RE: Aircraft Upgrades

RE: Aircraft Upgrades (Full Version)

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

Message

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 5:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Saying "how many P-40 units were there in 1945" is like the argument about M3 Light tanks. In the ETO and MTO, they were completey outclassed. As such, they were phased out considerably. However, in the PTO, M3 Light tanks were more widely used than Shermans, mainly because a Stuart could deal with ANY of the Japanese tanks. I for one plane to have several P-40 squadrons at the end of the war. Mostly N, but a few E models. [&:]Puzzlement on my part regarding your response. I indicated that the players will attempt to do what was done historically: get the best aircraft into production and to front line units. Agree or disagree? Why don’t you fly P-40E in your front line units until the end of the war?

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 6:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Historically, Nakajima produced both army fighters Ki-27 and Ki-44 in the later half of 1942. Why historically couldn’t the Japanese decrease Ki-27 production and increase Ki-44 at that point in time? Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines? I don’t believe there were any technical reasons why they couldn’t have increasing production of the Ki-44. If I was to speculate as to why production wasn’t increased… The Imperial Japanese Army Air Force initially called for the creation of air-combat fighter optimized for the dogfighting role to replace the Ki-27.… the Ki-43. Not long after the call went out for the creation of a specifically designed interceptor of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force (Ki-44). The requirements were a major turnaround of its operational philosophy in that it called for agility to be sacrificed for speed and climb rate. The Ki-44 was a different type fighter than was normal at this time as it relied on speed and firepower in slashing attacks vs the more traditional ‘turnfighter’ used in Japan. This was not a change that was well meet by most experienced Japanese pilots, although new recruits preferred speed over maneuverability. Some strategists were concern over what had occurred in the air battles between Japan and the Soviet Union, where I-16 had used their diving ability and speed to engage at will and break off when they desired, plus the superior firepower of many Soviet aircraft left an impression. “When it was first introduced, the Ki-44 was widely disliked by Army pilots, who were disdainful of its high landing speed and comparative lack of maneuverability compared to the Ki-43. But later, younger pilots, without previous combat experience in the earlier machine, were very enthusiastic about the Shoki’s fast level and diving speeds and its phenomenal climb rate.” In my opinion, during 1942 those who promoted the ideology of maneuverability above all else still had the political power to get their fighter made Ki-27 and Ki-43. The proponents of the Ki-44 simple lost the political battle. quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. The Ki-43 and Ki-44 were for the most part being designed, prototyped and produced at the same time. quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines? Not to my knowledge. The Ki-27 was seen in need of replacement well before the war started.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 6:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered. Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model. You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ... I wouldn’t mind see R&D disappear from the game as it is. With regards to the Ki-84, the Ki-43 and Ki-44 should come first. “In 1941, the Army requested a plane that had maneuverability superior to the Ki-43 ‘Hayabusa’ and speed and climbing power better than the Ki-44 ‘Shoki’ be developed. It required a top speed of 680km/h, a climbing time of 4.5 minutes to 5,000m, and a range equal to that of the ‘Hayabusa’.”

