RE: A Plea For Allied Production

RE: A Plea For Allied Production (Full Version)

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

Message

Mike Scholl -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 1:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru 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. KAORU. First let me say I am enjoying this because you seem to be both a gentleman and a rational fellow. So if I have hurt your feelings in anyway with my comments, I appologise. That was not my intent. But to continue in the role of "Devil's Advocate", there is still a distinct problem in what you propose above. Before and during World War Two, the United States was the worlds undisputed master in the techniques, practice, and industrial design of "Mass Production". The Axis powers lagged far behind even the Soviet Union in this regard. What this meant was that when the US mobilized for war, suitability for mass production was an intrigal part of every design from GI socks to Aircraft Plants. And one of the keys to mass production techniques was the reduction in the need for skilled craftsmen through the use of specialized machines. Which is why the US had by far the world's largest machine tool industry. What this means is that America (and to a lesser extent her Allies) were much more able to expand both quantity and quality of production through the use of unskilled labor than their Axis opponants. The machines and the production lines and the plants themselves provided much of the "skill" needed. Most workers simply repeated whatever simple "step" of that process they were assigned. Which explains why Ford's Willow Run B-24 plant could produce more poundage of aircraft in 1944 than all of Japan..., even though it came online during the middle of the war when skilled labor was at a premium. So you see it's not just volume of labor (or people) that creates a workforce, it's also the ability of industry and management to make the most of that workforce. Which is why the Japanese A/C industry's labor force was only 26% as productive on a man-for-man basis as America's in 1944. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent in virtually every field of war manufacturing. Raw numbers just don't tell the story...

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 1:05:40 PM)
EDIT: That's better. Now, then. quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- KAORU. First let me say I am enjoying this because you seem to be both a gentleman and a rational fellow. So if I have hurt your feelings in anyway with my comments, I appologise. That was not my intent. But to continue in the role of "Devil's Advocate", there is still a distinct problem in what you propose above. Before and during World War Two, the United States was the worlds undisputed master in the techniques, practice, and industrial design of "Mass Production". The Axis powers lagged far behind even the Soviet Union in this regard. What this meant was that when the US mobilized for war, suitability for mass production was an intrigal part of every design from GI socks to Aircraft Plants. And one of the keys to mass production techniques was the reduction in the need for skilled craftsmen through the use of specialized machines. Which is why the US had by far the world's largest machine tool industry. What this means is that America (and to a lesser extent her Allies) were much more able to expand both quantity and quality of production through the use of unskilled labor than their Axis opponants. The machines and the production lines and the plants themselves provided much of the "skill" needed. Most workers simply repeated whatever simple "step" of that process they were assigned. Which explains why Ford's Willow Run B-24 plant could produce more poundage of aircraft in 1944 than all of Japan..., even though it came online during the middle of the war when skilled labor was at a premium. So you see it's not just volume of labor (or people) that creates a workforce, it's also the ability of industry and management to make the most of that workforce. Which is why the Japanese A/C industry's labor force was only 26% as productive on a man-for-man basis as America's in 1944. The same is true to a greater or lesser extent in virtually every field of war manufacturing. Raw numbers just don't tell the story... I think there's been some slight confusion, here - that's probably my fault, for making my point so hard to find amidst all of my ramblings! For what it's worth, I'm enjoying this too - on all sides, I'm being presented with reasonable and reasoned, rational debate, and there's little I like more than a good discussion. Gets the brain working, sharpens the intellect - all good, all good. And despite a few little hiccups, I've been afforded a shockingly-good reception by everyone who's responded to me, bar none - they've listened to me, they've read what I had to say, they've given me the time of day. This is more than I expected from a first post on a forum that had never heard of me. I just wish you and I were talking about the same thing, Mike! I actually want to compliment you: While on a very basic level I knew about the disparity between trained, skilled labor, and unskilled labor, that existed in Japan as opposed to the U.S. and the allies-at-large, and (having done plenty of personal studies on World War II that went beyond the warfare aspect) on the role of superior industry - and, more importantly, industrial techniques, that contributed to greater Allied production, you're definitely offering sharp edges in my understanding of the topic, where before I had only vague outlines. But the issue I wanted to press home wasn't Japanese industrial ability - I think I might've gotten off-track when I started answering Reg's post, about the confusing nature of what is or isn't 'historical' production. I think that Japan's bottlenecked and difficult-to-use production schema is right where it belongs, development-wise, though of course I'd not scoff at additional enhancements. For all of the reasons you've listed, and more, there is and never was any chance that Japan could - numerically, qualitatively, or otherwise - have matched even the United States alone, to say nothing of all the other Allied Powers. My initial suggestion had to do with Allied Production, though, not Japanese Production. Believe me, I don't think it's right that, in a game like WitP, Japan should be able to get and maintain output that could make a military victory over the Allies possible. My only purpose for arguing about the extreme levels of production that Japan achieved, was simply to come at my own goal from long angles - and suggest that, as historically happened, Australia, India, Canada et al should be allowed to utilize and develop their industry, rather than leaving it at its pre-war production levels. That way, they could help to counter (in their own ways) Japanese gaminess, if necessary. Sorry to be confusing! ~Kaoru P.S.: My feelings weren't hurt in the least. You've conducted yourself like a gentleman, Mike, and if I didn't have anyone to play Devil's Advocate for me, I'd get bored! I just know better than to get into a losing battle regarding Japanese vs. American production levels.

