A Plea For Allied Production

A Plea For Allied Production (Full Version)

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

Message

Kaoru -> A Plea For Allied Production (10/25/2009 10:50:04 PM)
To begin with, hello! Yes, this is my first topic. This is an incredibly long post, and I'll recap at the bottom. Feel free to ignore it if you don't feel up to a lot of reading. Note that I'm not entiiirely sure where this should go, so if it belongs in another subforum, feel free to move the post or thread. To give the slightest bit of background, I'm just a young player who stumbled onto this game, spent the last couple of weeks reading forum threads from this and the original WitP board - arguments about strategy, tactics, how-to guides, debates on expansionist vs. defensive strategy for Japan, the journeys of the Hibiki... so on, so forth. It all eventually got me over my sticker-shock for the game, and I made my purchase. I'm three days in and loving it, even though I'm only on my fifth turn. This game is insane, beautiful, and everything I ever dreamed of a wargame being. Well, almost everything. One thing that I've found rather disappointing is the Allied player's complete lack of control over production and industry. I've read the threads detailing why - and they make a lot of sense. It's true - the war in Europe took priority, in everything, leaving me all the more astonished that the brave men of the Commonwealth, the Chinese soldiers, and American soldiers and marines - to say nothing of the Filipinos, the Free French, et cetera - accomplished what they did: The defeat of an Empire whose history stretches back before they started writing things like that down. But it was not merely strength of arms that saw the fall of the Empire of the Rising Sun, the liberation of the Pacific, and the beginnings of a new era (for better or for worse) - nor was it merely America's gradually-awakening industrial splendor that overwhelmed the Japanese under hundreds of thousands of tons of rifles, machineguns, ships, mortars and howitzers. Other Allied nations contributed, too - and their contributions, owing to the game's system, cannot be modeled. Let me be frank: I am not asking that Production be enabled in the regular game, because there are very good reasons not to have it on by default, there. (Don't want to deal with a production system? Play Allied! I imagine that was a good selling-point of the game, for some people.) All I'm asking is that the option to turn it on in user-made scenarios, be enabled. I know that we're coming up on the release date of Patch 2, and so I don't expect this to make it into that patch (especially considering balancing issues to be resolved), but I would like to see this added to a provisional, far-in-the-future Patch 3. Mayhap even, by then, an official scenario supporting it - but that might just be a pipe-dream, considering how much work goes into these scenarios. There are very good reasons to discount this request, entirely. The scale of the work involved is just one of them - I presume that, from day one, the Allies were intended to keep their current partial-production model, and the entire game has been modeled around that. There are elements in place - merchant shipyards and the like converting to repair shipyards, just to name one - that are touted as part of the 'balance' between the Allied and Japanese forces - and, indeed, the entire game is balanced around this paradigm, and around weakening and limiting the Allied player as much as possible, to give the Japanese player a chance. That doesn't even go into the fact that it may turn out to be a tremendous deal of work (and programming, and coding, and testing, and bugfixing) for only a minority segment of the people who play the game - after all, those who want to play with Production don't seem to have a problem with playing Japan, as it stands, and I haven't seen many Allied fans who are up in arrears over the lack of production-control on that side - nor many who seem like they'd even want it, though I don't know if my own limited exposure is sufficient to reveal that. But there are also compelling reasons to include it. It wasn't, as I stated earlier, American industry alone that fueled the Allied war-effort. Canadian industry played its part, as well - as pointed out here. (Canada At War: Canadian War Industry) To summarize: Canada contributed over 4,000 ships, over 800,000 military vehicles, and countless guns and supplies to itself and its allies during the war - not just to Britain and the United States, but, through the Canadian "Mutual Aid" program, to Australia, to New Zealand, to countries in need and Allied, across the globe. The country's industrial capacity did not start with the ability to sustain or deliver this sort of production - it was built up during the war, built up in the same manner that Japanese production was, during the very war that War in the Pacific seeks to simulate. The growth of Canadian industry was unbelievably important for them, as a country, and its exclusion as such in the game is, thusly, unfortunate. But, and I can already hear others saying this, Canada is not the focus of the war. While many ships and supplies from Canada's newly-built western shipyards likely reached the Allied war effort in the Pacific, only a tiny fraction of the country - and the least-industrialized part of it, to my understanding - is actually represented in this game. Canada by itself is not a compelling enough reason to make any drastic changes to the game, and I might just agree with that, myself. But what about Australia? As covered by the this site (Australian War Memorial, specifically the Civil section) and the sub-section here, (Australian War Memorial: Home Front) Australia also pulled together and vastly increased their industrial muscle and output during the war. Australia alone contributed over 3,300 planes, hundreds of military vehicles - including tanks! - tens of thousands of artillery-pieces, machine-guns, and anti-aircraft weapons, and hundreds of thousands of rifles, for their own troops, especially. Admittedly, unlike Canada, many of these craft were reserved for Australian or Commonwealth use, but that's still a substantial chunk of industry, and a great deal of industrial growth, that this game makes impossible. My final talking-point is India. I hardly need to tell you that India's industrial growth helped fuel, clothe, and supply the Allied war effort in the Pacific - the increasing process of military Indianization is already modeled in the ever-greater replacement of British regulars with Indian troops, to my understanding. The entire subcontinent is there for the player to toy with, and there is no doubt in my mind that the expansion of industry and economic might that occurred in India during World War II helped to make it one of the world's leading industrial powers in the decades that followed. The purely-historical reinforcement and replacement system of the game does, admittedly, cover a great deal of the black-and-white effects of these increasing national outputs - and with the difficulty Japan has in directly threatening Australia, the continental United States, and the whole of the Indian subcontinent, full Allied production may just be another nail in Japan's coffin - something that's unnecessary and will only contribute to headaches for an Allied player. But, I don't think so. By sticking with only enabling it for modified scenarios, or, wonder of wonders, creating a special full Allied Production scenario, the balance of the game is preserved for those who like a limited Allied production schema - and for those who just don't want to mess with a complex production system in the first place! And, at the same time, the system is freed up to deliver to those of us who do want that additional headache, that additional struggle, exactly what we're begging for. Enabling full Allied Production as an option for modders extends our options, extends the challenge of the game, and for those who are already turning to 'Ironman' scenarios to get a little more 'oomph' out of the AI's capitalization of its resources, affords an opportunity to try a game that will truly test our resolve. Or, for those of us who like the idea of buffing Japan up so as to have to fight harder, it gives us an opportunity to actually match them - whereas right now, the limited nature of Allied production functions as a chain on how strong one can make the Japanese side before victory becomes next to impossible, with the set, limited forces at our command. I don't know exactly what role you, the developers, see the player taking in this game - but for my part I tend to see us in a role as the Chief of the Navy or some similarly-powerful position, similar to the player's role in "Pacific Theater of Operations" and its sequel, games for the Super Nintendo that I grew up on. Such an individual would, doubtless, be able to influence and direct production for this theater, to a larger extent than merely building airplanes with a set and unchangable number of factories. But, whatever role you see us in, I'd still say there are plenty of reasons to let us have free reign of the Allied production pipeline. Yes, in the beginning, Japan will find it hard to stop initial Allied production, but as the system expands across the board, it will need resources just as much as the Japanese system does - India, Australia, even Canada and the Continental U.S. are not endlessly self-sufficient in regards to resources and oil, in this game, from what I've seen. It will require Allied effort to keep going, if he wants to keep expanding. It wouldn't, in my eyes, be 'just another Allied advantage', in a game that - according to some - is already weighted with quite a few. If anything, when enabled, it'd help level the playing field, making it necessary for the Allies to do more than twiddle their thumbs to get the forces to fight Japan. To summarize: The geopolitical realities of industry in the various Allied nations mean that there are compelling real-world examples of industrial growth in the Pacific during World War II, and this cannot currently be modeled in Admiral's Edition or War In The Pacific. To help portray these, to increase the range of options available to gamers and players and modders, alike, to help contribute to the creation of challenging and interesting games and scenarios in Admiral's Edition, I am suggesting that the enablement of full control of Allied Production be added as a scenario option, or realism option, for modders to use or for gamers to enable. I am not suggesting that it be enabled by default in any scenario, owing to the headaches it can cause for people who don't want it. I am considering a custom-made, official 'Full Allied Production' scenario as a wishlist-item - nice to think about, but probably not something that will happen. I also realize that "Allied" production is a great deal more complex than Japanese production - whose resources can you use? What do all these factories build? Can an Australian factory be forced to build an American fighter, or vice-versa? I don't know how many of these concerns, and countless others, will have to be addressed by the team if they even so much as give me the time of day, but I'm sure it'd be a considerable investment to make Allied Production a 'go'. That's why I've taken the time to go through all this, though. I know it's just a game - that the whole thing is just a game, it's not incredibly serious business, but still - I think it's worth the effort. I think it's worth the headaches. I think it's worth the investment. And, after all, isn't that what a game like War in the Pacific is all about? Isn't it a game that looks you square in the eye, and says: "I am difficult, I am complicated, I will be your worst nightmare as you try to learn all of my intricacies, plan for them, and implement them. I will keep you up at night worrying, I will steal time that may be more wisely invested elsewhere, but I am worth it"? It is to me. Here's hoping that Allied Production is, to you. ~Kaoru, probably the first APFB (Allied Production Fanboy)

Terminus -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/25/2009 11:00:10 PM)
Welcome to the wacky world of AE, Kaoru. Well-argued post, but like you said, not going to happen for AE.