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 6:54:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico Weren’t most of the front line P-40s N-models and not ‘E’? The same goes with the Me109, most of the model ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, etc were long gone before the end of the war… at least in front line units. Yes. However using BTR as an example, you wont see even Me-109K's You will see an all FW-190 fleet much earlier in the war. By the time of the -K Messerschmidt, the FW will be being phased out by jets and the TA-152. There were reasons why the ME was kept in production even though it was outclassed by the FW. You seem to be stuck on the idea of at or near the end of the war, while i am talking about periods much earlier in the war because that is where one will see the impact of all the player changes. quote: The need for ‘better’ aircraft was constantly being felt by the manufactures. Some of this was taken care of by producing new aircraft while much of it was done with upgrades. Agree or disagree? Disagree. It wasn't the aircraft manufacturers who felt the need. It was their customers...the military. However that generality has little to do with what i am talking about. There were real life limits and reasons why the air fleets of the war were fitted out the way they were. It was not a simple matter for the Japanese to phase out the Zero and Oscar, nor was it a simple matter (nor practical) for the Germans to just cease Messerschmidt production in favor of a complete retooling towards FW aircraft. Same for the US. There were practical, political, as well as economic reasons for why the various aircraft assembly lines and the companies that sponsored them were set up the way they were and they could not be changed overnight. Better aircraft were designed and came along, but it was a much more gradual progression than one will see in most 'games' where players can fully manipulate the economic picture. Much of this is due to simplification of the system, a necessity otherwise it would only appeal too and be useful to players with a degree in economics. The downside of that is that it lacks checks and balances that keep things within a more realistic frame. (note that there have already been more than a few complaints regarding the spreadsheet manner and complication that is the entire Japanese production system.) Thus my personal preference is for either no or minimal player interference in production because of the effects i've witnessed in various wargames (not just air sims like USAAF/BTR), not the least of which is ahistorical and oversexed OOB's. But as i mentioned a few pages back, having production as an option was to me personally the best compromise.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 7:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus …There were practical, political, as well as economic reasons for why the various aircraft assembly lines and the companies that sponsored them were set up the way they were and they could not be changed overnight… I agree, yet if we allow the Japanese player the ability to us their subs completely non historically; and if we allow the Japanese to start 1941 with a major non-historical campaign in China; and if we allow the Japanese to non- historically focus on ASW/convoy protection problems early… why is aircraft the sacred cow? The game is ahistorical in nature in how it is played; so is building an extra 700 Tojo aircraft in 1943 so far out side the realm of possibility when compared with other actions taken? Historically, production of the Ki-43 was halted at Nakajima plants because they wished to focus on other, better, aircraft. Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. took up production of this aircraft. How do you reflect this ability in the game?

Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 7:31:52 PM)
quote: How do you reflect this ability in the game? Thats what I keep asking for [:D] 1) What historically happened? 2) Why? 3) What of the list are choices that a player should be allowed to make? 4) What of the list are choices that could not be made for reasons that are beyond the scope of the model? That would give you something realistic that could not be toyed with too much but also allow you some reasonable room to play around. My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the WAR due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all.

Apollo11 -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 7:42:04 PM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the WAR due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all. You think that only 20% of WitP buyers are playing (or will play) PBEMs while 80% will stick to AI only games? Hmmm... I thought exactly opposite... since this is almost "closed" game available only from producer/developer (Matrix/2By3) and one that will never be available in store I thought that all people who would buy it are hard-core Grognards who prefer PBEMs above all... BTW, what do you think of proposal from "Nikademus": quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc. Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont. My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system. Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft Further restrictions: Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups. (further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only) Leo "Apollo11" P.S. [Edit] Added proposal from "Nikademus" to message.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 8:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: How do you reflect this ability in the game? Thats what I keep asking for [:D] 1) What historically happened? 2) Why? 3) What of the list are choices that a player should be allowed to make? 4) What of the list are choices that could not be made for reasons that are beyond the scope of the model? That would give you something realistic that could not be toyed with too much but also allow you some reasonable room to play around. My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the WAR due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all. Historically, the Japanese analysis the military situation using their political/military doctrine …and made a judgment call. Thus, submarines will concentrate on warships, pilot training will be not as good as needed, China will be stagnate until late in the war, troops and equipment sent to the South Pacific will be piecemeal an slow, etc. The player can and will most likely ignore all of this and make the choices he feels that is need based on the circumstances. If I can ignore the historical political/military realties to do the above, by what rational can I not upgrade the 1st Sentai to Tojo’s? If this completely unbalances the game… ok, but no one has stated that. The counter argument is… what? It wasn’t done historically? That argument seems very weak. What ever historical limitations that were in place militarily/politically that led to the 244th Sentai upgrading to Tojo/Tony and not the 1st Sentai, may not occur in my game, yet the game is going to enforce this restriction. quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the WAR due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all. If it unbalances the game it should not be done. In fact, it has been stated that it is very unlikely they we do such a major code change; and my response then as now is... fair enough. Most of my games are going to be vs the AI., and if it unbalances it… I wouldn’t support change. As it is now, I have had to load different scenarios to check upgrade paths, because historically I could place my Tony aircraft where I wished… the game blocks this. Instead I must preposition my groups that will allow these aircraft. It is workable, but a difficult way to do it. I don’t care if research or even production is eliminated, but please allow me to decide where I place the aircraft. I can decide which land unit defends Rabaul shouldn’t I be allow to choose which aircraft? Like I said I don’t expect 2By3 to change anything. So I have made a list of aircraft upgrade path so I know that in ten months this group can use ‘X’ aircraft. I preposition those groups before the upgrade aircraft are available then upgrade. It works, but is somewhat clunky. Historically, a set number of groups upgraded to Tojo aircraft… for many reasons. I wouldn’t mind being limited to the same number of groups, but must I be limited to the exact groups that upgraded? A bit too restrictive I feel. Ps. Please don’t take my comments on this subject in the wrong way, while I think this section upgrades could be a little ‘cleaner’… it is still a great game.