eMonticello -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 1:08:55 PM)
A little light reading for Christmas vacation... The Origins of The Second World War in Asia and the Pacific, Iriye, Akira, 1987. A quick little primer (200pp) explaining what happened in "our half" of the world (I tossed this here to help understand the relationship between Japan and the US before the war). The US Economy in World War II, Vatter, Harold, 1985. A brief survey (198pp) of the US economy and economic policy during WWII. Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940-1945, Koistinen, Paul, 2004. An extensive analysis (657pp) of how the American economy mobilized for WWII and, by 1943, demobilized back to a civilian economy. If an Allied production model were added, you also need to model the demobilization. I can imagine the rants if folks had to decrease production capacity in mid-1943 or face a loss of buku PP :)

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 1:25:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eMonticello A little light reading for Christmas vacation... The Origins of The Second World War in Asia and the Pacific, Iriye, Akira, 1987. A quick little primer (200pp) explaining what happened in "our half" of the world (I tossed this here to help understand the relationship between Japan and the US before the war). The US Economy in World War II, Vatter, Harold, 1985. A brief survey (198pp) of the US economy and economic policy during WWII. Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940-1945, Koistinen, Paul, 2004. An extensive analysis (657pp) of how the American economy mobilized for WWII and, by 1943, demobilized back to a civilian economy. If an Allied production model were added, you also need to model the demobilization. I can imagine the rants if folks had to decrease production capacity in mid-1943 or face a loss of buku PP :) Careful - I'm a voracious reader. I might just read all of those! They are, though, rather secondary to what it is I'm suggesting. For the most part, US economic mobilization is out of the sphere in which we, as WitP players, operate. Its full mobilization and demobilization is best left as an exercise to the mind. I'd have to read those books to find out whether the West Coast industry started demobilizing in 1943, too - but it's the only part of what I'm suggesting that'd be affected by the demobilization process. They sound like good books, though, for a student of socioeconomics like myself. ~Kaoru P.S.: It's about 5:30 in the morning here, and, unfortunately, I'm no superman - I need to grab a few hours of shuteye. I won't have any classes today, though - I've managed to catch pneumonia, of all things (Lucky day! [8\|] Or not...) so I'm legally considered a plague vector, in this little town I live in. The college won't even let me in the doors. It's subsiding fast, but I'd better get some sleep if I don't want something worse to settle in. I should be back in 6-8 hours, I'd hope, any further replies from me will have to wait until then. Or until I inevitably sleepwalk back to the keyboard and start typing up responses while asleep. Rainbow sherman tiddlywinks. What? Oh! Right. G'night for now! I'll be glad to answer anything else that comes up in the meantime, when I get back.

treespider -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 3:11:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru But the issue I wanted to press home wasn't Japanese industrial ability - I think I might've gotten off-track when I started answering Reg's post, about the confusing nature of what is or isn't 'historical' production. I think that Japan's bottlenecked and difficult-to-use production schema is right where it belongs, development-wise, though of course I'd not scoff at additional enhancements. For all of the reasons you've listed, and more, there is and never was any chance that Japan could - numerically, qualitatively, or otherwise - have matched even the United States alone, to say nothing of all the other Allied Powers. My initial suggestion had to do with Allied Production, though, not Japanese Production. Believe me, I don't think it's right that, in a game like WitP, Japan should be able to get and maintain output that could make a military victory over the Allies possible. My only purpose for arguing about the extreme levels of production that Japan achieved, was simply to come at my own goal from long angles - and suggest that, as historically happened, Australia, India, Canada et al should be allowed to utilize and develop their industry, rather than leaving it at its pre-war production levels. That way, they could help to counter (in their own ways) Japanese gaminess, if necessary. Sorry to be confusing! ~Kaoru P.S.: My feelings weren't hurt in the least. You've conducted yourself like a gentleman, Mike, and if I didn't have anyone to play Devil's Advocate for me, I'd get bored! I just know better than to get into a losing battle regarding Japanese vs. American production levels. Last time I checked there was a limited Allied production model...the HI, LI, Resources, Oil and Refineries in Allied hands do produce HI, LI, Supplies, Oil and Fuel. Granted these items are not expandable for the Allies, but if the Allies can feed the industry its necessary inputs they do produce. Which can add necessary and important supply to Austarlia, India, and China. IMO there is too much work involved in adding a 'workable and realistic' Allied production model which would provide too little gain over what currently exists and would be ripe for potential abuse ... any idea of a production system for the Allies is simply in the realm of another game....try HOI. IMO many of the arguments about the WitP production model about Japan outproducing the Allies no longer hold water....barring AI assists. Has anyone played Japan in PBeM long enough to know what the industry is even capable of in AE? My guess, is that any vast expansion will bankrupt the system. If I could change anything in regards to Allied production and this is not forseeable in the near future either - I would allow the Allied Player to increase the replacement rate of certain Aircraft and Devices at a cost in Victory Points per device added to the Allied player. The argument being that those devices are no longer going to the European Theater which would theoretically be prolonged.

