RE: Aircraft Upgrades (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/11/2004 9:06:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

For those still debating this ... How are you dealing with training pilots?

This changing of aircraft produces the situation where 100% of your front line units would be in your good aircraft and 100% of your training groups would be in your crappy aircraft since you can switch them around anytime you want.


Not that far removed from today's reality (can't speak for WWII). Today, the first time a new fighter pilot sees and F-15 is in his end unit. At least it was that way in the 80's and 90's. You went to UPT and flew T-37's, graduated to T-38's. If you were fighter bound to an F-15 combat unit you then went to RTU at Holloman where you flew more T-38's then F-4's back in the day. You then arrived at your front line unit and spent several months training in that unit on your assigned aircraft before assigned actual CAP missions and such..... But the end frame training was done at the final unit, at least in fighter. Bombers you got a several month stint in California in a B-52 before you got to your end unit. But they were usually B52-D's and you got your G's and H's only when you arrived at your unit assignement.



Top Cat -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/11/2004 9:09:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

For those still debating this ... How are you dealing with training pilots?

This changing of aircraft produces the situation where 100% of your front line units would be in your good aircraft and 100% of your training groups would be in your crappy aircraft since you can switch them around anytime you want.


From what I've read it was standard practice to train, say fighter pilots in Nates and then send them off to the front line unit where they would fly more up to date aircraft.

Planes like Nates were gradually relegated to training roles for obvious reasons. Pretty standard practice for airforces the world over. Even in Australia today you don't start out in F-18's when you're training to be an F-18 pilot. Current practice is CT-4 then Pilatus PC-9 then Macchi 326 then F-18. Less dead pilots that way.

So I don't see a problem here. Common sense practice.

If you can't do that in WITP then it just hightlights the rigidity in this area.

Cheers
Top Cat



Apollo11 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 2:28:10 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

For those still debating this ... How are you dealing with training pilots?

This changing of aircraft produces the situation where 100% of your front line units would be in your good aircraft and 100% of your training groups would be in your crappy aircraft since you can switch them around anytime you want.


"Mogami's" recipe for IJN/IJA pilot training?


Leo "Apollo11"



Hard Sarge -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 3:01:59 PM)

Hi Mr Frag
well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines

in my game (useing what I am forced to used :) my 3rd and 4th line fighters seem to be doing pretty well (of course to be honest, they are going up against Nates and Sonias, the ones running into Tonies are having a HARD time, but that is what the 23rd FG is for)

I think you are arguing agaisnt the 10-15% of the player types who are going to push for the Uber planes from the get go, while the rest of us, just want some choice and to be able to use what we build

(I would love to see the designers come up with blocks, so the Frank or late model Zero can't be reseached in 41, only being ready to reseach, when the right condiction are met)

and for training, have you ever seen any of the films on late war JP flight training ?, they used barrels, cut out top so the pilot could sit in, added little stabby panels to look like wings, and give it a joystick, the stick rocked the barrel the way it would in a real plane

HARD_Sarge



Hard Sarge -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 3:14:41 PM)

Hi Adnan

But how do you did it ? 2400 kills in 2 months...

well, I think that maybe something the designers may want to look at, for the AI

once you blow a airfield apart, the planes are stuck on the runway, you can bomb them all day long, then each morning, they still draw reinforcements, and you can bomb them again

I was tearing up Lea, Rabaul, Mandayla (and a eastern China base ?)

in fact, I stopped bombing bases, as my pilots were getting bored and not getting any kills, with about half of my kills (?) being on the ground

playing the Aug 42 to 46 Campaign, so may be easier

first month ended with 1234 JP losses, the 2nd with another 1206

3rd month may be down some, my CV's are in port, but with about 2 weeks to go, I have another 500 down

the Canes and Spits in China will eat anything in the air (there are some Zero's in China, but the AI does not send them out) put some I-153 or I-16's on the same base as a Cane or Spit, and they work well together

HARD_Sarge



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 5:57:12 PM)

So, is this discussion now at an end? I assume that "the developers have spoken" and that there is no great likelihood of any change. I find this a great pity, it effectively appears to hobble the player to the extent that I wouldn't want to play as the Japanese. A potential sale delayed, at least, to see if there's any movement, and also to check out what else is out there in the wargaming arena.

Steve.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 6:25:00 PM)

quote:

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines


If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side... Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 6:31:07 PM)

Well, Steve, this is something that involves a DESIGN change. At this point in time, fixes requiring design changes are simply not probably economically feasible, especially on a change in which there are two so diametrically opposed camps. You MIGHT see a major design change if the problem was a unanimously accepted problem. It is also a sign that the under-the-covers design is a pretty rigid one, meaning, sometimes even seemingly minor changes butt up against the design.