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/25/2009 11:10:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Welcome to the wacky world of AE, Kaoru. Well-argued post, but like you said, not going to happen for AE. If it's not gonna happen, I suppose, it's not gonna happen. But keep it in mind if you find yourself with some spare time (Not likely, I know! [:D]) after Patch 2 hits and while you're plotting out Patch 3. Or for that far-off beast, War In The Pacific 2. (Assuming sales from AE have been sufficient to justify that!) Of course, I can't promise not to sneakily push for it, any chance I get. [;)] ~Kaoru

Terminus -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/25/2009 11:12:53 PM)
Plenty of good-intentioned people have pushed for this, but remember that for this to go into a patch would require lots and lots and lots of coding and testing. An Allied production model would have to be built from the ground up.

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/25/2009 11:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Plenty of good-intentioned people have pushed for this, but remember that for this to go into a patch would require lots and lots and lots of coding and testing. An Allied production model would have to be built from the ground up. Exactly. I recognize, and mentioned above, that it'd be a monumental undertaking - the whole game is balanced around 'The Japanese have control of their production, the Allies do not'. I've done a bit of coding and programming myself, and lots of game-modification (including some large-scale stuff that approached commercial proportions.) The coding alone, with having to shoehorn into the engine a brand-new production model, would be staggering, and the need for testing (and balancing!) could make anyone who knows what it's like to sit down for a few hours every day and go through the same scenario or process, catching bugs each time, adjusting, and diving back in, week after week, cringe. It's not as easy as flipping a switch, and, bammo! Allies can control production! No, it'd like-as-not be at least a couple months of work, on a priority list that's already going to be chock-full of other things. I do see that. I just feel like it'd be worth the investiture, and my argument above is designed to reflect that. You can take it or leave it, and my feelings won't be hurt. I'm little more than another voice in the crowd - I'm not, after all, volunteering my time towards coding the monster, and I doubt you'd accept me, if I did. But I figure that letting you know there's yet another long-winded fellow willing to push for the eventual inclusion of a full Allied Production schema, hopefully, helps to eventually get the issue seriously considered - especially in light of the whole "for every one post made, ten people who think the same lurk and say nothing." ~Kaoru

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 12:55:43 AM)
quote: I just feel like it'd be worth the investiture, and my argument above is designed to reflect that. You can take it or leave it, and my feelings won't be hurt. I'm little more than another voice in the crowd - I'm not, after all, volunteering my time towards coding the monster, and I doubt you'd accept me, if I did. But I figure that letting you know there's yet another long-winded fellow willing to push for the eventual inclusion of a full Allied Production schema, hopefully, helps to eventually get the issue seriously considered - especially in light of the whole "for every one post made, ten people who think the same lurk and say nothing." ~Kaoru A very eloquent and well argued voice though. Seen enough rants here in the past to recognise that at least. Can't say i agree 100% with you and if i'm honest any allied production system could and would be abused by the more 'gamey' players to the detriment of PBEM-philes. so many allied planes are to put it mildly "Sub Par" , even a small adjustment for only on map commonwealth and some limited West coast facilities would heavily sway play balance. Who wouldn't stop wirrways being made ? prety much anything is better than those early war. and wirraway 2 .. never would see the light of day, along with USA bombers being funnelled into the one with the best stats. for me I get a sense of both frustration and satisfaction from allied production. you use what you get and if thats less than stellar a/c and you still manage to hurt Japan with it , makes a warm fuzzy feeling [:D].

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 2:09:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK quote: -snip- A very eloquent and well argued voice though. Seen enough rants here in the past to recognise that at least. Can't say i agree 100% with you and if i'm honest any allied production system could and would be abused by the more 'gamey' players to the detriment of PBEM-philes. so many allied planes are to put it mildly "Sub Par" , even a small adjustment for only on map commonwealth and some limited West coast facilities would heavily sway play balance. Who wouldn't stop wirrways being made ? prety much anything is better than those early war. and wirraway 2 .. never would see the light of day, along with USA bombers being funnelled into the one with the best stats. for me I get a sense of both frustration and satisfaction from allied production. you use what you get and if thats less than stellar a/c and you still manage to hurt Japan with it , makes a warm fuzzy feeling [:D]. I can definitely see the appeal of that. And, you're absolutely right - any system introduced is definitely going to be wide, wide, wide open to exploitation by those seeking to game it - (We call 'em 'mix/maxers', where I'm from, for minimizing their weaknesses and maximizing their gains). Even if it's just changing it so the Allies can control their air production, it'd be a system wide, wide open to abuse. But then, isn't the Japanese production system the same way? It's not as if the Allies would be the only ones able to throw their best stuff out of the factories. I mentioned in the larger post, above, the idea that a part of the system could include 'national' restrictions - so that you didn't have factories in Australia churning out B17s and better from day one, instead of Wirraways. That'd help to reduce the gaminess factor of Aussie and Indian factories making ahistoric (and very unbalancing) numbers of certain planes, at least until they were available to those nations in some numbers. 'Course, that's just an idea. Even if there were no such restrictions, though - well, when it comes to PBEMs, you folks already seem to have a dedicated and widely-followed 'house rule' system set up, where both players take one another on their honor to do or not do certain things. I don't actually know how widely that's adhered to, but if it's respected to some degree, then most 'gaminess' of that sort wouldn't be a much larger problem than anything else already is, if restricted by house rules. On the other hand, though, being in the early years with the Allies, as I am right now, I can definitely see what you're saying about 'using what you get' and using it well. I decided to make a stand in Singapore, so I've got a few battered bunches of Buffalo flying CAP over it and a few other key points. I can't deny that I give out a little cheer, every time one of those lil' tubs takes down a Zero, Nate, or Betty. ~Kaoru

stuman -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 2:30:55 AM)
Thanks for putting the time into writing that post. Glad to have you onboard !

Oldguard1970 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 3:04:10 AM)
Welcome, Kaoru. As an AFB, I can agree with Rob. Allied production is a LIMITATION on the allied player. Japanese production provides OPTIONS to the Japanese player. That is needed. Japan will lose the war (if not the game) in due course. The game is more fun when the Japanese player gets to squirm and wiggle and take what additional small advantages that the game offers. I want my Japanese opponent to keep having fun and to keep hitting me from my blind side. I want to keep having to figure out how to clobber him while dodging his attacks. Once the game becomes a "done deal", the fun thins out.

rogueusmc -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 3:13:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru ...I'm just a young player who stumbled onto this game, spent the last couple of weeks reading forum threads from this and the original WitP board - arguments about strategy, tactics, how-to guides, debates on expansionist vs. defensive strategy for Japan, the journeys of the Hibiki... It is refreshing to have a 'young player' take such an intelligent approach to things like this...it gives me hope for the current generation...how young is young? And welcome aboard Semper Fi, Lee