JWE -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 4:13:09 PM)
This is one of the most fun threads I�ve read in a looong time. Woof! So let�s add another shrimp to the barbie. To have a production system implies a corollary; a consumption system. And a production system should also implicate choice in terms of the game � if ya build/make/refine more of this, ya build/make/refine less of that. Otherwise it�s just gilding the lily. Adding production options might suggest a change in how supply consumption is calculated. Using only the parameters currently in the game, supply costs could be drastically increased for things like rearming, combat, even movement, without doing violence to historical imperatives � might even be a lot closer to what actually went on. In addition to supply consumption, one might add fuel consumption requirements to various activities. Air ops need gas as well as bombs, ammo, food, clothing, tents, tires, batteries, etc.. An LCU device identified as �Tank� or �Vehicle� (including �motor support�) might consume more fuel during movement and combat than supply. It would tend to make not just the amount, but also the distribution of supply and fuel more important. The Allied production model could then be presented with rational game-relevant choices: do I run factories in OZ to make a/c engines, or vehicle motors (i.e., supply). Do I try to work up refinery capacity for POL, or put the $ in industry (LI or HI) to make more ammo (supply again), or perhaps stick another graving dock in the repairyard. The choices should be somewhat preclusive in order to be relevant. Anyway, just some thoughts. It would totally screw the AI, however. Oops. Even proposing this as a thought exercise is likely to get me hate mail from AndyMac. [;)] There is validity in conceptualizing some degree of Allied production, but I think the corollary is well worth including in the consideration. Ciao. J

Mynok -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 7:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider IMO many of the arguments about the WitP production model about Japan outproducing the Allies no longer hold water....barring AI assists. Has anyone played Japan in PBeM long enough to know what the industry is even capable of in AE? My guess, is that any vast expansion will bankrupt the system. I've not played enough to say this is 100% correct, but the simple numbers on oil and fuel generation capacity is not going to allow much expansion....especially if (at it appears to be from the AARs) the captured centers will sustain significant damage. There are a couple of Japanese economy threads in the War Room that are worth reading if anyone is curious about the base oil and refinery capacities of Japan and the SRA. Additionally, Japan has some SERIOUS shipping limitations that it absolutely did not have in Witp which will likely be the primary hindrance to sustaining, let alone expanding, their economy. Time will tell, but it initially feels much more constrained and fragile, which is as it should be.

Reg -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 9:30:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru P.S.: It's about 5:30 in the morning here, and, unfortunately, I'm no superman - I need to grab a few hours of shuteye. Looks like you are going to fit in here just fine..... [:D]

