RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (Full Version)

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



Message

dude -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:39:41 AM)

I always love how on one hand people will point out the "historical" fact on why one side is being limited (ie Germany First for the Allies in this case) while at the same time making a case for ahistorical game play for the other side (no limits to Japanese production)

As an allied player I’d like to try and play an ahistorical game once in awhile and see what happens if I can have a bit more production… let me spend some PP to have more aircraft shipped to the Pacific for example.

Just make it an option at the start to allow for historical/ahistorical production for either side.  Like I said earlier if I wanted to see the historical outcome for the allies, I’ll read one of the numerous books I have on WWII…

In the mean time, in my case, I feel like I’m being hampered for trying to play the game a different way then the allies did historically… while the Japanese can try any ahistorical route they want.  This is especially true if the Japanese AI is doing things it didn’t do historically and I’m expected to use the material the Allies had historically… I should be given the chance to counter the ahistorical AI moves.  One of the reasons I’m running through so many planes is the moves the AI is making… (which I’m not complaining about) and my attemps to counter them.  I’m having to run all over the place with my Carriers short on aircraft just to stop a task force heading for Bora Bora for example!



eMonticello -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:39:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey
Forcing the allies to use historical delivery patterns for their airframes forces them into a historical operational tempo as well, which severely limits their freedom of action and limits them vis-a-vis Japan which has complete freedom of action.

Additionally, as somebody else noted, the allied industrial base was massive and quite capable of adjusting to differing frontline demands. If the allies were losing 200 Dauntless a month in combat, you can bet they'd have produced 200 dauntless a month to offset that burn rate. There'd have been ramp-up time, and the issue of getting the materiel forward mind you, but the allied industrial base could have, and did, adjust to actual burn rates.


Since the Dauntless and B-17 shared the same engine, it's unlikely there would be a significant uptick in Dauntless production. Likewise for the F4F, since it shared the same engine as the B-24, PBY, and DC-3. Engine production was the primary bottleneck early in the war since there were only two major manufacturers before 1940 (Pratt & Whitney and Wright) and the auto companies were in the process of retooling and expanding their plants to accommodate the demand for aircraft engines and aircraft.

Below are a few interesting sites:

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/factory.html

http://www.uk-us.org/stinet/warproduction.pdf

http://www.shanaberger.com/engines/engines_by_mfg.htm



jomni -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:44:29 AM)

Noob quesiton:

How to replace and upgrade carrier air groups?

Is it ok to just keep the CVs docked?
Should I unload them?
Where to unload them for replenishment and upgrade?



DrewMatrix -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:03:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

A war of attrition should be the last thing Japan wants but in my game Japan is producing as many aircraft in one day as I do in a month.



That's what concerns me.

Yes, the allies can win by husbanding their forces carefully, but attrition shouldn't be a winning strategy for Japan and at the moment it looks like the way to go for Japan.

To repeat:

How do I modify the late production of Allied Aircraft (not the production of bases on Dec 7 1941) to increase allied A/C production?




Mynok -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:53:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude
while the Japanese can try any ahistorical route they want.  This is especially true if the Japanese AI is doing things it didn’t do historically and I’m expected to use the material the Allies had historically… I should be given the chance to counter the ahistorical AI moves. 


The AI cheats. A human Japanese player CANNOT try any ahistorical route they want. It's just not possible.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:57:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

I always love how on one hand people will point out the "historical" fact on why one side is being limited (ie Germany First for the Allies in this case) while at the same time making a case for ahistorical game play for the other side (no limits to Japanese production)



Truth is that from the beginning "Japanese Production" has only been in the game so that Japanese players can abuse it. I think 2by3's original thinking was that no one would play the Japanese if they weren't allowed to ride roughshod over historical reality. Hamstringing Allied A/C availability is just the flip side of the same coin.



bradfordkay -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 5:28:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

I always love how on one hand people will point out the "historical" fact on why one side is being limited (ie Germany First for the Allies in this case) while at the same time making a case for ahistorical game play for the other side (no limits to Japanese production)



Truth is that from the beginning "Japanese Production" has only been in the game so that Japanese players can abuse it. I think 2by3's original thinking was that no one would play the Japanese if they weren't allowed to ride roughshod over historical reality. Hamstringing Allied A/C availability is just the flip side of the same coin.