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 3:40:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stuman Thanks for putting the time into writing that post. Glad to have you onboard ! Any opportunity to write for a cause one believes in, is a good opportunity, so far as I'm concerned. There's a whole lot worth reading on these boards, already - I can only hope my initial post falls under that umbrella. Glad to be here, though! quote: ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970 Welcome, Kaoru. As an AFB, I can agree with Rob. Allied production is a LIMITATION on the allied player. Japanese production provides OPTIONS to the Japanese player. That is needed. Japan will lose the war (if not the game) in due course. The game is more fun when the Japanese player gets to squirm and wiggle and take what additional small advantages that the game offers. I want my Japanese opponent to keep having fun and to keep hitting me from my blind side. I want to keep having to figure out how to clobber him while dodging his attacks. Once the game becomes a "done deal", the fun thins out. I both see where you're coming from, and agree - barring some of the wild extremes that've occurred in various AARs, there is not (and should not be) any way for Japan to pull a military victory out over the Allies. Production is one of many tools in a good Japanese player's arsenal to try and stave their defeat off as long as possible. And, given the vast amounts of war material that eventually become available to the Allies even through the current reinforcement/replacement system, there's no overriding need at present to correct any vast imbalance - the Allies overwhelm the Japanese just fine without production-control. The current system works, and yet provides a worthwhile and definite limitation as it stands. But as for full control...It would be a limitation, if the Allies in-game had to actually find and provide the resources for even a part of the astonishing output they eventually reach. Even assuming that the Continental U.S. could take care of itself (but most of that would be, I'd say, off-map production, and probably still be fine under the current system, if push came to shove) - there's still the matter of all the other countries, there's the matter of figuring out how to work the system, so on, so forth. It probably wouldn't run itself like it currently does, and so it'd provide a leash of sorts around an Allied player's neck. And, given that my suggestion is just to offer that as a choice, would it really be so bad? If we as gamers play Allied and choose to limit ourselves, or play Japanese and choose to limit the Allies, well, isn't that basically what the game's about? Both sides are "limited", in a sense, and the Allies are given intentionally-harsh limitations, to keep the game fun and interesting for both sides. All I'm suggesting is to give the player the chance to reconfigure those limitations - not remove them. In a game like this, I can hardly see 'more options' as being a bad thing - with the caveat that, obviously, this particular 'option' could very well end up being more trouble than it's worth - loathe as I am to admit that. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: rogueusmc quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- It is refreshing to have a 'young player' take such an intelligent approach to things like this...it gives me hope for the current generation...how young is young? And welcome aboard Semper Fi, Lee Happy to be of service, sir - I actually just turned 20, so I suppose I don't get to call myself young young. Considering some of the stories I've read (of players, and patrons of this board, and of games and AARs) I'm honored to be here. The community is really one of the largest reasons I took the dive and decided to wrack my brain over this game. ~Kaoru

JWE -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 3:44:11 AM)
Extremely well and cogently expressed Kaoru. Unfortunately, it won�t happen, for a number of reasons, but do not be discouraged; this is just the kind of discourse we want. Simplest, and biggest, reason is there�s a gazillion lines of code for the Japanese economy. Adding another side to the equation would result in another gazillion lines of code. That�s a couple years � not goodnik. Other reason is game-concept. Japan required a rather large import % of her necessary industrial resources: chrome, manganese, tin, cobalt, oil, rice, feed grain, machine tools, asphalt, lime, concrete sands, etc.. Once exports to Japan were cut off by the Allies, Japan �required� conquest to feed her machine. Thus the Japanese economic model. The Allies, on the other hand, had each and every one of those items, in such a plethora that many mines were maintained just as they were, even under the pressure of total, global, war. The Allied cornucopia of resource basis, was so vast (even unorganized as it was in �41 and �42) that it makes little sense to specify it. The best we can do is accept the cornucopia and allow it to extrude those nuggets that indeed, it did. Lots and lots of alternatives, but dude, Japan was a small, mountainous, resource poor, technologically sparse, nation with a large, gnarly, population, while the Allies had many more people in a vast, resource rich, technologically superior, strategically central location. Gotta have some way to let the small dog bite higher than the knee. Japanese production is actually a way for an intelligent player to do some real good poopy. No. Considered opinion is Allied production is not a good idea. Better to play with data. Sorry, but there it is.

pad152 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 4:03:40 AM)
Japanese player doesn't even have full control of production, just helps manages it! There is no real ship production just scheduling of ship arrival. Changing factories for aircraft types is a risky business, one too many changes and your economy will crash in 6 months.

Buck Beach -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 4:15:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Extremely well and cogently expressed Kaoru. Unfortunately, it won�t happen, for a number of reasons, but do not be discouraged; this is just the kind of discourse we want. Simplest, and biggest, reason is there�s a gazillion lines of code for the Japanese economy. Adding another side to the equation would result in another gazillion lines of code. That�s a couple years � not goodnik. Other reason is game-concept. Japan required a rather large import % of her necessary industrial resources: chrome, manganese, tin, cobalt, oil, rice, feed grain, machine tools, asphalt, lime, concrete sands, etc.. Once exports to Japan were cut off by the Allies, Japan �required� conquest to feed her machine. Thus the Japanese economic model. The Allies, on the other hand, had each and every one of those items, in such a plethora that many mines were maintained just as they were, even under the pressure of total, global, war. The Allied cornucopia of resource basis, was so vast (even unorganized as it was in �41 and �42) that it makes little sense to specify it. The best we can do is accept the cornucopia and allow it to extrude those nuggets that indeed, it did. Lots and lots of alternatives, but dude, Japan was a small, mountainous, resource poor, technologically sparse, nation with a large, gnarly, population, while the Allies had many more people in a vast, resource rich, technologically superior, strategically central location. Gotta have some way to let the small dog bite higher than the knee. Japanese production is actually a way for an intelligent player to do some real good poopy. No. Considered opinion is Allied production is not a good idea. Better to play with data. Sorry, but there it is. BTW Kaoru, JWE us on the Dev Team. Be innovative and see what you can do with the Editor. we could all benefit.