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 11:08:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- Last time I checked there was a limited Allied production model...the HI, LI, Resources, Oil and Refineries in Allied hands do produce HI, LI, Supplies, Oil and Fuel. Granted these items are not expandable for the Allies, but if the Allies can feed the industry its necessary inputs they do produce. Which can add necessary and important supply to Austarlia, India, and China. IMO there is too much work involved in adding a 'workable and realistic' Allied production model which would provide too little gain over what currently exists and would be ripe for potential abuse ... any idea of a production system for the Allies is simply in the realm of another game....try HOI. IMO many of the arguments about the WitP production model about Japan outproducing the Allies no longer hold water....barring AI assists. Has anyone played Japan in PBeM long enough to know what the industry is even capable of in AE? My guess, is that any vast expansion will bankrupt the system. If I could change anything in regards to Allied production and this is not forseeable in the near future either - I would allow the Allied Player to increase the replacement rate of certain Aircraft and Devices at a cost in Victory Points per device added to the Allied player. The argument being that those devices are no longer going to the European Theater which would theoretically be prolonged. Let me start off by saying this, Tree: I'd never thought of, nor envisioned, a system like the one you describe, but I like it! I might change 'victory points' to 'political points' in the system, if it were left to me, or I might not - depending on which would be the more realistic constraint (And, more importantly, the one that helped prevent more gaminess.) The only reason I'd suggest political points as opposed to victory points is, well... victory point totals get very, very high! If the game's at all lopsided, in a 2x-3x-4x arrangement, that leaves the Allied player with a lot of undefined wiggle-room... though, admittedly, that's not likely to happen until late-war, anyhow. Yeah, I think that'd be neat - in the run-up to when you've got more victory points, every one spent is a risk. Political points being an alternative arises out of the fact that, thus far, they seem to be more limited, and it makes more "conceptual" sense to be using political clout to requisition the equipment, than some small measure of undefined 'victory points'. But maybe a small amount of political points, and a reasonable number of victory points, together? Hmmm... Well, regardless! On to your main thrust. There certainly is a very limited Allied production model in place - and it does produce, supply, at least, if you shuffle supplies into it. It's also true (As I've admitted, to my chagrin! [;)]) that a replacement model for this already-functional system would take a great deal of work, and if it seems like it'll take entirely too much, when the decisions are made, far in the future, then I'll shelve my dreams of the Allied production-model. Maybe I'll start pushing for yours, then. [:D] But I do disagree with you on a few points. First off, how it'd be 'ripe for potential abuse' - this is definitely, on the surface, true - we've seen that with Japan in WitP. But abuse can be curtailed by good design - I've made some limitation-suggestions on this thread, so have others, and, just below your post, John raises some scintillating ideas for how to further collar the beast that Allied Production could become. Development time has designed - as you yourself pointed out! - a deck for Japanese that is much more difficult to 'rig' in a cheesy and unsportsmanlike manner. And though the two systems would likely differ in a few key respects, the de-gaming that's already taken so long for the Japanese system would likely help tremendously in designing an Allied system, from the ground up, that is less susceptible to it. Only time will tell as to how open to abuse the system will really be, if it ever comes about. The other bit I'd contest is that it's "not worth it." Believe me, I have tried Hearts of Iron - I mentioned that it was another favorite game of mine. One of the things I did, and do, love the most in that game, is the ability to produce my own homegrown troops, tanks, and ships. Some of my proudest moments in that game have come from shepherding limited, outdated little Australian and New Zealand cruisers and destroyers around the ocean, preying on the Japanese where I can, and running like heck if I hear big guns in the distance! Or the last stand of the Odysseus, in HoI3, the first and only 'modern' (in World War II terms) destroyer that Greece ever built (ahistorically [:'(]), which had plied the waves of the Med out of bases in Egypt and Malta since Greece's fall, terrorizing Italian convoys, and which finally sank, guns blazing, flames on the forecastle roaring, off the coast of Sicily, in defense of a British merchantman bound for North Africa. I don't want WitP to be another Hearts of Iron, though, like I said. Both games have their place, and their place in my heart, but they're very separate in concept, execution and means - and I intend it should stay that way. I don't want to see New Zealand fielding battleships or Australia launching nukes, I don't want to see China spitting out tanks like there's no tomorrow, or India spawning a ten-million-man army. No, what I want - what I think is worth it - is to face the same challenges those nations not "blessed" with the bounty of home-grown industry (The United States, and the United Kingdom, to be precise!) faced, in World War II: Ramping up their wartime production to serve what forces they could field, trying desperately to keep up with their losses and stave off the Japanese advance and incursion. Making the sorts of choices that John's talking about, below, sweating over those little moments that you come up against so much already in this game, that define the very essence of the experience: You can do one of many things, but only have the support and the supply for so many. Many are potentially beneficial, all have their pros and cons. It's zero-hour, December 7th: Pearl Harbor or Manila Bay? It's a bright and vicious morning, 1942, KB's spotted American carriers just off the corner of Midway - ignore them, or pursue? It's a dark, blood-stained night, November, 1945. Two of Japan's cities lay in smouldering, irradiated ruins already - and you know that blasting a third could open the door to total victory. Do you press that button, or try to make do with conventional forces? Not every choice is as black and white as these, of course, and especially not choices that have to do with an Allied production system. But it is in these choices that the game will push you to that you find the caliber of yourself as a commander, and the timbre of the game, itself. More of them just means more hard calls, more strategy, more fun. And that, I think, is worth it. P.S.: I can't speak to Japanese expansion possibilities, as I'm only a few days into AE, and never played War in the Pacific. But even if the spectre of Japan somehow pumping out 900 Zeros a day, or somesuch, is over, that's not necessarily a vote against a realistically-constrained Allied production system - though it would be a heckuva-heckuva lot of work, yeah. [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: JWE This is one of the most fun threads I�ve read in a looong time. Woof! So let�s add another shrimp to the barbie. To have a production system implies a corollary; a consumption system. And a production system should also implicate choice in terms of the game � if ya build/make/refine more of this, ya build/make/refine less of that. Otherwise it�s just gilding the lily. Adding production options might suggest a change in how supply consumption is calculated. Using only the parameters currently in the game, supply costs could be drastically increased for things like rearming, combat, even movement, without doing violence to historical imperatives � might even be a lot closer to what actually went on. In addition to supply consumption, one might add fuel consumption requirements to various activities. Air ops need gas as well as bombs, ammo, food, clothing, tents, tires, batteries, etc.. An LCU device identified as �Tank� or �Vehicle� (including �motor support�) might consume more fuel during movement and combat than supply. It would tend to make not just the amount, but also the distribution of supply and fuel more important. The Allied production model could then be presented with rational game-relevant choices: do I run factories in OZ to make a/c engines, or vehicle motors (i.e., supply). Do I try to work up refinery capacity for POL, or put the $ in industry (LI or HI) to make more ammo (supply again), or perhaps stick another graving dock in the repairyard. The choices should be somewhat preclusive in order to be relevant. Anyway, just some thoughts. It would totally screw the AI, however. Oops. Even proposing this as a thought exercise is likely to get me hate mail from AndyMac. [;)] There is validity in conceptualizing some degree of Allied production, but I think the corollary is well worth including in the consideration. Ciao. J Production and consumption - I'm liking it, I'm loving it. I used some of what you're saying right now (attributed to you!) in my response to Treespider, above, but I also want to address it here: I really like the idea of the choices that a decent system of consumption could force upon the player - especially in the vein of production. I agree - any decent production system is going to force you to make choices, and decisions, you wouldn't be able to do everything, and especially not everything at once. You're thinking on good tracks, here, and if that system of consumption - having to choose between more oil to run your tanks, for instance, or industry to make the shells they're firing, having to choose between expanded refineries to run more air ops, or expanded factories to build the engines that'd need fuel in the first place - and will be needed to replace your planes! Having to actually worry about supply distribution in these forms, I think, could definitely be a benefit - you'd have to keep your troops on the front equipped and supplied, as realistically happened, or offensives would grind to a halt under a storm of equipment failures, empty gas-tanks, and empty rifles. That sort of consumption would also, as you've said, help make sure that historical production levels aren't vastly exceeded - little point to overproducing at home if your troops don't even have uniforms and rifles! The one problem you've mentioned, the AI, wouldn't be as large a stumbling-block as you might think, though. Already, in AE, a lot of things are simplified for the AE, so as not to give it a headache - and to make for a more challenging opponent. The AI uses a simplified repair model, why not a simplified consumption model, too? Perhaps, even, the one it already uses. The purpose of the system I propose, after all, is to add challenge and options for the player - not the AI, which hardly even knows the port of a ship from the stern. [:D] And if you get any hate mail, just send it my way! I'd be glad to answer it, too. It might even have some valid points... [;)] Thanks for the input! You and Tree seem to have some great ideas for this! quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok I've not played enough to say this is 100% correct, but the simple numbers on oil and fuel generation capacity is not going to allow much expansion....especially if (at it appears to be from the AARs) the captured centers will sustain significant damage. There are a couple of Japanese economy threads in the War Room that are worth reading if anyone is curious about the base oil and refinery capacities of Japan and the SRA. Additionally, Japan has some SERIOUS shipping limitations that it absolutely did not have in Witp which will likely be the primary hindrance to sustaining, let alone expanding, their economy. Time will tell, but it initially feels much more constrained and fragile, which is as it should be. When I get around to playing Japan, I'd be glad to share my experiences in that regard - though I want to do more reading, before I take them on! (A lot more reading. A lot, lot, lot more reading.) But, just from the surface, I'd say you - and Tree - are probably right, in saying that the Japanese economy can't be whipped into super-ultra-mega-overdrive anywhere near as easily as it could in WitP. quote: ORIGINAL: Reg quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- Looks like you are going to fit in here just fine..... [:D] Here's hoping. This place certainly has some very home-y qualities! :3 ~Kaoru