Sultanofsham -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 8:27:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the WAR due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. Yes a toggel that a Player can select how they want to play the game with is going to unbalance and ruin the game for the person whos will it was to use such a toggel. [8\|] As for winning the war are you kidding me? Being able to select what aircraft a group can fly isnt going to magically make the USA's overwhelming production go away. Not to mention its not going to help in one bit the lack of trained pilot department. Please give people a little more credit to suggest that it will. quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all. Its funny how you whined at Zoomie earlier in this thread for assuming to speak for anyone not posting in this thread but you have no problem in speaking for them yourself when it serves your own purposes [:-] So where did you pull this 20%, 80% out of, not that I cant guess where. You also seem to have missed the point that in this thread more people have been for the ability in one form or another than have been against it and that is the only set of numbers known. You also seem to forget that the people not posting might have no problem being added. Not you nor I can guess which they want so do everyone a favor and quit trying to use an unknowable factor to bolster another weak and baseless argument that again has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 8:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: How do you reflect this ability in the game? Thats what I keep asking for [:D] Random thoughts. I don’t claim they are coherent. [;)] 2by3 is using a point system to restrict the movement of leaders and land units between commands. A similar system could have been designed for: Changes in aircraft production type. Changing Claude’s to Zeros give a small hit, but Claude’s to Sallys’ would be huge. Changing aircraft production levels. Increasing the production level of any aircraft would cost. Researching aircraft. The Ki-84 would consume large amounts of points. Changing group aircraft type. Army fighter for army fighter would cost either going up or back. You would have to balance you points between production increase, upgrades, changing air craft production and research. Balancing such a thing from the developer’s point of view would be time consuming, if possible. From a players point, many would be uninterested while other less sane individuals (like myself), would like the ability to choose… without destroying the historical feel to the game. PS. Army Fighter Units can fly any Army Fighter if you pay the cost. Research will have some prerequisites Ki-43 and Ki- 44 before the Ki-84, but large scale change in development time is unrealistic. The Japanese really couldn't ‘mass produce’ research on a given type of aircraft: only so many engineers/people can work on a prototype.

Sultanofsham -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 8:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico 2by3 is using a point system to restrict the movement of leaders and land units between commands. A similar system could have been designed for: Changes in aircraft production type. Changing Claude’s to Zeros give a small hit, but Claude’s to Sallys’ would be huge. Changing aircraft production levels. Increasing the production level of any aircraft would cost. Researching aircraft. The Ki-84 would consume large amounts of points. Changing group aircraft type. Army fighter for army fighter would cost either going up or back. Bam! There you go. The best way to fix both selection, research, and production using part of the system in the game already. [&o]