I have to disagree with you here, Mike. I think that it was added to make the Japanese player realize just how important it is to capture the SRA and to get the resources back to Japan. It was also included to give the massive US submarine fleet a "raison d'etre" - there were far more US subs than would be needed to face the combat forces of the IJN. So if you don't have production modeled in some manner for the Japanese, then there is little incentive to get those resources back to Japan.

I don't think that they expected the Japanese players to be able to increase production as much as they have been able to pull off...



Scott_USN -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 5:50:14 AM)

Well have to remember IJ players hated the swarms of American fighters..... :)

Historically it is correct maybe not for a game? I don't know.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 6:37:11 AM)

I get about 2113 A6M2 total produced. That includes units produced pre war and likely not around in Dec 1941 and 2 seat training models (which I guess you might say are in the game in the training units). The IJ can build that many A6M2 in 7 months. And then build more.

For F4F (3s 3as and 4s) I get about 7000 total production (I am a little confused as to lend lease but I don't recall hearing that the majority went to Canada nor British units in the Far East). And I am pretty sure 90% of them didn't go to the ETO.  At 53/month (overly generous since they only achieved that build rate now) that number can be built in 136 months ie by about August 1954.

For total production I get a ratio of about 7700 F4Fs (not to mention about 12,000 F6Fs) to about 11,000 A6M (_all_ A6M models 2>8). That isn't a ratio of 6:1 in favor of the Japanese economy.

Something is not making any sense to me here.



Fishbed -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 6:43:40 AM)

Although I quite agree that something doesn't sound right, your numbers may include the FM series, which were built only later on, once the initial 1942 storm was over... weren't they?



DrewMatrix -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 6:45:47 AM)

Yes, my F4F numbers are fuzzy in part because of the FM. But not that fuzzy. This is an order of magnitude discrepancy.

And, heck. I remember 1954 (well). We lived near a naval air station. No one was delivering F4Fs.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 8:38:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
I have to disagree with you here, Mike. I think that it was added to make the Japanese player realize just how important it is to capture the SRA and to get the resources back to Japan.



Well..., everyone's entitled to their opinion. [:'(] Mine will remain that the original game was horribly "skewed" in favor of the Japanese being able to "win" on "points" in 1/43..., and that most of the "fixes" since have been aimed at toning this down without making it impossible. [8D]



rominet -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 8:57:24 AM)

Mynok said:

"ALL newly arrived pilots will have to go through about 3 months of training to be serviceable,"

no, it takes only 1 or 2 weeks.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2194555

I already said that training parameters are not well ajusted.
The japanese player won't probably have any trouble to have many good pilots as in 1 month of map training, the exp is growing from 10 to 70.
But the Allies can do same. So, there is no reason to think that in the game, jap pilots have a real superiority in this domain compared to the allied one's (after 1 month of play).
Provided that they have enough planes to do so, which doesn't seem to be the case.[&:]
I don't understand why dev team didn't give us the possibility to increase slowly US production. It is so easy to do.



jomni -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 1:10:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Well..., everyone's entitled to their opinion. [:'(] Mine will remain that the original game was horribly "skewed" in favor of the Japanese being able to "win" on "points" in 1/43..., and that most of the "fixes" since have been aimed at toning this down without making it impossible. [8D]


Then how to win? All Jap players are condemned to losing the game as in history?



P.Hausser -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 1:15:26 PM)

Back in WITP I had a production of 1400 Jack's PR month, 600 Frances pr month and 1300 Franks pr month. I had captured India, and done a lot of industrial expansions, my HI was 15500.

This is of course unhistorical numbers..


How does AE deal with this ??



jomni -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 1:18:00 PM)

Looking back. A feature I actually wanted is a toggle to make Japanese production AI controlled so that I can concentrate on the military maneuvers.  Maybe this sort of feature will at least appease the other camp.  But one thing that I fear is that playing Japanese with historical production is not winnable.