eMonticello -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/26/2009 11:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru I'd have to read those books to find out whether the West Coast industry started demobilizing in 1943, too - but it's the only part of what I'm suggesting that'd be affected by the demobilization process. Oil is the only thing that might be considered a West Coast industry, since Texas and a few Caribbean nations provided the bulk of oil needed for the European theater and East Coast. Everything else... aircraft, engines, ships, etc. were produced throughout the US (primarily both coasts and Midwest). Demobilization would need to be factored in any Allied production because major ship, aircraft, and munition contracts were being canceled from 1943 through 1946 without regard to what was happening in the theaters (after all, if you know that you're winning, why spend more tax dollars on things you may not need).

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 12:12:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eMonticello quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru -snip- Oil is the only thing that might be considered a West Coast industry, since Texas and a few Caribbean nations provided the bulk of oil needed for the European theater and East Coast. Everything else... aircraft, engines, ships, etc. were produced throughout the US (primarily both coasts and Midwest). Demobilization would need to be factored in any Allied production because major ship, aircraft, and munition contracts were being canceled from 1943 through 1946 without regard to what was happening in the theaters (after all, if you know that you're winning, why spend more tax dollars on things you may not need). True, true. The Texas oilfields were intense, back in those days. Demobilization - that's an interesting thing to figure out how to represent, though. Obviously, there's no events-system in this game, that could fire something at certain dates (with variable periods factored in) decreasing both the output and the requirements of factories on the west coast, and midwest. Hmmm... Here's a thought: Can the reinforcement engine handle negative values? For instance, if you had a reinforcement-chit that was going to provide, say, -15 Hellcats, and that rolled around, would 15 Hellcats disappear from your general pool? Taking that a step further, if you could target that to a specific city or place (which can't currently be done, to my knowledge, all reinforcements show up in their national home-city) would you be able to decrease the number of planes of that sort in that location, by that amount? The system would probably need to be adjusted to work, but if it could be used in those two ways, then it could be used to both decrement the light-and-heavy industries, refineries, factories, etcetera, that are present in the game's geographic scope - and cut into the pool you're working with, somewhat, so you didn't end up with a huge end-game glut. Just some food for thought on this subject. ~Kaoru