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 4:59:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Extremely well and cogently expressed Kaoru. Unfortunately, it won�t happen, for a number of reasons, but do not be discouraged; this is just the kind of discourse we want. Simplest, and biggest, reason is there�s a gazillion lines of code for the Japanese economy. Adding another side to the equation would result in another gazillion lines of code. That�s a couple years � not goodnik. Other reason is game-concept. Japan required a rather large import % of her necessary industrial resources: chrome, manganese, tin, cobalt, oil, rice, feed grain, machine tools, asphalt, lime, concrete sands, etc.. Once exports to Japan were cut off by the Allies, Japan �required� conquest to feed her machine. Thus the Japanese economic model. The Allies, on the other hand, had each and every one of those items, in such a plethora that many mines were maintained just as they were, even under the pressure of total, global, war. The Allied cornucopia of resource basis, was so vast (even unorganized as it was in �41 and �42) that it makes little sense to specify it. The best we can do is accept the cornucopia and allow it to extrude those nuggets that indeed, it did. Lots and lots of alternatives, but dude, Japan was a small, mountainous, resource poor, technologically sparse, nation with a large, gnarly, population, while the Allies had many more people in a vast, resource rich, technologically superior, strategically central location. Gotta have some way to let the small dog bite higher than the knee. Japanese production is actually a way for an intelligent player to do some real good poopy. No. Considered opinion is Allied production is not a good idea. Better to play with data. Sorry, but there it is. Thank you very much for your compliments, and don't worry. I don't allow setbacks to discourage me - a setback is just the universe's way of telling me to work harder! [;)] As for discourse... You bring up a lot of excellent points, any one of which, alone, would easily torpedo an argument for forced Allied Production in the main game. Proper control of the full Allied war industry (or even a significant part of it) could easily see Japan left helpless, much more rapidly and thoroughly than she already is. In the game and in the real world, Japan was the underdog, and there's no pleasure, excitement or enjoyment to be had from grinding the underdog, underfoot. It is, in absolute terms, much more important to see that Japan has a fighting chance to hurt and wound the Allies, and remains competitive throughout the game, than it is to accurately and specifically model both the Allied industrial growth throughout the war, and the options that it presented to them. Opportunities are Japan's forte in War in the Pacific, and the Allies are - as has been stated before - left to do the best they can, with what they've got, whether that's a couple of leaky dinghys or a vast Two-Ocean Fleet. Of course, I'm not so sure about your claimants regarding the Allies' status, as a whole. In terms of sheer numbers, sure, there were definitely a larger population on the Allied side, with more resources, more technology, more resources, and a better strategic footing, but wasn't a lot of that centred around (after the Fall of France) Britain and the United States - whose production facilities are already mostly out of the game's geographic scope? Regarding equality between Japan and the other Allies... The resources certainly weren't, and nations such as India and China could certainly be called resource-rich. But neither of them had anywhere near Japan's level of technology, even given the vast population disparity between these countries and Japan. Nations that did approach Japan a bit closer - Australia, and Canada - in technology, didn't have anywhere near Japan's 1940s population of 73 million or so. Australia had perhaps 7 million people, Canada, 11 million or so - a vastly-smaller work-and-warforce than Japan could muster. New Zealand had neither industry nor population on any sort of level capable of competing with Japan. It was from America and Britain that the bulk of the technology and industry that crushed the Empire of Japan came - but they were not the only contributors. I can't argue with you on game-concept - like you said, and like I've said, the whole game is very literally built around Japan needing to go on crusade, so to speak, to get the fuel for the fires of her factories. But it seems to me that there's a problem, in that most people who play Allied simply accept that Japan is essentially unstoppable in '41 and '42, and advocated as complete a withdrawl as possible, giving up everything to the Japanese player without a fight. Considering that, in the current game-model, they stand to lose nothing by this - the prevailing opinion seeming to be 'Japan can only expand so far, let her pick her limits and then chip away at them until '43 and '44 roll around' - it makes perfect game-sense to do this. This sort of decision smacks wrong to me, though - at least, in a general sense, of it being the best and smartest option available to an Allied player. After all, who in the Allies knew that wartime production would eventually ramp up to the extent that they could bury Japan? Who in the Allies knew that vast numbers of American soldiers would eventually come riding in to save the day - especially of those embattled forces in Malaya, in Singapore, in Hong Kong, New Guinea, and Australia - to name a few? Would they really have bet all their tomorrows on some far-off hope that, in a few years' time, they could stroll back in and take everything? I don't think so - and if the Allies, in game-terms, had a stake in what they were defending, I don't think so many players would do so, either. It's just one idea, of course, in a much larger system - one idea that, even if implemented, I'd suggest be left as an option, not a requirement, for gamers and modders to toy around with as they chose. And, of course, in the early-war period, wouldn't the Allies already be industrially handicapped, as they struggled to put everything in order? It wouldn't be until late in the war that the full brunt of it was available to the player - the same as, currently speaking, it's not until late in the war that the full complement of forces historically-fielded are at the player's command. In the interim, though, I think it'd be very fun to have more control over the actions of the smaller Allies - over India, and Australia, and China, so on and so forth. That brings us to your much larger point: The time, effort and code-investiture into building such a system. Believe me when I say: I realize what I am asking for, what everyone who's ever pushed for Allied production is asking for: The devotion of hundreds, if not thousands - or more - of man-hours, the work of some great span of time pooled solely on the creation of a system that would supplement an already-working paradigm. Yes, it's a lot to ask, and that's why I'm not talking about this in terms of weeks, of months, or even in terms of this year (or, on the prospect of it waiting until WitP II, in terms of next year, either). I'm talking, and thinking, way long-term. I mean, right now, let's face it: The whole programming team, in the run-up to the release of Patch 2, is so sick of looking at AE code that they're probably wishing they never had to see it again. There's a tremendous deal of stress on everyone down there, with zero hour approaching for Patch 2 hitting the waves, and any consideration of adding even more complexity, even in the future, is likely to meet with sour looks and thoughts - for good reason, considering the colossal amount of effort that's already gone into improving and adding to AE. But, two or three months down the road, all I ask is that those in charge of making such decisions look back here, and at the issue, and at the idea, and cart it out again to be discussed - and perhaps that the discussion here continue, as well. Look at it from a few different angles. Properly-presented, it could be yet another compelling, complex aspect of this already-superb game. Of course, in the end, if the data is all that I'm given for the Allied side, I might pout, a little, but I'll not be too nonplussed. There's far too much to this game for me to get upset over not being able to precisely dictate just which of my planes are bearing down, in crushing numbers, on Japan. [;)] ~Kaoru P.S.: quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Japanese player doesn't even have full control of production, just helps manages it! There is no real ship production just scheduling of ship arrival. Changing factories for aircraft types is a risky business, one too many changes and your economy will crash in 6 months. Absolutely! And while I'll admit, being the player, I am, I'd probably also suggest that being able to determine for ourselves, as Japan, what ships we want to produce in some areas (Geez, Kaoru, more 'suggestions'? I know, I know! I'll never be satisfied...[:'(]), I'd also say the additional elements of challenge, risk, and danger associated with taking the liberties you've laid out with Allied production, would add to the fun factor of the game. Especially if it was just an alternative, and not the only way! [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach BTW Kaoru, JWE us on the Dev Team. Be innovative and see what you can do with the Editor. we could all benefit. Mmhm! I don't have all of the devs pegged from reading forums, but I've seen enough to know that JWE's one of the few and proud who helped to bring us all AE. Thanks for the heads-up, though! And, believe me, I'll be diving into the Editor just as soon as I wrap my head around the retail game. Heck, I've modded, edited and changed games before in Hex and ASM, when no other options were available - giving me an actual editor to play with only speeds up the process!

rogueusmc -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 5:19:19 AM)
quote: Considering that, in the current game-model, they stand to lose nothing by this - the prevailing opinion seeming to be 'Japan can only expand so far, let her pick her limits and then chip away at them until '43 and '44 roll around' - it makes perfect game-sense to do this. This sort of decision smacks wrong to me, though - at least, in a general sense, of it being the best and smartest option available to an Allied player. This was, basically, the case though...Marshals, Gilberts, Mariannas, Solomons...they were all a buffer zone between the US and the SRA. The Japanese knew this going in (I just don't think they knew the extent of it)

DivePac88 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 5:58:54 AM)
Hi Kaoru, and welcome to the beautiful game. You have basically boiled the grand campaign (and history) down to the 'brass tacks'. Japan needs to take a line that it can realistically hold, before the US industry gears up for total war.

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 6:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rogueusmc quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- This was, basically, the case though...Marshals, Gilberts, Mariannas, Solomons...they were all a buffer zone between the US and the SRA. The Japanese knew this going in (I just don't think they knew the extent of it) The small islands, the atolls, certainly - but what about the Dutch East Indies? What about Malaya, and China, and Burma? What about the Philippines? These tend to be abandoned (or, in the case of China, ignored) just as rapidly as the island buffer-zones. One could certainly make a case for the historical abandonment of China (Don't get me started, there - sheesh!), but I doubt very much that it was the intention of the developers (who can feel free to chime in and tell me I'm wrong) or of prevailing historical minds in the Netherlands, the UK and the US (who are deceased, and cannot), that these areas were just 'buffer-space' between the Allies and the Empire. Letting the player treat them that way and suffer nothing for it, in that light, and others, sort of seems off to me! quote: ORIGINAL: DivePac88 Hi Kaoru, and welcome to the beautiful game. You have basically boiled the grand campaign (and history) down to the 'brass tacks'. Japan needs to take a line that it can realistically hold, before the US industry gears up for total war. Thank you! Of course, the discussion of what 'a line it can realistically hold' constitutes is one for another topic, but, yeah. That certainly sounds about right to me! Of course, holding that line in the face of US aggression is another matter, entirely...

Mike Scholl -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 7:52:18 AM)
KAORU certainly speaks to the dreamer in all gamers..., the part that always thinks if I could just change this or that I could do better. The problem arises in the research and programming aspects. Modeling just the military aspects of the War in the Pacific is an awesome task with thousands of variables to be researched and integrated. The current game, even with all it's improvements, still falls short in a number of these areas (the ground combat system anyone?), and could benefit from years more work. What "production system" does exist in the game is very unsophisticated and exists primarily to give the Japanese side some wriggle room. To truly bring it up to the standards of some of the game's other programming is a daunting task..., with factors including resource availability and allocation, manpower (skilled and unskilled) availability and allocation, plant remodeling and construction, design sophistication and management expertise, transportation availability and allocation, machine tools production, industrial engineering as well as scientific research, etc., all to be analized and implemented. And I fear that if it ever was the result would be to allow the Allies (with the benefit of hindsight) to be even more overwhelming than they already were.