Nikademus -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 8:47:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico I agree, yet if we allow the Japanese player the ability to us their subs completely non historically; and if we allow the Japanese to start 1941 with a major non-historical campaign in China; and if we allow the Japanese to non- historically focus on ASW/convoy protection problems early… why is aircraft the sacred cow? It is not a sacred cow, rather it is an apples and oranges comparison. The Japanese submarines exist. They are there, as are the rest of the warships of the Imperial navy to be used as the player best sees fit. Combined Fleet chose to use their submarines in an inflexible manner and latter saddled the Sixth fleet with missions that did not best utilize their abilities. That was a command decision, one that could easily have been changed (as was the case with the USN example which started the war doing the same thing with it's submarines) It is a far different matter to mess with the current and future development of the aircraft industry which in real life is much more complicated to do and has far more variables involved than any wargame could ever hope to represent (and still leave the game playable to the general mass of consumers) quote: The game is ahistorical in nature in how it is played; so is building an extra 700 Tojo aircraft in 1943 so far out side the realm of possibility when compared with other actions taken? Historically, production of the Ki-43 was halted at Nakajima plants because they wished to focus on other, better, aircraft. Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. took up production of this aircraft. How do you reflect this ability in the game? An extra 700 Tojo's by themselves would probably not cause any major ripple. Retooling the entire Luftwaffe to have FW-190's by late 43 or early 44.....big a$$ ripples. [:)] How to balance? As i mentioned, to have full realism one would need an economic model far more sophisticated than even the daunting model shown in WitP. We've been focusing on the game's weakness in this area....let us visit one of it's strengths. To my knowledge this is the first game of this scope to seperate airframes from engines. Now to produce different/better/upcoming airframes you need to both consider the retooling of aircraft factories 'and' the retooling or requirements that need to be met by the engine manufacturers. Short of such a monster project (which we wont see in this game.....maybe 10-20 years from now when we have WitP-3 where not only is there a massive economic model but an unabstracted supply system (yeek!)) we wont see this. So you have to either just severely restrict player input or set forth very severe penalties for meddling with production too much. We sort of have such a system now in terms of the shipbuilding component. Its very expensive to try to meddle with the shipbuilding schedule and for all the investment the returns are rather middling. The bright side of all this mussing, is that with good economic model in place, you can leave players free to upgrade/downgrade to whatever airframes they want (within the restricted framework i laid out a page or two back), the 'check and balance' point here would simply be the availability of airframes+fitted engines. For example a player would be free to convert 10 Oscar Sentai to Ki-61, but if Ki-61 production cant meet that demand then the player just created a problem for himself. Another check and balance point, as with older wargames....would be to have every conversion to a different airframe produce an exp point degradation to represent having to familiarize or re-familiarize with the new airframe. This is of no small importance to the Japanese player because as i believe at least one person on this thread mentioned, airframe types are not Japan's biggest problem, her biggest problem was an inadequate pilot training program which broke down under the strain of an attrition war. If you have an exp 40 pilot flying, it wont matter to a huge degree whether or not he's in a Ki-84 or a Ki-43 if he's facing a veteran pilot in an F4U or P-47. The AI is another story though. I believe it is another component of the current system.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/14/2004 9:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus It is not a sacred cow, rather it is an apples and oranges comparison. The Japanese submarines exist. They are there, as are the rest of the warships of the Imperial navy to be used as the player best sees fit… I want to be able to use my assets that existed historically Tojo aircraft in late 1942 where I want as I do with submarines and warships. In the game I can not… well not without some admin work and preplanning. quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico The game is ahistorical in nature in how it is played; so is building an extra 700 Tojo aircraft in 1943 so far out side the realm of possibility when compared with other actions taken? Historically, production of the Ki-43 was halted at Nakajima plants because they wished to focus on other, better, aircraft. Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. took up production of this aircraft. How do you reflect this ability in the game? An extra 700 Tojo's by themselves would probably not cause any major ripple. Retooling the entire Luftwaffe to have FW-190's by late 43 or early 44.....big a$$ ripples. [:)] Japanese ability to change aircraft frames seem somewhat generous to me. When Nakajima was trying to get out of the Ki-43 production business, they were having difficultly finding other manufactures that could take over due to ‘quality issues’. As for every unit flying FW-190’s, no one wants to see every unit in China invading Australia in 1942. I think a point system was able to give the player some flexibility to respond to changing circumstances while maintaining historical restrictions. quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus … economic model far more sophisticated than even the daunting model shown in WitP. We've been focusing on the game's weakness in this area....let us visit one of it's strengths. To my knowledge this is the first game of this scope to seperate airframes from engines. Now to produce different/better/upcoming airframes you need to both consider the retooling of aircraft factories 'and' the retooling or requirements that need to be met by the engine manufacturers. Short of such a monster project (which we wont see in this game.....maybe 10-20 years from now when we have WitP-3 where not only is there a massive economic model but an unabstracted supply system (yeek!)) we wont see this. So you have to either just severely restrict player input or set forth very severe penalties for meddling with production too much. We sort of have such a system now in terms of the shipbuilding component. Its very expensive to try to meddle with the shipbuilding schedule and for all the investment the returns are rather middling. The bright side of all this mussing, is that with good economic model in place, you can leave players free to upgrade/downgrade to whatever airframes they want (within the restricted framework i laid out a page or two back), the 'check and balance' point here would simply be the availability of airframes+fitted engines. For example a player would be free to convert 10 Oscar Sentai to Ki-61, but if Ki-61 production cant meet that demand then the player just created a problem for himself. Another check and balance point, as with older wargames....would be to have every conversion to a different airframe produce an exp point degradation to represent having to familiarize or re-familiarize with the new airframe. This is of no small importance to the Japanese player because as i believe at least one person on this thread mentioned, airframe types are not Japan's biggest problem, her biggest problem was an inadequate pilot training program which broke down under the strain of an attrition war. If you have an exp 40 pilot flying, it wont matter to a huge degree whether or not he's in a Ki-84 or a Ki-43 if he's facing a veteran pilot in an F4U or P-47. The AI is another story though. I believe it is another component of the current system. I don’t disagree with anything you have said, especially regarding late year pilot quality issues. I am open to most any suggestion, as long as some historical flavor is kept.