Buck Beach -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 12:47:07 AM)
Oh boy here I go again and I just can't stop myself from throwing out some negative vibes. You are obviously a very intelligent young, but by your own admission you have had the game for only three days. Three days!! I can't believe you are putting this much energy attacking "Windmills" when at this point you should be diving into the details of the game by learning and playing it. But that is just me, an owner player of Pac War, Uncommon Valor, WITP and now WITP-AE. Grouchy Old Man Buck

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 1:01:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach Oh boy here I go again and I just can't stop myself from throwing out some negative vibes. You are obviously a very intelligent young, but by your own admission you have had the game for only three days. Three days!! I can't believe you are putting this much energy attacking "Windmills" when at this point you should be diving into the details of the game by learning and playing it. But that is just me, an owner player of Pac War, Uncommon Valor, WITP and now WITP-AE. Grouchy Old Man Buck Haaa. Believe me, I'm doing plenty of playing on the side! And plenty of reading, too - Admiral's Edition and War in the Pacific in general is a gem that I'm very dedicated to exploring in full. It's been more like five or six days, at this point, but that's not much of a difference - there is a lot that I don't know. That's one reason I'm not commenting on any aspects of the game that are there, though - I don't feel at all qualified to address issues present in a game that I don't fully understand. I'm not talking about the utility of merchant conversions, about the supply or replacement system, about transporting troops with a minimum of disruption, or knowing where I can use strategic move at, to get my forces around faster. I'm addressing a part of the game that doesn't exist, yet, not in the form I'm describing, at least. The way I look at it, that evens the field just a bit - I'm as qualified to think about this as most others, even if I wouldn't call myself qualified to make any decisions on it, knowing as little about the core balance of the game as I do. Thank you for your concern, though! To reiterate, however, I'm not 'attacking' the current system of reinforcement, as I've said, it works, it works well, and it functions excellently in the contexts of the game, for historicity and simplicity, and balance. But I know myself, and I know it won't satisfy, when there's an area of the game that I immediately see might serve from more focus. I'm not saying it's the most deserving of that focus, nor the most important issue at hand, but I don't see much harm in discussing it, at least. Good to hear from you, at least, Buck! It can't all be sunshine and roses - you've as much right to call me out like this as I've right to post in the first place. This is a free forum, after all! [:D] ~Kaoru

Buck Beach -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 1:44:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach Oh boy here I go again and I just can't stop myself from throwing out some negative vibes. You are obviously a very intelligent young, but by your own admission you have had the game for only three days. Three days!! I can't believe you are putting this much energy attacking "Windmills" when at this point you should be diving into the details of the game by learning and playing it. But that is just me, an owner player of Pac War, Uncommon Valor, WITP and now WITP-AE. Grouchy Old Man Buck Haaa. Believe me, I'm doing plenty of playing on the side! And plenty of reading, too - Admiral's Edition and War in the Pacific in general is a gem that I'm very dedicated to exploring in full. It's been more like five or six days, at this point, but that's not much of a difference - there is a lot that I don't know. That's one reason I'm not commenting on any aspects of the game that are there, though - I don't feel at all qualified to address issues present in a game that I don't fully understand. I'm not talking about the utility of merchant conversions, about the supply or replacement system, about transporting troops with a minimum of disruption, or knowing where I can use strategic move at, to get my forces around faster. I'm addressing a part of the game that doesn't exist, yet, not in the form I'm describing, at least. The way I look at it, that evens the field just a bit - I'm as qualified to think about this as most others, even if I wouldn't call myself qualified to make any decisions on it, knowing as little about the core balance of the game as I do. Thank you for your concern, though! To reiterate, however, I'm not 'attacking' the current system of reinforcement, as I've said, it works, it works well, and it functions excellently in the contexts of the game, for historicity and simplicity, and balance. But I know myself, and I know it won't satisfy, when there's an area of the game that I immediately see might serve from more focus. I'm not saying it's the most deserving of that focus, nor the most important issue at hand, but I don't see much harm in discussing it, at least. Good to hear from you, at least, Buck! It can't all be sunshine and roses - you've as much right to call me out like this as I've right to post in the first place. This is a free forum, after all! [:D] ~Kaoru For fun you might check out the RHS mod of WITP for ElCid's approach to production. I personally miss him being here with us on this forum and his mod tinkering. Maybe after his RL project he will return and start "stirring the stuff" again. He would enjoy very much your discussions. I also wish the Mogami were back with us as he to brought a lot to the game in discussions such as this. As for my opinion, yes it is a free forum and I surely believe you are enjoying the soapbox aspect of it to verbosely preach your message.