ChezDaJez -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 8:33:34 AM)
quote: What "production system" does exist in the game is very unsophisticated and exists primarily to give the Japanese side some wriggle room. To truly bring it up to the standards of some of the game's other programming is a daunting task..., with factors including resource availability and allocation, manpower (skilled and unskilled) availability and allocation, plant remodeling and construction, design sophistication and management expertise, transportation availability and allocation, machine tools production, industrial engineering as well as scientific research, etc., all to be analized and implemented. And I fear that if it ever was the result would be to allow the Allies (with the benefit of hindsight) to be even more overwhelming than they already were. Well said. And I think that if it were ever implemented, no one would ever be able to find a Japanese player willing to take it on! Welcome to the game, Kaoru! Chez

Reg -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 9:06:40 AM)
Interesting, it appears that there is a similar thread over on the BTR forum so I will repeat what I said here. quote: Reg - ED-BTR Forum 25Oct09 I have had a views on this topic for quite a while as it closely parallels the WITP/AE debate. I think that most people totally miss the point of having axis production as an in-game function. One vocal fan boy advocate even went so far as to state that having Japanese (Axis) production on map where it was vulnerable to Allied action was to "PUNISH" the Axis player. I believe GG put production on the map to allow the Allied player to attack and gradually erode the Axis's ability to wage war. As in the real war, axis war effort can be directly affected by attacks on the factories or by the denial of resources necessary for the war effort. This is not only the cornerstone of Allied strategy but central of any analysis of the conflict!!! The reason Allied production is fixed off map is that the Ford plant at Willow Run will produce 428 aircraft per month (Aug'44) regardless of what the Axis player does. However the Mitsubishi/Messerschmidt plant output is very dependent on the in-game actions of the Allied player. I think the ability of the Axis player to adjust their factories/economy is quite consistent with this concept and allows the player to adjust and re-balance to minimise the impact of the Allied incursions. However, the one thing I vehemently object to is the ability of the Axis player to use this flexibility to crank up production to ahistorical levels which I believe is tantamount to an exploit of the game system. If the Axis player is on track to a decisive victory, the best he should ever be able to hope for should be to maintain the current levels (I was going to say historical levels but historically they were in a downward spiral). There should be no way possible for the Axis to be increasing output to 600% of starting figures as reported in some AARs. I suspect this is possible by the economy model ignoring real world constraints that were there for a reason (probably not good ones) but are not reflected in the game. Edit: Reading a few more posts above, I must agree with the sediment that being able to specialise on one or two aircraft types (the best in 'game' terms) is another case of ignoring the constraints of reality for the very reasons they cite. Just my 2c [/rant off] I'm afraid my old Grandma told me that two wrongs do not make a right. If you give also give the Allies the ability to deviate from history, we are only deviating further and further away from what really occurred and could have realistically ever happened. I don't want a fantasy game (Warcraft XIII - Revenge of the Kimono), I want a game about the ACTUAL War in the Pacific!!! I believe the basic concept of a fixed historical Allied reinforcement is sound, all that is needed is just to get the outrageous exploitations of the Axis production out of the game (which really is just a case of fine tuning as opposed to a complete re-write). It's been said a thousand times but if you really want to explore alternative history, that's what MODS are for!!! Go for your life, I play them too. Just don't force it on the rest of us as the game default. I'm sure that I am not alone with this view.

ChezDaJez -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 9:38:20 AM)
quote: If you give also give the Allies the ability to deviate from history, we are only deviating further and further away from what really occurred and could have realistically ever happened. I don't want a fantasy game (Warcraft XIII - Revenge of the Kimono), I want a game about the ACTUAL War in the Pacific!!! I believe the basic concept of a fixed historical Allied reinforcement is sound, all that is needed is just to get the outrageous exploitations of the Axis production out of the game (which really is just a case of fine tuning as opposed to a complete re-write). It's been said a thousand times but if you really want to explore alternative history, that's what MODS are for!!! Go for your life, I play them too. Just don't force it on the rest of us as the game default. I'm sure that I am not alone with this view. I also share your view. The Axis player should not be free to produce unlimited numbers of aircraft and I think you will find that the economic simulation contained within AE will severely limit the ability of the Japanese player to do so. Changes must be made slowly or the Japanese player will cause more damage to his economy than any allied 4E ever will. Chez