Hoplosternum -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/15/2004 2:00:35 AM)
Here is a recap of some of the problems and as requested some the potential solutions (many of which have already been mentioned). While I would like a flexible production/upgrade system I can see that there are possible gamey concequences of just giving us a full open tree. Problem A) The Oscar II costs the same but is much worse than the Tojo and Tony so no one wants them. Currently almost half of the IJA's air groups end at the Oscar II (34 out of 81 IJA Fighter airgroups per Frag's figures if I counted right!) There may well similar examples. Solution 1) Accurately reflect the problems of the Tojo and Tony(and others). They were unreliable and hard to maintain. They could suffer from higher ops losses and/or cost 2 air support per plane. Both would be historic and allow the Tony's and Tojo's to be used more readily at large well equiped bases (250+ air support) while the Oscar would have a value guarding the smaller scattered bases which have not got the support to keep even a single squadren of Tony's air worthy. This would need a code change but quite frankly should be done simply on historic grounds. Some of the Japanese planes were mechanically poor meaning more lost planes and pilots and extra strains on the air support structure. Currently thats not reflected making these aircraft too much of a good deal. It would be nice to have as a flag in the editor so that people could make any plane have this charactoristic. Unlike the 'hidden flag' put on the P39 and P400 for over 10,000'. Solution 2) Make Tony's etc. cost more. This can either be done by making the air frame cost more (code change) or by making them cost extra 'engines'. Many of the late war Japanese planes had quality problems around the engine and of course they were using larger and more complex engines. Yet all engines cost the same. So let some single engine designs cost 2 or more engines. Franks would not be so great if they cost say three engines a plane compared to an Oscar II's one, or at least it would act as a break on their production slowing down the squadron conversions. Problem B) Currently it's very cheap to change over aircraft so all poor aircraft will be used in training squadrons and all good planes in the front lines. Solution) Apart from this probably being quite historic as has been pointed out it's also easy to discourage. Each change can cost a number of PPs. It can also have a one off experience reduction. Drop all pilots by 10% rounded down if they upgrade out of sequence. That will stop rampant plane swapping as without trapping elite pilots in Oscar IIs etc. Problem C) It will kill the richness of the war as only a few types will be built and used. Solution) The changes above would help stop this but I admit it may still occur. However I don't think the player should as Japan completely control production. A third (say) could come from replacements like the allies. A certain number of Oscar II's, Lilly's and Sonia's would still be being produced no matter how bad the bombing got or what choices the player makes. Plus you have the reinforcement squadrons arriving already equiped in some cases with unfancied planes. So the war would not be a completely Oscar II free zone. In the war Japan produced the following aircraft numbers: 1941 5,088 1942 8,861 1943 16,693 1944 28,180 1945 11,066 (7 and a bit months) So even the terrible bombing and crippling sub blockade of '44 and '45 did not stop aircraft production. A certain amount of untouchable aircraft production does not seem out of order in light of this. Problem D) Getting the really good stuff like the 'enhanced' Shinden too soon. Solution) You should not be able to 'skip' intermediate designs. Nor quite frankly should the costs let you massivly change entry dates. A few months are OK for all designs, especially as it costs production to do the research. But it should be prohibitively expensive to get Shindens and Franks a year or more early. The research paths (only open to the Japanese player) is then no longer a way to a cheesy ahistoric victory but can be used to keep you a little more competitive late on. Which presumably was the whole idea of having it.... Also just because you have 'invented' Franks early does not mean you have the stocks on hand or production to equip more than a portion of your air fleet straight away. Especially if Franks 'cost' more. The research model is at fault here and I think it should be changed rather than be used as an excuse to not allow upgrade flexibility. These changes should allow an open upgrade system (any Army fighter can upgrade to any other Army fighter although it retains the expected path for AI and free upgrade puposes) without too many problems. None of these changes require the AI to be changed. They could be used exclusively by the player. There are constraints to stop them being totally exploited. Yet they will give players more control. They can be granted to both Allies and Japanese although obviously they will effect the Japanese with their production / research controls more. I hope 2 by 3 consider making some changes. Although I have listed a lot I do not think any would be complicated to implement. But I am aware that many different aspects need changing if a more open system is to be provided and not exploited.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/15/2004 2:37:46 AM)
quote: Make Tony's etc. cost more. This can either be done by making the air frame cost more (code change) or by making them cost extra 'engines'. Great Idea! You can do that with the scenario editor just by increasing the number of engines! Thats why I keep pestering people for ideas. From a cost of changing standpoint, I'm still a bit partial to hooking it to the Disband with Reform option. It puts a nice penalty in place to make you think about it before over board. One thing I might note, although the numbers showing you having 34 out of 81 groups with Oscars, that is assuming of course that you don't loose any. I'd realistically expect you to loose at least 1 group per month during 43 & 44 so thats up to 24 of them gone ... It's probably unrealistic to look at Japan's numbers without factoring in losses. They come back, but it takes a long time

