on as my opponent likes and effectively uses his subs. His subs seem to be mostly deployed along my forward areas...I hardly ever see a sub in my supply lines.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 4:04:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: blam0 Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up. Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does No one understands Production. Not even today. In a wartime �planned� environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody �knows� the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids. After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945. As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute �this� for �that�. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for �this� down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing �thats� from the line and tool up for �this�. Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis. The US began commisioning the Independence class CVLs a little more than a year after deciding to convert the CLs. Japan spent over two years converting Ise and Hyuga. But, in the game, Japan can ramp up it's production to the point it outproduces the US in a year? Hmmmm....[;)]

tsimmonds -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 4:32:10 AM)
I can easily arrange to have Taiho, Unryu, Amagi, Katsuragi, 2CL and 8DD arrive in May 43 while producing 2400 engines and 1600 a/c per month. This is with having captured Palembang totally destroyed for both oil and resources. 100,000 HI, 1,000,000 oil, and 1,000,000 resources in the bank. Just seems nuts.

witpqs -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 4:55:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE No one understands Production. Not even today. In a wartime �planned� environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody �knows� the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids. After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945. As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute �this� for �that�. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for �this� down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing �thats� from the line and tool up for �this�. Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis. Much truth, still things often take a lot less time. The US reduced production of many aircraft at a certain point - what if they just kept up the pace? No re-tooling, no ramp-up. Also, how long was it to both design and then get Hellcats building in great quantity? The whole deal was substantially less than two years.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 5:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant I can easily arrange to have Taiho, Unryu, Amagi, Katsuragi, 2CL and 8DD arrive in May 43 while producing 2400 engines and 1600 a/c per month. This is with having captured Palembang totally destroyed for both oil and resources. 100,000 HI, 1,000,000 oil, and 1,000,000 resources in the bank. Just seems nuts. This is crazy any way one looks at it. I like the idea of a player influenced Japanese war production economy, but one that is not pish posh. Also, be nice if the Allied player had some sort of impact on theirs as well, even if through abstract requests for more men and materiel.

Ken Estes -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 5:40:23 AM)
Those remain very cogent points. In addition, apparently, Imperial Japan was in the same sort of financial trouble as the Third Reich because of poorly conceived autarky and even weaker industrial basis. The 1937 plan should have been the US 1940 Two-Ocean navy equivalent, but merely funded two oversize BBs and the two excellent Shokaku CVs and some escorts. By the time these neared completion in 1941, the US 1940 plan already threatened to swamp the entire extant and planned IJN: 11 BB, 6 CB, 18 CV, 27 CA/CL, 115 DD, 43SS added to construction already under way (130 combatants). However, the post 1940 IJN shipbuilding program became hopelessly confused and endlessly debated: improved Yamato class BB vs CVs, various CV classes, questions of escorts, plus finances-industrial capacity-economics plus replacing governments. While it is true that 5 more Taihos and 15 Unryus were conceived [planned is a stretch, it seems], exactly which ones had orders placed is not clear, even to Japanese scholars. The confusion as to what was to be built and what was ordered and with what resources apparently dogged JA for the entire war, thus yielding the less than potential some have noted above. The 1937 state budget was 3.694B yen, March 38 added another 5.270B of which 4.6B were for China War expenses alone; the Dec39 vote for FY40-441 was 5.822B with a 4.460 China Supplement = ~65% military portion of the entire state budget. At the same time, there was no solution to the 40% shortfall in merchant shipping, 92% shortfall in the synthetic oil program or the continuing dependence of Japan on the US for a portion of its high-octane aviation fuel. Refining and industrial expansion programs also failed to reach the goals set in 1937 onward. Capitalization remained flat. In short, any rational thinker would have opted against war vs. the West. The rest can be chalked up to wierdness of psychologies of Emperor worship and militarism, leading to the [for us in the west] bizarre notion that Japan was forced to go to war because its independence [=freedom to subjugate China, etc.] was directly threatened. The teaching of this notion has apparently continued to the present day in JA public schools. [Haruo Tohmatsu and HP Willmott, A Gathering Darkness (NY: SR Books, 2004)] What is to be done? I suspect the current design team has it right, given the apparently endless alternatives one can imagine for both Allied and JA production. For example, additional USN CV losses after 1942 could have accellerated CVL and CV production, or all six Alaskas could have been advanced in place of Baltimores, etc. to match a player whimsy. Nothing is wrong or particularly unhistorical about putting options into the game, but the player must be placed into the historical position of chosing priorities and being stuck with them for some amount of time, not being able to produce other things. For instance, the DE vs. LST production woes of the USN are not well known but relate in part to the valve gap: the designs used much of the same piping and valve production available in the US. quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: blam0 Also, I have to wonder (showing my ignorance of such things) if it was indeed possible for the US to increase production further in a meaningful way (20% or more), and how long it would have taken to ramp up. Bearing in mind that I'm no Allied production expert, then does No one understands Production. Not even today. In a wartime �planned� environment, changes are not conducive to job security. Everybody �knows� the allies could have built a billion tons of whatever their favorite vessel was; but consider some realistic factoids. After Midway, the Japanese were frantic to increase their carrier fleet, and planned for 15 Hiryu (Soryu) types to make up the difference. When all was said & done, they got 4 launched and into limited commission by 1945. As for the Allies, it takes a while to make the political decision to substitute �this� for �that�. Then, it takes a while to propagate the specs for �this� down to the builders. Then, it takes a while to exhaust the existing �thats� from the line and tool up for �this�. Nothing happens in a heartbeat. It takes maybe a year (likely 2 years) to do a big shift in production emphasis.

GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 6:20:16 AM)
In terms of aircraft production: What about giving Japan fewer factories? Maybe cut out aircraft R&D factories entirely, leaving them with maybe 2/3 to 1/2 the number of factories to ramp up production with. One thing Japan is capable of with many smaller factories is to almost overnight ramp up Zero or Oscar production by 10% or more. With, say, 20 factories, each growing by 1 air frame per day the Japanese might be a little closer to reality than with, say, 40 factories each growing by 1 air frame per day. The same might be applicable to other industries as well, engine production, merchant and naval shipyard production, etc. Give the Japanese fewer actual factory locations with which to ramp up production. It's a little more difficult to double the size of a factory producing 300 planes than a factory producing 50 planes wihtout sucking your resource pool dry. Just a thought.

bradfordkay -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 7:36:24 AM)
It is my uhderstanding that the R&D factories were created to give the Japanese AI the ability to produce those aircraft, but that they are in excess of what really existed. Perhaps an AI only campaign could be created with those R&D factories as well as a PBEM only scenario without them. It seems to me (though I could be totally confused) that it would be relatively simple to create the second campaign scenario after the first one is completed (just load the first one into the editor, add or remove whatever and then save it as a second scenario).

okami -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 9:19:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager quote: ORIGINAL: okami quote: ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager Just to throw in my .02 In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's. This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on. Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"? I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever. I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well... May I ask how far into the game are you? Is your opponent aggressive with his subs or is he waiting for the new torpedoe? I have two current games of CHS. In one my opponent has used the Sir Robin strategy and I have not seen a sub in some time. In the other the pesky things are always under foot and I have lost a good amount of merchants to sunk or damaged. I agree that it seems the Japanese have way to many merchant ships and it both of my games I have them not producing. But in my one game I believe that I will eventually have to turn them on as my opponent likes and effectively uses his subs. His subs seem to be mostly deployed along my forward areas...I hardly ever see a sub in my supply lines. As in one of my games, your opponent is a cause of the problem you see. It is the same in this debate on Japanese production. If the allies don't fight of course there is going to be stockpiles of Japanese equipment.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 2:21:53 PM)
You know, when one looks at the inclusion of the strange respawn system which rips away all the ships which were named after ships sunk during the Pacific War (basically it amounts to removing from the 1943 Allied arsenal a force arguably equal in strength to KB) and the inclusion of the add water and stir fantasy Japanese conucopia...ooops, industry, one can really see just how far the original design leaned toward releasing a balanced game...something that has no serious historical context. Seriously, getting the economies to reflect a little sensibility will probably take alot of time and PBEM games. This being the case I hope that everything pertaining to this is adjustable in the editor so modders can tweak trouble spots, instead of us having to beg for another patch. These guys are not going to support this game forever.