Mynok -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 2:27:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet

Mynok said:

"ALL newly arrived pilots will have to go through about 3 months of training to be serviceable,"

no, it takes only 1 or 2 weeks.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2194555

I already said that training parameters are not well ajusted.
The japanese player won't probably have any trouble to have many good pilots as in 1 month of map training, the exp is growing from 10 to 70.
But the Allies can do same. So, there is no reason to think that in the game, jap pilots have a real superiority in this domain compared to the allied one's (after 1 month of play).
Provided that they have enough planes to do so, which doesn't seem to be the case.[&:]
I don't understand why dev team didn't give us the possibility to increase slowly US production. It is so easy to do.


That's for ONE skill. You need 3 at minimum for most pilots to be effective. That's 60 days at minimum.



Mynok -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 2:31:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: dude

I always love how on one hand people will point out the "historical" fact on why one side is being limited (ie Germany First for the Allies in this case) while at the same time making a case for ahistorical game play for the other side (no limits to Japanese production)



Truth is that from the beginning "Japanese Production" has only been in the game so that Japanese players can abuse it. I think 2by3's original thinking was that no one would play the Japanese if they weren't allowed to ride roughshod over historical reality. Hamstringing Allied A/C availability is just the flip side of the same coin.


It is there so there is something for the B-29s to bomb. That's straight from the horse's mouth.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 2:43:13 PM)

Bump

I still don't see an explanation for how, with the production numbers given, the Allies can produce the number of F4Fs they did produce in less than about 11 years. This isn't a question of some F4Fs going to the Greeks. This is a discrepancy of greater than an order of magnitude.

Why is Allied production so low?

How does one adjust production (in the editor) of A/C models not in production at the start of a scenario?




EUBanana -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 2:46:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: P.Hausser

Back in WITP I had a production of 1400 Jack's PR month, 600 Frances pr month and 1300 Franks pr month. I had captured India, and done a lot of industrial expansions, my HI was 15500.


See? That this happened and nobody even commented much at the time, while the Allies get their 40 P40s, 40 P38Gs and 40 Corsairs a month, was a travesty.

That "pilots" keep being brought out as some sort of issue is another travesty given on map training. AE is an improvement on this, because at least the Allies can do it too, in WITP the reality of the tactical situation is that only the Japanese could effectively train their aircraft while the Allies had zip - no aircraft, no decent pilots, and no way to train them above experience 55.

Still. I have yet to see how the Japanese economy in AE works. It looks far more stringent. Japanese air losses also seem much higher now, so who knows, maybe even 40 P40s a month is enough now. It seems to be against the AI, not that that means much.



dude -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 2:58:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Well..., everyone's entitled to their opinion. [:'(] Mine will remain that the original game was horribly "skewed" in favor of the Japanese being able to "win" on "points" in 1/43..., and that most of the "fixes" since have been aimed at toning this down without making it impossible. [8D]


Then how to win? All Jap players are condemned to losing the game as in history?



no on two accounts... the first is good strategic play that beats the allies (and lots of luck... instead of losing your carriers at Midway perhaps you get lucky and sink the Allies?)

The second is why you give pre-game options to set the game up the way you want to play it... allow the player to limit the economies/or allow expansion of EITHER by setting an option. Why should I be foreced to play a game as the allies who are limited to historical events/economy while the Japaneese gets to play ahistorically? For example I would love to be able as the allies to skip some models of aircraft... how many versions of the P38 do I need??? I've been rereading some books on the Corsair and I'd love the option to replace the production of some other carrier based planes with just Corsair production runs... but I'm not able to... only the Japaneese get ahistorical fun.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:23:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
Well..., everyone's entitled to their opinion. [:'(] Mine will remain that the original game was horribly "skewed" in favor of the Japanese being able to "win" on "points" in 1/43..., and that most of the "fixes" since have been aimed at toning this down without making it impossible. [8D]


Then how to win? All Jap players are condemned to losing the game as in history?



Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.



EUBanana -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:24:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.


You can win on points, which is after all winning the game. Auto victory.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:30:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Japan SHOULD lose the war. Any other result would only prove the game was a hopelessly broken piece of garbage. That doesn't mean the Japanese PLAYER can't win by doing better than his historical counterparts..., making the Allies pay more for their triumphs..., holding out longer..., tossing monkey wrenches into the works.


You can win on points, which is after all winning the game. Auto victory.