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 10:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl KAORU certainly speaks to the dreamer in all gamers..., the part that always thinks if I could just change this or that I could do better. The problem arises in the research and programming aspects. Modeling just the military aspects of the War in the Pacific is an awesome task with thousands of variables to be researched and integrated. The current game, even with all it's improvements, still falls short in a number of these areas (the ground combat system anyone?), and could benefit from years more work. What "production system" does exist in the game is very unsophisticated and exists primarily to give the Japanese side some wriggle room. To truly bring it up to the standards of some of the game's other programming is a daunting task..., with factors including resource availability and allocation, manpower (skilled and unskilled) availability and allocation, plant remodeling and construction, design sophistication and management expertise, transportation availability and allocation, machine tools production, industrial engineering as well as scientific research, etc., all to be analized and implemented. And I fear that if it ever was the result would be to allow the Allies (with the benefit of hindsight) to be even more overwhelming than they already were. Well said. And I think that if it were ever implemented, no one would ever be able to find a Japanese player willing to take it on! Welcome to the game, Kaoru! Chez To Mike: There are certainly areas and elements of the game that might need to take priority over what I've suggested - especially given that, as I've acceded, the current system of just relying on the data makes for a fine game that still tends to inevitably default to its historical conclusion. And if it was decided that the ground combat system was to be revamped, and the Allied production situation ignored, I'd not cry foul - one must have priorities in all things. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, though. What you outline is certainly a dream system for anyone who wanted to have a fully-operational economic and industrial simulator present inside War in the Pacific - and while I'm not going to argue against that, by any large margin, it's not my goal. Directly in the game's title is where I consider the soul of this simulation to be, for the most part - the War in the Pacific, not necessarily every social, economic and industrial factor on the home-front that drove it. Thus far, just about everything that exists in this game exists to supplement the warfare aspect of the game - the supply network as Japan feeds your factories, which build your tanks, your ships, and your guns. The supply network for the Allies feeds and lubes your navy and your army, not the consumers back home. All I'm suggesting is that the level of sophistication offered to Japan - or a reasonable approximation of it - be offered to the Allied player. The rest, the intricacies of skilled vs. unskilled labor, of differing resources going to differing sectors, of industrial and scientific research - as neat as it'd be to deal with that, in the right game, I'm not entirely sure War in the Pacific is the game for that. I'm open to debate on the issue, though - I won't deny that it'd be fun to learn the intricacies of that, I just question whether it'd be in the spirit of the game that WitP is. You're running a war, after all - and while I see that ending at dictating wartime production as an omni-national Chief of Staff/Chief of the Army/Chief of the Navy (and all their international equivalents, ministerial and otherwise) - while leaving the hows, wheres and whyfors of that intricate system up to the men running it, once I provide the material - you may see it differently. And that's cool - I'd like to hear more about that, sometime. To Chez: Hah - you might be surprised as to what some people will put themselves through, but, I agree - a system as complicated as the one Mike outlines might be, as I mentioned to him, better-served in a class of game all its own. Though, knowing me, I'd probably play that game, too! Regardless, it's good to be here - thanks for the warm welcome! quote: ORIGINAL: Reg Interesting, it appears that there is a similar thread over on the BTR forum so I will repeat what I said here. quote: Reg - ED-BTR Forum 25Oct09 I have had a views on this topic for quite a while as it closely parallels the WITP/AE debate. I think that most people totally miss the point of having axis production as an in-game function. One vocal fan boy advocate even went so far as to state that having Japanese (Axis) production on map where it was vulnerable to Allied action was to "PUNISH" the Axis player. I believe GG put production on the map to allow the Allied player to attack and gradually erode the Axis's ability to wage war. As in the real war, axis war effort can be directly affected by attacks on the factories or by the denial of resources necessary for the war effort. This is not only the cornerstone of Allied strategy but central of any analysis of the conflict!!! The reason Allied production is fixed off map is that the Ford plant at Willow Run will produce 428 aircraft per month (Aug'44) regardless of what the Axis player does. However the Mitsubishi/Messerschmidt plant output is very dependent on the in-game actions of the Allied player. I think the ability of the Axis player to adjust their factories/economy is quite consistent with this concept and allows the player to adjust and re-balance to minimise the impact of the Allied incursions. However, the one thing I vehemently object to is the ability of the Axis player to use this flexibility to crank up production to ahistorical levels which I believe is tantamount to an exploit of the game system. If the Axis player is on track to a decisive victory, the best he should ever be able to hope for should be to maintain the current levels (I was going to say historical levels but historically they were in a downward spiral). There should be no way possible for the Axis to be increasing output to 600% of starting figures as reported in some AARs. I suspect this is possible by the economy model ignoring real world constraints that were there for a reason (probably not good ones) but are not reflected in the game. Edit: Reading a few more posts above, I must agree with the sediment that being able to specialise on one or two aircraft types (the best in 'game' terms) is another case of ignoring the constraints of reality for the very reasons they cite. Just my 2c [/rant off] I'm afraid my old Grandma told me that two wrongs do not make a right. If you give also give the Allies the ability to deviate from history, we are only deviating further and further away from what really occurred and could have realistically ever happened. I don't want a fantasy game (Warcraft XIII - Revenge of the Kimono), I want a game about the ACTUAL War in the Pacific!!! I believe the basic concept of a fixed historical Allied reinforcement is sound, all that is needed is just to get the outrageous exploitations of the Axis production out of the game (which really is just a case of fine tuning as opposed to a complete re-write). It's been said a thousand times but if you really want to explore alternative history, that's what MODS are for!!! Go for your life, I play them too. Just don't force it on the rest of us as the game default. I'm sure that I am not alone with this view. Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down a second - I like that you're pitching in, and you've clearly got this very well-thought-out, but let's make sure we're clear on one thing: As I said in my initial post and most posts after it, I am not suggesting that full Allied Production be instituted as the game default. In fact, the initial tone of my post was the suggestion that this be implemented as an alternative option, in the vein of current "December 7th Surprise / Historical First Turn" and "Stood Down China", to name a game-option and scenario-option, respectively - or even that it not be 'officially' instituted, but rather put in place (and left open to changes) merely for modders and the like (such as myself!) to tweak and mess around with. Now that we're copacetic there, I'll deal with the rest - which isn't a rant, incidentally, you've got some good sticklers, there. I want to address the BTR/WitP issue first, though, and the problem of Willow Run: BTR (Beyond The Reich?) is, from the sounds of it, a very different game, covering the war in Europe and surrounding parts of the 'Western' world. Even if it plays like War in the Pacific, there's a stark difference between the two theaters, and that centers around the Allied focus: I can't speak for BTR itself, but as many here know, the vast bulk of the Allied war-material and effort was focused around the war in Europe. While both games (rightly so, in my eyes) include Axis production as a means for the Japanese player to (as Mike and others have pointed out) 'wiggle' within their historical, wartime confines, and allow the Allied player to gradually chip away at that production capacity, the distinction between the Western theater and the Pacific theater becomes very important in War in the Pacific: Because the production capacity of Ford's famed plant, even at its wartime peak, is being primarily funneled (so I've been lead to believe, at least) towards Europe, towards Germany. This is not the production I am suggesting the Allied player be given, because so very much of it took place off-map from where War in the Pacific covers, and little of it reached the Pacific. It is the muchly-reduced industry in the American west I would focus on, and, even more importantly than that, the industry of India, of Australia, of China and the Dutch East Indies. It would be ridiculous, un-fun, and un-balancing to give the Allied player the full, ahistoric brunt of U.S. production from the get-go, or even to make that brunt available in full until the surrender of Germany. What would be much more enjoyable, in my eyes, would be marshalling, mustering and controlling what far-more-limited production facilities were available to the Allies in the Pacific - feeding, and building, expanding, and using, those factories, not Willow Run. Now, the more serious issue you raise: gaming the system. Already, it's very possible - a we've seen in AARs, and our own games - for a good, savvy, intelligent player to use the flexibility inherent in even the Japanese production system to crank up production to unhistoric levels. This appears to be a very serious issue, on the surface - if production by the Axis increases too much, you can run into a scenario where they might be able to pull a victory. In a game that attempts to accurately simulate a World War II conflict, this is obviously a big no-no. On the other hand, though, what are 'historic' levels? You say that, during World War II, Axis production levels were in a 'downward spiral' - but this is strictly untrue. Throughout the war, up until around the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, Germany in particular (which you are citing with BTR) ramped up their production to insane levels. For instance: In 1939, according to Professor Wikipedia (whose accuracy is suspect, admittedly, and I would not rely on it for exactitude) Germany produced around 370 armored vehicles. Work with me, let's take that as a ballpark. In 1944, they produced nearly 19,000. If those figures are accurate even to the nearest thousand, that would be a 2,000% rise in overall armored vehicle production in Germany - if the figures are strictly accurate, it's a rise of about 5,000%. Airplanes tell much the same story, in reduced form - you see increases of 900% in some areas for historic production levels 1939-1944, even though some airframes did drop in their rates of production starting in 1943 (for reasons I'll not speculate on, here.) The truth of the matter is that the Axis' production ability expanded with their conquests - in Japan and Italy and Germany, alike. It wasn't enough to keep pace with the Allies, once America weighed in on the matter, no. But let's not forget that the total GDP of the Allies was only double that of the Axis, when the Axis was at its height - and half of that was the USA. That doesn't mean that, industrially, if we exclude the USA, the Axis could've no-sweat matched the economic and wartime output of the other Allies. But it does mean that this was not such a lopsided conflict that game was immediately over for the Axis as soon as the US joined the party. I have no doubt that there was a ceiling to Axis production beyond which they could not have advanced, in Japan and Germany alike, that, even if they'd remained unmolested by the Allies, would have seen them fall short of what the U.S. could bring to the table. Yet I also have no doubt that the Axis did not reach that before the Allied bombing campaigns began to take their toll on industry. Put in other terms: Ramping up the Axis production 600% from where it starts isn't ahistoric if it happened. The trouble is that, in the current game-model, in both BTR and War in the Pacific, the Allies have no possible way to counter this - because they're on a fixed-reinforcement schedule. Even in light of all of the above, though, I still definitely feel that there should be limits that approximate the historical ones, on both the Allies, and the Axis. There were, definitely, limiting factors in all involved nations, that prevented them from surpassing certain levels of growth and expansion. I don't play War in the Pacific when I'm looking to play Warcraft, indeed, and I don't play Warcraft when I'm looking to play War in the Pacific. I just don't know whether 'what historically happened' is quite as stringent a bottleneck as you make it out to be - especially given that, as mentioned, that 'plant at Willow Run' isn't making Dauntlesses and Hellcats. I don't think there's a vast and terrible wrongness with the current, fixed-reinforcement scheme, myself. I just think a game with more variety of the sort I propose, could be even more fun than War in the Pacific already is. Do I still get to call this my two cents when it's this large? I suppose! So there's my take on that. ~Kaoru P.S.: quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez I also share your view. The Axis player should not be free to produce unlimited numbers of aircraft and I think you will find that the economic simulation contained within AE will severely limit the ability of the Japanese player to do so. Changes must be made slowly or the Japanese player will cause more damage to his economy than any allied 4E ever will. Chez The Axis player shouldn't, and the Allied player shouldn't. I'm behind you 100%, on that. But even using, say, this site (Grim Economic Realities) as a basis, you can see that Japan increased her wartime production of planes over 500% from 1939-1944 - and that's not even counting from 1937, when Japan initially entered the war against China. Besides, the idea of a limiting economic simulation seems to fit the other Allies well enough, as well. Japan shouldn't be free to produce unlimited numbers of planes, and nor should the Allies. But both of them sure as heck did pump out a staggering number.

EUBanana -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 11:01:38 AM)
Being able to change Allied production would probably have fairly drastic consequences on the historicity of the game, more so than Japanese production allows. ...I'm thinking hordes of torpedo bombing Catalinas, for example.

vinnie71 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 11:11:53 AM)
Actually I'd be in favour of a limited Allied production module. Limited as in having the ability to change some stuff produced in the area. Eg we should have access to West Coast American industry, Aussie and Indian complexes as well. The latter were pretty tiny at first and required vast influxes of resources to get up to speed. This could be the main stumbling block against having huge industrial expansion (maybe an inherent limit/cap as well?). BTW as things stand, what happens to those factories producing planes which become obsolete? Will they convert to newer types (ex Wirraway to Boomerang, or Beufighter or B17s to later marks) or will those factories stop functioning?