And then theres the AI. The AI has to be re-engineered to utilize a design change as well, which probably means an AI design change as well.

I'm sorry you feel this is a show-stopper as Lemur's and probably future mods are pretty decent compromises. With Lemur's mod I at least can now use almost everything I could hope to develop. I just can't downgrade.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 6:36:12 PM)

quote:

I just can't downgrade.


Says you ... Disband the group ... aircraft are gone ... if you have older aircraft in stock, they will pull them.

Still don't get the downgrade concept though. Pilots are your most valuable item. Why on eatch would you want anything less then the best to put them in? Just do not see that logic at all. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on it.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 6:37:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines


If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side... Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.


I think even now, with the research model we have in place, you have to make severe sacrifices in current shipping model production in order to devote enough research to ever get the uber-models to arrive more than a month or so early. That's essentially the control mechanism. To get Shindens a year early I'd have to convert almost every Ki-series fighter factory in the game to their research, mean I'd be out of fighters in a matter of weeks or a few month. But even now, playing Lemur's scenario with everything essentially upgrading, in the end, to the A7M or Shinden, my focus is on getting those two as early as I can without depleting my current pools too much. But that means, the best I may be able to do is get each a month or two early, at best....

The controls are in the SACRIFICE you have to endure to get them.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 6:42:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I just can't downgrade.


Says you ... Disband the group ... aircraft are gone ... if you have older aircraft in stock, they will pull them.

Still don't get the downgrade concept though. Pilots are your most valuable item. Why on eatch would you want anything less then the best to put them in? Just do not see that logic at all. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on it.


Thinking of the Kamikaze phase at the end. If, in 1945 I have 1200 Ki-27's laying around from 1942, I would rather use those than A7M's and Franks.... If my pools of front line fighter in 1944/45 are depleted by Allied bombing of their factories, but I have thousands of obsolete aircraft laying around int he pool, using those is better than using nothing. That's the concept. But I forgot about the disbanding thingy...but even with that I have to wait 60 or 90 days for them to show back up....



strawbuk -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 6:59:27 PM)

Well of course you might want to actually get the Kamikazes past the CAP by using good plabes..... But for me the downgrade abilty is very imprtnat even if all rest stays same (don't hit me..)



Drongo -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:05:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Thinking of the Kamikaze phase at the end. If, in 1945 I have 1200 Ki-27's laying around from 1942, I would rather use those than A7M's and Franks....


Unless you deliberately kept some Ki-27 equipped units around until '45, you wouldn't have 1200 Ki-27s in the pool, you'd have 99. The rest would have been turned back into resources by then.



Reiryc -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:05:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines


If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side... Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.


Whether you are against it or not is really quite irrelevant...

The solution proposed is just as realistic as whats in the game now. If you get enough a6m2's produced, do you keep your a5m4 or do you upgrade? Generally, most will upgrade to the zeros unless they are building up a pool for a particular reason.

The exact same thing is being proposed for upgrading from oscar 2's to things like the frank/tony etc.



Reiryc -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:06:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I just can't downgrade.


Says you ... Disband the group ... aircraft are gone ... if you have older aircraft in stock, they will pull them.

Still don't get the downgrade concept though. Pilots are your most valuable item. Why on eatch would you want anything less then the best to put them in? Just do not see that logic at all. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on it.


Some would rather use a nate for a kamikaze as opposed to a frank.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:09:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Well of course you might want to actually get the Kamikazes past the CAP by using good plabes..... But for me the downgrade abilty is very imprtnat even if all rest stays same (don't hit me..)



I guess thats why I have problems grasping the concept ... if you are going to commit suicide, would it not make a heck of a lot more sense to use aircraft that at least have a chance of making it to the target?

There is no point throwing 200 Nates at a CV group, 200 Nates will all be shot down. Now sending 200 Franks in might actually get you a CV killed so it was *worth* loosing the 200 aircraft.



strawbuk -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:20:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag


I guess thats why I have problems grasping the concept ... if you are going to commit suicide, would it not make a heck of a lot more sense to use aircraft that at least have a chance of making it to the target?

There is no point throwing 200 Nates at a CV group, 200 Nates will all be shot down. Now sending 200 Franks in might actually get you a CV killed so it was *worth* loosing the 200 aircraft.