Polar Iceman -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/15/2004 10:17:42 PM)
There is only half a game here!!!The fact is that the game play is hard coded according to the events of history and would take a major rewrite to rectify.The AI follows the same guidelines and cannot adapt to anything that is not historical (dif amounts of aircraft prod and models).Therefore the reluctance to allow changes to prod and upgrades.It is not so much a game than a recreation of history.I was expecting something rather differant when I spent my $98.00.Disapointment is not a strong enough word to describe how I feel.[&:]

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 11:21:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Polar Iceman There is only half a game here!!!The fact is that the game play is hard coded according to the events of history and would take a major rewrite to rectify.The AI follows the same guidelines and cannot adapt to anything that is not historical (dif amounts of aircraft prod and models).Therefore the reluctance to allow changes to prod and upgrades.It is not so much a game than a recreation of history.I was expecting something rather differant when I spent my $98.00.Disapointment is not a strong enough word to describe how I feel.[&:] Half a game? WitP is more like six or seven games in one. [;)] The lack of flexibility in setting what type of aircraft each group fly was most likely a compromise to keep historical flavor in the game. No system is perfect, and while I feel this could have been done better, I don’t see it as a game killer. Do you?

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 12:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Apollo11 [...] You think that only 20% of WitP buyers are playing (or will play) PBEMs while 80% will stick to AI only games? Hmmm... I thought exactly opposite... since this is almost "closed" game available only from producer/developer (Matrix/2By3) and one that will never be available in store I thought that all people who would buy it are hard-core Grognards who prefer PBEMs above all... Never have, and very likely never will play PBEM. Almost certainly will play WitP Solo only vs the ai. I've been a wargamer for 40 years, never stopped, just morphed from figures to counters to pixels, and I find the chief advantage of computer games is the fact that I can play an hour or so when I want to, without having to schedule it. If I'm going to play vs a human I much prefer to be able to see him, and push models or counters around. Steve.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 1:10:31 PM)
One option is to say "I don't care if there's NO player control over production & R&D, as long as I , as the player, can deploy what IS produced where it is needed. If that compromise is needed in order to remove the unnecessary constraints over deployment, then so be it." I would predict, however, that you'll have a number of players disagree...they'll say that they want to be able to control production. More than that, it's the control of production that provides the reason for wanting the SRA: remove that, and you encourage much more 'gamey' strategies. However, I don't believe there's any good reason for the R&D sub-plot. Take that out, and the production/deployment constraints could be lifted with much less risk of 'gaming' the game. Personally, I think I'd make it a toggle: R&D + Limited deployment vs No R&D + easy deployment. EDIT: Oh, and I'd make that deployment option the same for both sides: no reason to be partisan!:) Steve.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 1:15:30 PM)
quote: Oh, and I'd make that deployment option the same for both sides: no reason to be partisan!:) The overriding concern I have with the Allies being able to convert ... Think how happy Japan's going to be when the Allied player converts ALL his LBA groups to B-29's [X(]