Mike Scholl -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 12:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru The Axis player shouldn't, and the Allied player shouldn't. I'm behind you 100%, on that. But even using, say, this site (Grim Economic Realities) as a basis, you can see that Japan increased her wartime production of planes over 500% from 1939-1944 - and that's not even counting from 1937, when Japan initially entered the war against China. Besides, the idea of a limiting economic simulation seems to fit the other Allies well enough, as well. Japan shouldn't be free to produce unlimited numbers of planes, and nor should the Allies. But both of them sure as heck did pump out a staggering number. Yes they did. Though if you look more closely than just the numbers you will find some staggering differences as well. The US had established and run pilot and crew training facilities in staggering numbers as well, to the point that in 1943 they produced 82,700 fully trained pilots (plus 240,000 aircrew to man the other flying positions). In 1943 Japan produced 5,500 rather less well trained pilots..., barely covering her own losses. Japan didn't even begin to try to expand her flight schools until the disasters of 1943 hit home. But by then she faced huge hurdles in doing so. She needed to create and expand the facilities, meaning a large increase in training A/C and skilled instructors and service personnel..., but couldn't spare any of the later two from the front if she was to maintain any semblance of an air presence. The results were a large increase in "trained pilots" with barely 60-70 hours of flight time who could barely get their planes into the air to be "gobbled up" by their better trained and equipped Allied opponants. In 1944, Japanese A/C production soared due to two factors. One, labor in the A/C industry increased by 57% (virtually all unskilled women, students, and Koreans). This diluted the workforce to the point of having only one skilled foreman for every 2,000 unskilled laborers. Result? Well,for example, as many as 30% of all the engine parts "produced" wound up being rejected and scrapped as unusable. By contrast in 1944, US A/C production peaked out while the number of laborers employed actually decreased by 16.5%! But thanks to advanced US production techniques and management, the actual output of an American A/C worker was almost 4 times that of his Japanese counterpart. The second reason for the large increase in numbers of A/C Japan produced in 1944 was the type shift. The emphasis went to fighters and single engined A/C that would prove useful as "kamikazes"; and away from larger and more complicated planes. For the comparison to be truly meaningful numbers-wise, we need to look at different numbers. In 1944, Japan produced 111,000,000 pounds of A/C; the US 951,600,000 pounds. Japan produced 46,526 aircraft engines; the US 256,932. And the US A/C were of better construction and quality. Just plain numbers don't really tell the story. The figures are taken from Overy's THE AIR WAR, 1939-1945.

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 12:05:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EUBanana Being able to change Allied production would probably have fairly drastic consequences on the historicity of the game, more so than Japanese production allows. ...I'm thinking hordes of torpedo bombing Catalinas, for example. Haha. Let's not be silly, here - I figure any decent system would be set up such that a scenario like the one you've pictured, there, wouldn't come about. quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Actually I'd be in favour of a limited Allied production module. Limited as in having the ability to change some stuff produced in the area. Eg we should have access to West Coast American industry, Aussie and Indian complexes as well. The latter were pretty tiny at first and required vast influxes of resources to get up to speed. This could be the main stumbling block against having huge industrial expansion (maybe an inherent limit/cap as well?). BTW as things stand, what happens to those factories producing planes which become obsolete? Will they convert to newer types (ex Wirraway to Boomerang, or Beufighter or B17s to later marks) or will those factories stop functioning? See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Offworlder has the right idea, so far as I'm concerned - his definition of a 'limited' Allied production module is the entirety of what I'm arguing for (well, with the other Pacific industrial areas - China, Dutch East Indies, maaaybe New Zealand, added in if possible). All three of the above industries were relatively small at the outset of the war (The Western American industry admittedly less so) and required a lot of resources and work and effort, and time, to become real powerhouses. This means that you wouldn't be anywhere near ruling the waves from day one, as the allies. ~Kaoru P.S.: quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- Yes they did. Though if you look more closely than just the numbers you will find some staggering differences as well. The US had established and run pilot and crew training facilities in staggering numbers as well, to the point that in 1943 they produced 82,700 fully trained pilots (plus 240,000 aircrew to man the other flying positions). In 1943 Japan produced 5,500 rather less well trained pilots..., barely covering her own losses. Japan didn't even begin to try to expand her flight schools until the disasters of 1943 hit home. But by then she faced huge hurdles in doing so. She needed to create and expand the facilities, meaning a large increase in training A/C and skilled instructors and service personnel..., but couldn't spare any of the later two from the front if she was to maintain any semblance of an air presence. The results were a large increase in "trained pilots" with barely 60-70 hours of flight time who could barely get their planes into the air to be "gobbled up" by their better trained and equipped Allied opponants. In 1944, Japanese A/C production soared due to two factors. One, labor in the A/C industry increased by 57% (virtually all unskilled women, students, and Koreans). This diluted the workforce to the point of having only one skilled foreman for every 2,000 unskilled laborers. Result? Well,for example, as many as 30% of all the engine parts "produced" wound up being rejected and scrapped as unusable. By contrast in 1944, US A/C production peaked out while the number of laborers employed actually decreased by 16.5%! But thanks to advanced US production techniques and management, the actual output of an American A/C worker was almost 4 times that of his Japanese counterpart. The second reason for the large increase in numbers of A/C Japan produced in 1944 was the type shift. The emphasis went to fighters and single engined A/C that would prove useful as "kamikazes"; and away from larger and more complicated planes. For the comparison to be truly meaningful numbers-wise, we need to look at different numbers. In 1944, Japan produced 111,000,000 pounds of A/C; the US 951,600,000 pounds. Japan produced 46,526 aircraft engines; the US 256,932. And the US A/C were of better construction and quality. Just plain numbers don't really tell the story. The figures are taken from Overy's THE AIR WAR, 1939-1945. I believe all of the above. I'm in no way arguing that Japan, by her lonesome or otherwise, had a hope in heck of equalling the U.S. war production, in full. According to your figures, a tenth of the total U.S. production would've been enough to match the Japanese effort for sheer output, and for quality, well... the late-war casualty totals for Japanese pilots speak for themselves. I'm not silly enough to get drawn into any land wars in Asia, though - er, debates about Japanese vs. U.S. production potentials. The Japanese will lose, every time. As I said above - there are definite real-world considerations that come with ramping up production to those levels, and as Reg mentioned, these aren't precisely modeled in the game as it stands - nor are the consequences, both short-term and long-term. But we've gotten off-topic. The ability of the Japanese player to boost production to ahistoric levels, while interesting when considered side-by-side with what I'm suggesting, does not directly factor into the argument as I see it. If we can find a way to de-game the system for Japan, we can probably find a way to do likewise for the Allies - and if we don't want to de-game it for Japan, we could still de-game it for Allies. Perhaps a 'factory level' to go along with the nationalistic restrictions I mentioned earlier? Namely, factories could have levels that they must be expanded to, similar to airbases and ports (With or without the default-level setup they have, there, considering how much extra research that would take!) before they can produce planes, or ships, or the like, of a given level of size, complexity, tonnage, et cetera. Limit (using a national assignment system) the various national industries to producing only their own kinds of planes, ships, et cetera - so you'd have to have, say, 300 heavy industry points in total, in Australia, to build an Australian destroyer (I'm pulling numbers out of thin air, here) and factories of a certain size in individual cities or bases, to build better Aussie planes there than the Wirraway I. To put your numbers into practice, though, the maximum size of industry allowed in an area could be a factor of its manpower value. (Which might even decrease somewhat, as industry increased.) This would put a hard population cap on the expansion of industry, no matter how gamey someone wanted to get. Just an idea.