The concept of "auto victory" is a crock! Even worse, it leads to "all or nothing" play and "quick quits" when the gamble doesn't succeed. It shouldn't be in the game at all. You start a war, you have to fight the whole war..., the Germans couldn't "win on points" (God knows the Russians lost enough)---they had to actually win or lose on the ground. The only "magic number" is the one on the scoreboard when the fat lady sings....



EUBanana -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:34:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
The concept of "auto victory" is a crock! Even worse, it leads to "all or nothing" play and "quick quits" when the gamble doesn't succeed. It shouldn't be in the game at all. You start a war, you have to fight the whole war..., the Germans couldn't "win on points" (God knows the Russians lost enough)---they had to actually win or lose on the ground. The only "magic number" is the one on the scoreboard when the fat lady sings....


Well, going by that you don't like victory points at all, in any game? If there was a game about Stalingrad you can assume that the Axis would get some points for holding onto it for a certain length of time, meaning 'you win'. Whether they would then win the whole war is immaterial, really.

I'm not too bothered anyway, its not about the winning, but the journey. Besides, when it's a bunch of discrete campaigns, you can win or lose each in turn. I'm not worried about the Big Picture, myself. I'm sure Japan can win or at least draw individual campaigns even in the late war.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 3:36:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The only "magic number" is the one on the scoreboard when the fat lady sings....



So it's autovictory to whichever side is ahead the first time Kate Smith does a USO show?




pmelheck1 -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:02:18 PM)

I agree if Japan can win a war of attrition this needs to be fixed.    Japan could only hope to inflict enough damage so that the allies would sue for peace on favorable terms.  A lot of research went into AE and it shows, but the same level of research should have went into Japanese production.  I am only talking AI here however.  If you want to be Japan and produce more than Japan did historically that's great.  If you play vs. the AI as Japan you can win easily as you are totally unrestrained by history except for shipping.  As the allies however it is much more difficult as you are restrained by history but the AI player is not and the first thing it does is out produce the allies.  As has been pointed out the AI cheats, so I'm sure if the AI player is running low of oil it will just give it self some oil to keep presenting a challenge to the player.  I my self have seen that Japanese factories expand either with no damage or it's industry is instantly repaired with no supply cost.  I've seen Japanese AI increase factories 250 points in multiple factories and in mid January all factories are fully repaired and running full out producing aircraft.  A lot of very good things were done to make AE more accurate but the AI seems to ignore all these rules.  I can understand the AI not using the new repair routine but ignoring something as important as prep points and loading limits?  A lot was done with the AI to make it more aggressive and it works great, but it should also abide by the same rules as the player if it's possable to program the AI to use the rule or at least simulate the rule.



pmelheck1 -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:17:21 PM)


Auto victory is the only way japan could win.  This simulates all the intangibles in the war.  This to me simulates things like national morale, impact of excessive losses, national will to fight.  All those things not represented in the game yet that are vital to winning a war.  If Japan must occupy Washington D.C. to win as it would have historically Japan CANT win.  Japan seizing a bunch of islands in the pacific and then screaming the war is over would not have ended the war any more than Germany seizing a bunch of western Russia and screaming the war is over would have halted the Russians. 



Jim D Burns -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:18:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni
But one thing that I fear is that playing Japanese with historical production is not winnable.



No one is really arguing that they reduce Japanese production. Only that they give the allies their historical capabilities. As it stands now the ONLY side that attrition war favors is Japan, and that flies in the face of history.

Jim



SuluSea -> RE: Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate (9/1/2009 4:52:46 PM)

Can these restrictions be dialed up or are they hard coded?

I like to play with an eye on history I haven't got that far yet because I enjoy micromanging everything , if true some of these aircraft restrictions look to be a huge turnoff and I doubt gameplay would be fun if come '43 the allies have trouble filling out their fleet carrier airgoups especially if the japanese opponent is exploiting the training system.  People can argue the raw data all they like but make no mistake if carriers were sitting in port short of airframes the aircraft wouldn't be headed to Europe to sit on an airfield. I believe the numbers are skewed anyway because the USN was short of fleet carriers come fall of '42 so reality says it wasn't much need for carrier aircraft in comparison to game play when the allied player may have all or most of his carriers.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875