treespider -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 3:14:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: okami quote: ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager quote: ORIGINAL: okami quote: ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager Just to throw in my .02 In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's. This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on. Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"? I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever. I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well... May I ask how far into the game are you? Is your opponent aggressive with his subs or is he waiting for the new torpedoe? I have two current games of CHS. In one my opponent has used the Sir Robin strategy and I have not seen a sub in some time. In the other the pesky things are always under foot and I have lost a good amount of merchants to sunk or damaged. I agree that it seems the Japanese have way to many merchant ships and it both of my games I have them not producing. But in my one game I believe that I will eventually have to turn them on as my opponent likes and effectively uses his subs. His subs seem to be mostly deployed along my forward areas...I hardly ever see a sub in my supply lines. As in one of my games, your opponent is a cause of the problem you see. It is the same in this debate on Japanese production. If the allies don't fight of course there is going to be stockpiles of Japanese equipment. Actually the AE team has identified a syndrome that is at work that affects a litany of items to include idle shipping...needless to say they are working industriously for a solution that will not only affect the idle shipping...but a whole host of other items. Clue: Supply consumption - - increased supply consumption will increase shipping required to keep the flow of supply to the front moving -- resulting in increased demand for merchants -- resulting in more HI needed to build merchants - more merchants needed to move supply - results in increased demand for fuel by the Navy - increased demand for fuel - results in constrained operations due to a tightened fuel budget - more merchants moving supply also results in more opportunities for subs to sink merchants - resulting in increased demand for merchants - resulting in less HI - increased supply consumption will also result in greater difficulty in conducting long range invasions because there are greater shipping requirements etc, etc Take a look at your typical Div in game - it expends roughly 1200 supply points for subsistence every month.... In actuality a typical US INF Div needed roughly 10,000 metric tons (supply points) for 'maintenance' in a month. HOWEVER - 'Maintenance' supply encompasses some of the other systems in the game that already expend supply - ie facility expansion, replacements, combat expenditures, etc...The left over is what is need for subsistence...and is still higher than what is expended in the game. RESULT, the balancing all of this with the existing code is the current challenge and is being examined in a serious manner.

GaryChildress -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 5:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker You know, when one looks at the inclusion of the strange respawn system which rips away all the ships which were named after ships sunk during the Pacific War (basically it amounts to removing from the 1943 Allied arsenal a force arguably equal in strength to KB) and the inclusion of the add water and stir fantasy Japanese conucopia...ooops, industry, one can really see just how far the original design leaned toward releasing a balanced game...something that has no serious historical context. Seriously, getting the economies to reflect a little sensibility will probably take alot of time and PBEM games. This being the case I hope that everything pertaining to this is adjustable in the editor so modders can tweak trouble spots, instead of us having to beg for another patch. These guys are not going to support this game forever. The carrier and cruiser respawn are not NECESSARILY slanted against the Allies. Depending upon how the Allied player plays he can also break even or even gain ships if he loses a lot of his own. If the game were realistic enough then the Allied player would surely be losing some carriers during the first couple years of the war and gaining them back in respawn. It may probably be an incredibly cautious Allied player who would actually benefit from NOT having carrier respawn.

witpqs -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 5:17:34 PM)
What if it's just that the IJ player is over-aggressive and gets hurt without the Allied player losing CV's? Anyway, I don't see how you can gain. Re-spawn only gives you those ships if you lost other ones. If you lose less than the respawn number, then you lose the ships that historically were delivered. I think the motivation for including respawn during the initial design was just for play balance.

treespider -> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production (1/17/2008 5:26:01 PM)
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.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.5