Kaoru -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 1:51:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach -snip- -snip- For fun you might check out the RHS mod of WITP for ElCid's approach to production. I personally miss him being here with us on this forum and his mod tinkering. Maybe after his RL project he will return and start "stirring the stuff" again. He would enjoy very much your discussions. I also wish the Mogami were back with us as he to brought a lot to the game in discussions such as this. As for my opinion, yes it is a free forum and I surely believe you are enjoying the soapbox aspect of it to verbosely preach your message. If I owned WitP - the original WitP - I'd definitely take you up on that. Unfortunately, since Matrix didn't offer any sort of WitP box-set or 'complete' edition, and because the original WitP is only a little cheaper than AE, I decided to spend my student finances on the newer game, figuring that it's got more features, more support, and more going on. I may just go and read up on what he's done, though - see if his mod's transferrable to AE, perhaps, so I can see what that's all about - and know just what you're talking about. This Cid fella sounds like a good guy, and I hope he comes back, too. I don't know Mogami - though I continue hear people referring to them as 'the Mogami', perhaps I ought to as well? - but unless they've departed the forum or, more somberly, the world, for good, I hope they return, as well. A community is defined by its members, and those two sound like neat fellows. As for me? Yeah, I'm chatty. [:'(] Excessively so, in some ways. 'Verbose' is not a moniker I'll deny, nor 'talkative'. If you went so far as to call me a 'Chatterbox', I'd grin and bear it - it's true. One of my nicknames in the real world is, in fact, 'Chatty Bastard'. But that's hardly a family-forum suitable handle. [:D] ~Kaoru

jwilkerson -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 4:31:31 AM)
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. Not to mention that this topic was discussed with the publisher and early on, was clearly determined to be "out of scope" for AE. The original designers very specifically intended to allow the Japanese to have more latitude than the Allies in terms of production and the publisher for WITP determined to preserve at least this design aspect for AE. I'm not sure we actually received any other design parameters from the publisher, other than this one. So very specifically "out of scope" for AE, but not for "WITP II" whatever that might be [;)]

Nikademus -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 5:17:28 PM)
Thank goodness for small favors. [:D]

chesmart -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 7:04:59 PM)
We want WITP II !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When are you guys going to start working on it ? Offworlder allied aircraft factories do upgrade to the next aircraft but only if it has an upgrade.

ChezDaJez -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/27/2009 9:12:30 PM)
quote: 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. Japan's primary problem wasn't with her industrial capacity. Japan was capable of producing large numbers of aircraft as evidenced in 1944. Her major problem was that her military leaders inexplicably counted on a short war and made few, if any, preparations for a longer war. The total lack of foresight is evidenced in every industrial decision Japan made through mid-1942 when it became blatantly obvious that Japan was in for a long war of attrition. One that she could not afford. It's obvious that Japan could not compete with the production capabilities of the US and her allies once they got going. But if (and its a big if) Japan had used some foresight before the war to increase her military production capability in 1940 and 1941 to the levels she achieved in 1944, the war would have dragged out longer and would have been far more costly in lives on both sides. The end would still have been the same but it would have been a much more difficult struggle. Delayed military production was not the only issue Japan faced. She also faced a shortage of skilled workers, particularly after 1943. Japan thought it would be a good idea to take a large portion of their skilled workforce and turn them into infantry. The result was predictable. Production quality dropped so far that many fine aircraft such as the George and the Frank were barely capable of taking to the air let alone achieving anything near their full potential. Add to that the strangle hold US submarines had on the movement of strategic materials and it becomes a wonder they lasted as long as they did. Japan ensured her own defeat in 1945 more than the allied powers ever could have hoped. If there ever was a book on how not to conduct a war, Japan wrote it. Chez

vinnie71 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 1:08:33 AM)
Keep in mind that Japan had been at war for almost a decade before Pearl Harbour. Frankly it did not have either the money or the resources to expand its industry or armed forces quickly to match the allies. Many people also forget that Japan was fighting a 3 way war against the US, Commonwealth and China with the added burden of keeping a full third of her army tied down in Manchuria. So a straight comparison between Japan and the US is fallacious. Even the US considered Japan the lesser threat and concentrated its might against Germany first. The allies could give ground and roll with the punches, waiting for better days, the Japanese could only expand and keep them off balance. To put it simply, by the end of 1943, Japan was actually exhausted. In retrospect Japan's entry in the war was an opportunistic but still desperate gamble. The Soviet Union had been neutralised (up to a point), the colonial empires of the French and the Dutch were tottering. At that point there were 2 main rivals the US (which was an unkown quantity except for those like Yamamoto who actually went there) and the Commonwealth which was fighting off the Germans. The Japanese were counting on a sluggish US mobalisation and on the feebleness of the Commonwealth. On both points they were wrong... I always try to imagine one scenario - Germany not declaring war on the US. How long would Japan have lasted then? The Atlantic fleet moves to the Pacific, the army mobalises and concentrates on the West Coast and transport ships readied to carry them wherever they needed to be carried. Frankly unless Japan could have managed a couple of early naval victories, the Allies would have literally swarmed over the Co-prosperity Sphere in a matter of months - a year and a half at most...

witpqs -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 1:31:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Offworlder I always try to imagine one scenario - Germany not declaring war on the US. How long would Japan have lasted then? The Atlantic fleet moves to the Pacific, the army mobalises and concentrates on the West Coast and transport ships readied to carry them wherever they needed to be carried. Frankly unless Japan could have managed a couple of early naval victories, the Allies would have literally swarmed over the Co-prosperity Sphere in a matter of months - a year and a half at most... I think realistically it would have been a lot less than the full magilla as the US remained ready in the Atlantic. Even still, the difference in ships, planes, material, and troops would have been much more for IJ to deal with. Of course, the CV's, BB's, transports and landing ships wouldn't have been built any faster, so there would have been some limitations.