But give us the choice; keep Franks to defend factories, use Nates as KK or vice versa. Valid operational decisions. And nothing to do with reserach et al. BTW I would rather aim a KK at a transport TF but heh.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:25:50 PM)

quote:

But give us the choice; keep Franks to defend factories, use Nates as KK or vice versa. Valid operational decisions. And nothing to do with reserach et al. BTW I would rather aim a KK at a transport TF but heh.


I'd kinda see some logic there if Nates actually had the range to fly anywhere, but when you look at the ranges of all your future aircraft, you are going to find that your Oscar II's are your best aircraft, while you hold all your 44/45 aircraft back to try and shoot down B-29's over Japan. Nates are just plain worthless period.



strawbuk -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:31:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

But give us the choice; keep Franks to defend factories, use Nates as KK or vice versa. Valid operational decisions.


I'd kinda see some logic there if Nates actually had the range to fly anywhere, but when you look at the ranges of all your future aircraft, you are going to find that your Oscar II's are your best aircraft, while you hold all your 44/45 aircraft back to try and shoot down B-29's over Japan. Nates are just plain worthless period.


Dear Frag - like what you have to say normally but that is just a plane(bad pun) diversion from issue. If I built them, under huge constraints, let me fly them, with whoever, when ever (subject to 80 caveats on training, experience etc etc).

I will stop spamming this thread, I will stop spamming this thread.....



Banquet -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:38:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

So, is this discussion now at an end? I assume that "the developers have spoken" and that there is no great likelihood of any change.



Has anyone from Matrix or 2by3 actually posted here yet?

I may be mistaken but reading between the lines it seems to be the case that the research process is flawed, so we need fixed upgrades incase anyone cheats.

The research process seems to glean such few potential gains it makes me wonder why it's included at all at the expense of being able to produce whatever aircraft you're able to and then equip your choice of squadron. Can't we just dump research?



Oznoyng -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 7:38:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines


If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side... Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.

We aren't asking for the ability to swap Nates for Tony's at the game start and you muddy the waters by suggesting things that just are not possible with the game as designed. Take examples that could reasonably occur in game, and base your objections on that. Unless you do, you are giving arguments that are just too silly to give any weight too. Comparing the gist of this discussion to us wanting to research F18's, to turning WitP into an RTS, or wanting to upgrade Nates to Tony's on day 1 are simply getting in the way of getting your point across.

If I change your question to "If you had the choice of flipping out your Nate's for Oscar's, Tonies, or Tojo's would you ever choose the Oscar?" might be a reasonable question. And my answer would be "Yes." I would want to continue to build Oscars for a while, actually. I just don't want 34 squadrons of them. The Oscar has one thing going for it, far and above the others - range. I would reserve some number of Oscars for escorting Betty's. Eventually, Oscar's and the escorted Betty's would take too much of a beating and I would convert all Oscar's to something else. In the meantime, Oscar's that I don't intend to use as LBA escorts would give way to fighters with shorter range but superior firepower, armor, durability, and speed. I would accept a certain greater number of losses in my Oscar squadrons for fewer losses in my LBA (up to a point). By the same token, I am not sure I would go all Tojo, or all Tony. I cannot recall very well the stats on those aircraft, but it seems to me I would want to have them both in different situations.

I think that proposing a "whole" solution is not something we should have to do. A "whole" solution ultimately is something that gets done when we establish the PBEM we play. If you and I are considering a game, we PM or post back and forth, deciding on rules. The options we are asking for are simply parameters. I could say to you:

Frag,

I want to play Japan, Scenario 15.
1. Charge PP for upgrades outside of the aircraft's historical upgrade path option on.
2. Increase the "charge" for plant conversions on
3. "Free" plant upgrades off.
4. No research will be conducted by me other than what is done at scenario start.
5. Increase airgroup upgrade delay on
6. Allow "upgrades" to be within aircraft type on
7. Aircraft upgrade cost: high
8. I will change no production of a plant until the aircraft is available and producing.
9. No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only.
10. Allied sub doctrine on
11. Japan sub doctrine on
12. Only 1 port attack on turn 1
13. etc.

And you would say, "No, I don't option X on, I's skeered of da uba Jap planes. etc." [:D] Eventually, we would decide on rules and start. The problem is that the tools (even the editor) are not flexible enough to play some of the games that we want to play.



Top Cat -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 8:38:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I just can't downgrade.


Says you ... Disband the group ... aircraft are gone ... if you have older aircraft in stock, they will pull them.

Still don't get the downgrade concept though. Pilots are your most valuable item. Why on eatch would you want anything less then the best to put them in? Just do not see that logic at all. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on it.


Some would rather use a nate for a kamikaze as opposed to a frank.