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 1:25:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Oh, and I'd make that deployment option the same for both sides: no reason to be partisan!:) The overriding concern I have with the Allies being able to convert ... Think how happy Japan's going to be when the Allied player converts ALL his LBA groups to B-29's [X(] He produces THAT many B29s? And you're concerned with Japan's production being gamed? :) Seriously, that can't be an option, can it? Perhaps I was ambiguous: I meant free deployment of what's in the deployment pool, not changing the production numbers of the allies. Steve.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 1:43:09 PM)
quote: He produces THAT many B29s? And you're concerned with Japan's production being gamed? :) I'm concerned with anything that breaks the game. It doesn't matter to me how or who. [;)] They show up in 5/44 with a rate of 150 a month. Thats 3 airgroups a month that could be put into effect. By the end of the year, thats 21 groups of 48 B-29's knocking you back into the stone age. By the end of 45 not that you'd see it, we are talking about 57 groups. I don't take sides with stuff like this, I think what could be done if the feature existed.

strawbuk -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 1:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sultanofsham quote: ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico 2by3 is using a point system to restrict the movement of leaders and land units between commands. A similar system could have been designed for: Changes in aircraft production type. Changing Claude’s to Zeros give a small hit, but Claude’s to Sallys’ would be huge. Changing aircraft production levels. Increasing the production level of any aircraft would cost. Researching aircraft. The Ki-84 would consume large amounts of points. Changing group aircraft type. Army fighter for army fighter would cost either going up or back. Bam! There you go. The best way to fix both selection, research, and production using part of the system in the game already. [&o] I agree too (indeed suggested similar earlier, but then I'm not an Elite Guard and my programming extends to just getting the SUM function to work in excel, so nobody noticed...) My option would be (taking on board Frags demand for reality checks); 1. Changing production at a factory costs PP to reflect the industrial-miltary complex issues ie paying of grumpy manufacturers. Lots for Japansese , less for USA, some where in middle for Brits (as US could forceably streamline more effectively). 2. You have to produce at least say 10 aircraft of every type before progressing to next - this represents prototype testing. That cuts 20/20 hindsight as you need your test pilots to say model is rubbish before binning it (which cost you PP points). Or perhaps you have to fill up a squadron and engage in a combat before you can switch freely (bar PP cost) to production of that model. SO you still have to pour research into all models on 'path' to next. A bit of testing should allow the research levels to be set so that nothing comes in TOO ridiculously early, and combined with any sensible player using 'horses for course' eg keeping leggy fighter as escorts even if not top dogfighters, will stop the mythical early hordes of Franks problem. Can apply to Allies too. 3. Every new generation Japanese aircraft cost more to build - quality vs quantity decision time. So should US but why would they care! 4. All this uses up resources right? So if US player want to stop this happening PLAY BETTER THAN THE JAPANESE and stop them getting resources. And, without joining up the two biggest threads going, the Japanese will have to have spent a lot of time and effort on the ASW game (including moving to beter patrol aircraft...) to actually get enough resources, and have captured them ahead of schedule too. 5. Give AI version a set path, maybe increase its abilty to bin earlier models at protype/combat testing stage at harder levels, or randomise what it bins early. 6. All the stuff about restricting like for like aircraft in units should be in. Not cost PP costs - why? A command decision, it is which company gets contacts builds and how many that is 'politics'. 7. Maybe only open up access to new model when US introduses a new plane, OR keep research cost very high on a plane until US flies a new model in combat. Would reflect some of the reacting to changing needs issues? Surely Japanese designers looked at shotdown US planes? So that covers - political lack of will/politics of aircraft production, 'jumping' models due to hindsight, the 'only works on PBEM' thing, the 'Japan historically couldn't do it due to resources'. Does not cover theories that even with strong political, Speer like direction, designers were not up to it. Who knows , but they did produce a Ki-84 despite it all, flawed though it was that seemed to have been mainly lack of resources for quality build. No programming answers please....

Mr.Frag -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 1:57:42 PM)
quote: Not cost PP costs - why? The only problem with PP is after a few months, you have so many of them collecting dust that they no longer have any real value so they don't work as a controlling aspect. The big blitz on PP is during the war start to get things moving, then you are just using pennies so to speak to deal with Leader changes etc. The major role of them was to restrict and slow the opening of the game down. I suppose if you made the costs high enough, it would have some impact longer term. Need to run a couple of years and see the PP values vs number of air groups that you'd want to change out. Most of this aircraft switching will happen in late '43 through to the end of the game, not in the first 2 years of play.