Kull -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 3:07:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kaoru 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... And that, in a nutshell, is why Allied Production isn't part of WitP. Well, that and the coding nightmare of putting two production systems in place. But the idea of regional production has some merit, and provides some insight into a mechanism by which - someday - an Allied Production system could be noodled into existence in some future version of WitP. So let's go look at each region and see if that's instructive in any way: Australia: Start here as it's the best candidate. Most of the Austalian war production from '42 onward supported Pacific operations, so there should be room to adjust. But not all. Australian and New Zealand units played a large role in Africa, and they didn't do that absent support from home. China: Even a better candidate. Zero of their production supported Europe. Or anyone else outside of China. Could be tricky to model, but at least there were no siphons (other than the massive one called "corruption") to account for. India: Production here supported both "Europe" and the Pacific, so you'd have to be able to disentangle the two. Don't forget that Indian units played a large role in Africa and the Middle East. Canada: Physically there's a lot of this nation displayed on the WitP AE map. But realistically, Canada's primary role in WW2 was to support European theatre operations, not those in the Pacific. Diverting more than a handful of resources to the Pacific is questionable. US: Is most of it on the map? No. Did the industries on the map support only the Pacific? No. As most people have commented, this is just one great big Pandora's Box. UK: Other than a single off-map hex, it's not even on the map. And pretty safe to say that the vast majority of resources supported Europe. But, if you're going to have an Allied production model, they have to be factored in. Ugh. Here's where most folks would say, "sorry kid, aint happening" and move on. But with enough research, it could be done. As Treespider opined, the key is victory points. As the game stands now, an Allied player in WitP who ignores the needs of the European war suffers no consequnces, but in RL it could have been catastrophic. So fine. Establish an Allied Production system that requires the Allied player to pay VPs when increasing (or even altering) his Pacific resource allocations at the expense of Europe. You think it's worth the risk? OK, pay for it.

Mike Scholl -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 10:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kull Here's where most folks would say, "sorry kid, aint happening" and move on. But with enough research, it could be done. As Treespider opined, the key is victory points. As the game stands now, an Allied player in WitP who ignores the needs of the European war suffers no consequnces, but in RL it could have been catastrophic. So fine. Establish an Allied Production system that requires the Allied player to pay VPs when increasing (or even altering) his Pacific resource allocations at the expense of Europe. You think it's worth the risk? OK, pay for it. Agree with all your points..., especially the "it ain't happening". With one exception. If the Allies have to pay "VP's" to take things away from Europe; why shouldn't they gain "VP's" for sending things TO Europe? If losing some P-39's is such a big deal there, surely gaining some should be just as important? Just wondering.

vinnie71 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 10:18:04 AM)
...which is why that I argue that if an allied production is ever implemented (I know, I know...) it should have an inherent cap. One can't have the Australians running around in Beufighters the whole war... One other feature that I would have liked was a transfer of equipment from one nation to another. Ex. the US very rapidly gets lots of obsolete fighters like Lancers or Mowhoks or 75mm guns which would have been more than welcome to the Chinese. If only these could be transferred...

wworld7 -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 10:29:33 AM)
With enough resources (money and time) I agree anything "can" be done. So who is going to take the risk?

ny59giants -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/28/2009 6:00:48 PM)
I would add what Buck said about Allied production modifications made in RHS. El Cid made adjustments for the Allies mainly with their aircraft production as you had to repair the factories and ramp up production. It took 5 months to repair a 150 plane factory rather than get them all at once once you reached the magic start date. He started most of the American industry (Heavy Industry, Oil, Resources) on the West Coast with damaged centers that required supplies to repair and some would take most of the war to fully repair. As an Allied player you had to move Resources from Australia to West Coast and New Orleans to produce supplies an generate HI. So there was more emphasis on production, but no where near what you are looking for. The link below may give you some idea of what is capable with the existing game engine (I don't know the AE Editor enough yet to know what is and isn't possible yet). http://www.rhs.akdreemer.com/rhs_home.html

Kull -> RE: A Plea For Allied Production (10/29/2009 2:06:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Agree with all your points..., especially the "it ain't happening". With one exception. If the Allies have to pay "VP's" to take things away from Europe; why shouldn't they gain "VP's" for sending things TO Europe? If losing some P-39's is such a big deal there, surely gaining some should be just as important? Just wondering. Definitely. It makes as much sense to "give" as it does to "take". In some respects, it could be like playing a variant game in which Adm King dies in a plane crash or something. The Allied player opts to use fewer resources, but has a lower victory threshhold. But the larger issue of setting up Allied Production is daunting. The absolute "must-have" pre-requisites are detailed knowledge of each region's output, PLUS the percentage allocated to each theatre (in RL). And after that prodigious bit of research is complete, then comes creating the AP engine and THEN the tweaking. Oh god, the tweaking.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953125