If you had a particular factory/aircraft type taken out by bombing you might get desperate and want to provide alteranate suppply of replacement aircraft.

Mind you once you get to that stage you're probably toast.

Cheers
Top Cat



rhohltjr -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 8:41:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
...
I have read Japanese accounts of the bombing of the Nagoya Mitsubishi plant. One raid by B29's and the plant was unable to produce for a week and after that NEVER made it back to full production. Or half production.



Lemurs!, Could you please give references to this bombing ? I am not trying to
dispute anything said, I in fact have been to that very (Komaki)MHI plant. I have walked the grounds.
I would love to read the account of that event!!!!



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 8:51:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Well of course you might want to actually get the Kamikazes past the CAP by using good plabes..... But for me the downgrade abilty is very imprtnat even if all rest stays same (don't hit me..)



I guess thats why I have problems grasping the concept ... if you are going to commit suicide, would it not make a heck of a lot more sense to use aircraft that at least have a chance of making it to the target?

There is no point throwing 200 Nates at a CV group, 200 Nates will all be shot down. Now sending 200 Franks in might actually get you a CV killed so it was *worth* loosing the 200 aircraft.


Japanese used a lot of obsolete a/c on kamikaze missions and they got through as often as anything else. This isn't CAP intercepting strike escorts where the escorts are engaging in dogfighting. Whether it is Franks or Nates, they are flying straight in doing no more evasive moves than a torpedo bomber or dive bomber might do. Most were not even armed with gun ammo. They are basically manned missles. That logic simply doesn't apply to a kamikaze attack.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 8:59:26 PM)

quote:

Whether it is Franks or Nates, they are flying straight in doing no more evasive moves than a torpedo bomber or dive bomber might do. Most were not even armed with gun ammo. They are basically manned missles. That logic simply doesn't apply to a kamikaze attack.


[:D]

A lot simpler to shoot down a 200 mile an hour missile vs a 400 mile an hour missile. We are not talking Ohka's here, we are talking about aircraft that attempt to crash into their target instead of simply bomb it. Speed is everything.



Lemurs! -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 9:04:22 PM)

Sorry, i had not read this thread in quite a while.

The reference i can think of to the Nagoya Mistsubishi plant is a book called Zero which
is a fairly good book on the creation process behind the A6m1/2. It does not continue with the later model creation process which i would have liked to read about.

The more i think about this upgrade process the more it bothers me; This part of the game is just broken and in more ways then most of you have figured out.
Working on my scenario i have found big problems here and there that will screw up Japanese production.

I am going to rework this in my scenario quite a bit more but i am not sure how much can be fixed.

I don't know any other way to put this except that this 'feature' is one of the worst design decisions i have ever seen in a game ever. BTR handled this much better. Didn't Grigsby design that? WTF? This is nothing but a step back to the worst parts of DOS. There is NO excuse for an upgrade tree that is linear like this. There should probably not be any tree other than basics of no Army/Navy crosses, no bombers to fighters, etc.

I have a couple of friends who are thinking of buying this game and i am almost to the point of saying 'wait for WitP2, the search for a real upgrade path'.

Mike



Lemurs! -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 9:19:58 PM)

Quote from Ron Saueracker:

Just nix the whole production issue regarding aircraft models and screw research as it is causing more problems than any playability benefits. If this is done, I have no problem with allowing upgrades to "change on the fly" as it will only allow more flexible management of the aircraft the players have (ie. will alow players to easily ready squadrons with obsolete a/c for kamikaze duty).


Sorry Ron, but if this game had not been made with production controls I and essentially everyone I know would have had no interest in buying it.
I think you would have lost 1/3 to 1/2 of your sales.

Mike



Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 9:43:40 PM)

Mike, instead of complaining why don't you suggest something that will actually work taking into account the realities of Japan's abilities AND the fact that 75%+ of the games being played are against the computer, not another player where it would be very simple to have a pick list with no controls needed.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 9:44:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Sorry Ron, but if this game had not been made with production controls I and essentially everyone I know would have had no interest in buying it.
I think you would have lost 1/3 to 1/2 of your sales.


Oh come on...

There are many like me who don't care all that much about production, research, whatever... They'd realistically lose like 5% sales max. Perhaps they would even get some new sales.

O.



Tankerace -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/12/2004 9:47:42 PM)

You guys have the Kamikaze thing all wrong. You don't use a 3 ton, 200 mile an hour plane, you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship![:D]

Gotta love the Yamato, the biggest (and worst) kamikaze in history.

Sorry, thought this topic needed some comic relief.



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125