strawbuk -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 2:03:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Not cost PP costs - why? The only problem with PP is after a few months, you have so many of them collecting dust that they no longer have any real value so they don't work as a controlling aspect. The big blitz on PP is during the war start to get things moving, then you are just using pennies so to speak to deal with Leader changes etc. The major role of them was to restrict and slow the opening of the game down. I suppose if you made the costs high enough, it would have some impact longer term. Need to run a couple of years and see the PP values vs number of air groups that you'd want to change out. Most of this aircraft switching will happen in late '43 through to the end of the game, not in the first 2 years of play. I mis-typed/you misread - I mean there should be NO PP cost for switching plane types used in units. I hear you on rest, just make the cost big.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 2:13:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: He produces THAT many B29s? And you're concerned with Japan's production being gamed? :) I'm concerned with anything that breaks the game. It doesn't matter to me how or who. [;)] They show up in 5/44 with a rate of 150 a month. Thats 3 airgroups a month that could be put into effect. By the end of the year, thats 21 groups of 48 B-29's knocking you back into the stone age. By the end of 45 not that you'd see it, we are talking about 57 groups. I don't take sides with stuff like this, I think what could be done if the feature existed. So, by the end of the war, the Allies have thousands of 'spare' B29's sitting around, while they're flying the B17s and B24s? Something seems to be wrong... A little 'googling' produces: Production starts in September 1943. Last a/c rolls off the line (A B29B) in Sept 1945. 3, 970 produced in 24 months: 165 a month. So, we allow for the delay between production of the first a/c and actual deployment, and we still get the situation Mr. Frag described. So what's wrong? Allied deployment in real life. Which is exactly what I, as the player, would expect to be able to correct. Unlike the Luftwaffe, I actually really do have a superior a/c available in large numbers. Historically, it was not deployed. Now, if there's still a reason why it wasn't, it ought to be modelled in the game. If however it was simply a mistake, it ought to be something that I, as the player, can correct. Caveat: via a toggle. All such changes to an already successful game should be via a toggle, so as not to foul/annoy players who like the system as-is. Steve.

strawbuk -> Radical, non-programming, non-patch answer to upgrade issues (8/16/2004 2:38:19 PM)
Bear with me but I have THE ANSWER; It is apparent that we have a range of highly skilled and knowledgeable punters on this forum. And all very even handed and objective, as well as subtle and effective debaters. So my new process draws on this excellent resource. 1. First we split all those with Japanese Fanboy sigs into army and navy. Same with US fanboys. 2. Brit fanboys and one third of US army fanboys are allocated as the 'ETO first' clan. A random person is selected as 'evil, out for the cash aircraft manufacturer' aka Brewster. 3. Everyone is given a 'research and production vote'. 4. Whenever a player wants to produce a new plane type he submits his (or her maybe) request to the forum. Everyone presents a case for and against and then votes yes or no. Anyone using 'banned words' will lose their vote. Banned words include 'code', 'programming', 'GG' and ' historical production graphs'. 5. Voting restrictions; - One third of all 'navy' voters must automatically vote against any 'army' proposal on principle and vice versa. - The 'ETO First' Clan must vote in favour of any new long range bomber options as they hope they can hijack their use to win the Battle of the Atlantic. - Brits/commonwealth will vote for anything (even Japanese) that might replace Buffaloes and Blenheims - the designated 'Brewster' gets three votes IF he buys eveyone a beer. Seems as reliable as current situation.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Radical, non-programming, non-patch answer to upgrade issues (8/16/2004 2:52:48 PM)
LOL! In a co-operative multiplayer version of the game, this could even work! [:D] Steve.

Sultanofsham -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (8/16/2004 10:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Not cost PP costs - why? The only problem with PP is after a few months, you have so many of them collecting dust that they no longer have any real value so they don't work as a controlling aspect. The big blitz on PP is during the war start to get things moving, then you are just using pennies so to speak to deal with Leader changes etc. The major role of them was to restrict and slow the opening of the game down. I suppose if you made the costs high enough, it would have some impact longer term. Need to run a couple of years and see the PP values vs number of air groups that you'd want to change out. Most of this aircraft switching will happen in late '43 through to the end of the game, not in the first 2 years of play. Wouldnt need to make the cost high just limit the amount you can bank.

2ndACR -> RE: Aircraft Upgrades (11/17/2004 4:29:27 AM)
And the real ugly one to go with the poll. rescued from page 73.

Page: << < prev 19 20 21 [22] 23 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125