Reg -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 12:27:41 PM)
Hi Kaoru, Welcome to the forum by the way - I really should have been more hospitable to a new member. [:)] My comments were very general and you may have noticed that they didn't specifically address any of your points but were related to the topic in general. It was just based of tired frustration brought on by many months of listening to the fan boys who are quite happy to outproduce the USA by a factor of two to one with only the best types and still relentlessly petition for even more concessions... You have put together a very eloquent reply and have addressed most of my arguments. I was aware of the increase in Axis production but even at its peak it never approached Allied levels so I perhaps over simplified things to keep the post reasonably brief. The parallels between WITP and BTR (yes it is Bombing the Reich) once again was intended to be on a simplistic level as they are both Gary Grigsby products with an extremely similar game concept (though differing in detail). I am an Australian so believe me when I say I would love the have all the Australian factories on the map (I grew up in Queensland just down the road from one of the shipyards where they built a couple of the Bathurst class minesweepers). My issue is that a good simulation model needs some sort of normalising factor i.e. tends to bring the results toward the average rather than encouraging extreme results. Unfortunately I have not seen much evidence on this in the past (in WITP AARs) where some really outrageous situations have resulted. I must confess that my stance is influenced by the fact that some anchor is needed to keep the game results to something approaching reality and the most attractive seems to be to apply the historical rates to the Allied side though it puts the player somewhat at a disadvantage. However they have enough other advantages and are better placed than the Axis to overcome this. I do not believe allowing both sides to spiral off into fantasy is the solution either. As you may have surmised I very much a historical player and feel strongly the game should have a strong tie to reality as it's baseline though as a simulation it is also a fantastic tool to explore the what if's (as a Mod). Edit: quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Actually I'd be in favour of a limited Allied production module. Limited as in having the ability to change some stuff produced in the area. Eg we should have access to West Coast American industry, Aussie and Indian complexes as well. The latter were pretty tiny at first and required vast influxes of resources to get up to speed. This could be the main stumbling block against having huge industrial expansion (maybe an inherent limit/cap as well?). See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Offworlder has the right idea, so far as I'm concerned - his definition of a 'limited' Allied production module is the entirety of what I'm arguing for (well, with the other Pacific industrial areas - China, Dutch East Indies, maaaybe New Zealand, added in if possible). All three of the above industries were relatively small at the outset of the war (The Western American industry admittedly less so) and required a lot of resources and work and effort, and time, to become real powerhouses. This means that you wouldn't be anywhere near ruling the waves from day one, as the allies. I wouldn't necessarily be against limited Allied on map production as as long as it wasn't the primary mode of Allied reinforcement or large enough to produce the results I was arguing against above. Its inclusion would certainly add interest and flavor to the game.

vinnie71 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 12:30:47 PM)
Yes with a tight hold on what could be produced where. So no B17 production in Australia or Spitfires in Calcutta! Putting a tight cap on the numbers would also be ok. BTW with the present system, what happens to the factories that are producing planes which become obsolete? Will they: a) stop producing these planes and upgrade to later marks/designs? b) stop producing anything? c) keep producing the same planes even if they are obsolete? tnx

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 12:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Reg Hi Kaoru, Welcome to the forum by the way - I really should have been more more hospitable to a new member. [:)] My comments were very general and you may have noticed that they didn't specifically address any of your points but were related to the topic in general. It was just based of tired frustration brought on by many months of listening to the fan boys who are quite happy to outproduce the USA by a factor of two to one with only the best types and still relentlessly petition for even more concessions... You have put together a very eloquent reply and have addressed most of my arguments. I was aware of the increase in Axis production but even at its peak it never approached Allied levels so I perhaps over simplified things to keep the post reasonably brief. The parallels between WITP and BTR (yes it is Bombing the Reich) once again was intended to be on a simplistic level as they are both Gary Grigsby products with an extremely similar game concept (though differing in detail). I am an Australian so believe me when I say I would love the have all the Australian factories on the map (I grew up in Queensland just down the road from one of the shipyards where they built a couple of the Bathurst class minesweepers). My issue is that a good simulation model needs some sort of normalising factor i.e. tends to bring the results toward the average rather than encouraging extreme results. Unfortunately I have not seen much evidence on this in the past (in WITP AARs) where some really outrageous situations have resulted. I must confess that my stance is influenced by the fact that some anchor is needed to keep the game results to something approaching reality and the most attractive seems to be to apply the historical rates to the Allied side though it puts the player somewhat at a disadvantage. However they have enough other advantages and are better placed than the Axis to overcome this. I do not believe allowing both sides to spiral off into fantasy is the solution either. As you may have surmised I very much a historical player and feel strongly the game should have a strong tie to reality as it's baseline though as a simulation it is also a fantastic tool to explore the what if's (as a Mod). Thank you for the welcome! Don't worry, I didn't take anything to heart - I realize that for a lot of people, this is a very fleshed-out, tired issue, that's been argued at length from a lot of different viewpoints - some of them more, uh, ahistoric than others. There's nothing wrong with being a little tired of hearing the same thing, over and over and over again, anyone would get sick of that. Putting all my cards on the table, I'm not strictly a historic player, and I'm not strictly an ahistoric player. I love historical games - but I also like to be able to go beyond the bound of history, in a game that's suited to it. I don't think that War in the Pacific is one of those games, though - its historicity is a strength. I don't believe that the default game, and its default scenarios, should - all other things being equal - regularly, normally or frequently deviate in any serious way from the historical path of the war. I completely agree with your 'issue', as well. Even with my admittedly-limited knowledge of simulations in general, I understand, accept, and believe that normalizing factors are not only a benefit, but are absolutely required - what's the use in a simulation that gives you drastically-different results, every time? Not much by my ledgermain, honestly. That's one reason I give credence to the current system, because it's one way to limit the Allies and apply that 'norm', to keep things from going entirely off the rails, and out of control. I just don't think it's the only way. I haven't read as many AARs as you have, I'm sure, but I've heard about some of the wilder ones, and they're not the sort of thing I'd want to happen in my everyday games of WitP. But I don't think that the current system is the best system, nor the only system that'd work. I also think that there's a lot of call for purely-historical players, in a game like War in the Pacific. One of the things that I find so enchanting about it is that it is unapologetically realistic and historic - and I'm sure that players like you helped to make it that way. For that, you have my thanks. You have no idea how refreshing and delightful it is to come from a game like Hearts of Iron (which I do like on its own merits), where, say, loading troops is as simple as putting a transport and a unit in the same place and clicking 'load', to a game like War in the Pacific, where you have to find a transport (or fleet of transports) with sufficient capacity, dock them at a large enough port, with the right mission, and put the infantry in the right mode (strategic for cargo, combat for amphibious) - just to load up a few soldiers. I don't have enough superlatives to describe how, as a budding armchair general, that sort of complexity makes my heart sing. To be quite frank I think that War in the Pacific should definitely maintain a very powerful link to what is real, what is possible, and what realistically could-have-been. Being a modder myself, I have no problem leaving anything else to the realm of mods - which is, in War in the Pacific's case, definitely where the wildly ahistorical things belong (at least in my eyes.) I love to play mods, as well, they have their purpose, and the default game has its own, and with mods, there's no reason someone (maybe even myself!) couldn't play a finely-balanced retail game one day, and, the next, play a mod where the roles are reversed - where Japan has the industrial potential to actually beat back the Allies, as in some of the more extreme gametypes you've mentioned, and it's up to the Allies to struggle to hold them off and claim victory in the face of near-certain defeat. But now I'm day-dreaming, and that's not good. [:'(] The bottom line is, you and I are on the same page, I think. We're just reading different paragraphs. (Which isn't hard to do - I write so darn many of them!) ~Kaoru P.S.: quote: ORIGINAL: Reg quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder -snip- -snip- I wouldn't necessarily be against limited Allied on map production as as long as it wasn't the primary mode of Allied reinforcement or large enough to produce the results I was arguing against above. Its inclusion would certainly add interest and flavor to the game. I don't imagine it would be - not the system I'm arguing for. Both near the end of the war, and even as the conflict dragged on, American industry, off-map American industry, provided the bulk of the forces that fought in the Pacific Theater (to my understanding). I don't imagine the system I'm envisioning would allow the player to have anywhere near the output that's basically dropped into his lap as 1943-44-45 roll around. With the right limitations, it'd also certainly not be a regularly-unbalancing force, in warfare. I see it more as getting more use and flavor out of all of the other forces that fought in the theater, all of whom definitely played their part, as well, and provided quite a bit more than the game currently shows them to. quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder Yes with a tight hold on what could be produced where. So no B17 production in Australia or Spitfires in Calcutta! Putting a tight cap on the numbers would also be ok. BTW with the present system, what happens to the factories that are producing planes which become obsolete? Will they: a) stop producing these planes and upgrade to later marks/designs? b) stop producing anything? c) keep producing the same planes even if they are obsolete? tnx It seems we're in agreement, at least - now the issue simply stands at bringing the rest of the world to see things this way! [:D] At least for modding purposes, though, I'd hope that any 'hard limits' would be adjustable in the editor. As for the present system, I honestly don't know! I only started playing the game a few days ago, and I haven't yet run into any obsolete planes. Sorry I didn't answer your question earlier - though I didn't have the answer then, either.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375