RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (Full Version)

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



Message

UncleBuck -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 6:50:04 PM)

I don't think that either side should be able to adjust production. The Allied side is played as if you were Admiral King and had complete control over the other Allies. Japan is run as if you are Not only Tojo but also Head of R&D. Why not just make the Japanese player Commander of Armed forces. They play with what they get, not what they monkey with to get. I think both sides should be allowed to upgrade any squadron to whatever plane type they want within the squadron type. (DB's to DB's or FB's, Fighters to Fighters or FB's, Torpedo Planes to trop planes, LBA to LBA> etc.) You can still play what if, and try to do better than either side did in teh war, so what is the difference?

Has anyone that plays JP often found any real advantage or change in outcome based on Production changes? I am talking about not screwing it up any benificial changes?

UB



Williamb -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 7:03:11 PM)

hmm Japan only fought on one front ?

Lets see they invaded China (1), Invaded british Malaya and Burma and India (call that 2), The hit the Dutch east indies (3) Went down into Anzac territory (ie NG and same areas #4) and they attack the US in the Philliphines and the pacific (call that 5)

Then after that can add the Rooskies later (#6)

Think they were spread out on many fronts.



Bradley7735 -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 7:12:23 PM)

Saying Japan was fighting on 6 fronts is like saying the US was figting on 18 fronts???

North Africa, Europe, Burma, China, Australia, Japan, etc etc etc.

Japan had a continuous front, unbroken. The US was fighting in both hemishperes at the same time.

But, I guess from my logic, Germany had only one front too. So, Japan had 6 fronts, Germany had at least 6, but the US had well over a dozen. [8|] Poor Russia only had one at a time. [:(]



fbastos -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 7:39:24 PM)

quote:

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell


Completely incidental that the subjects are related...

/blink

[;)]

F



Damien Thorn -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 7:53:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

[
The issue, by mid/late 1944 with the Allied player is "where am I going to put all this stuff"! there are only so many bases.....


Yeah espeically with all those bulldozers - they take up lot of room.


I think somebody is having bulldozer withdrawal. [:)]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 7:53:47 PM)

I see no problem with letting the USA control their production myself except it makes for a vastly different game. If I can shuffle Japan's production around and change the production levels, why should the USA not also be able to do the same?

It seems rather illogical to say it's ok for Japan but not ok for the Allies. Japan's production was a very small fraction of the USA. Japan improving 10% of her GNP should be balanced by a 100%+ increase in the Allies.

The problem is that this type of discussion is better suited for games like GG's World at War where the model is aimed at this reality. War in the Pacific is an operational game on a vast scale, once you start messing with production, the entire game concept starts to drift as it is not about operational use of what you have, it is about making the stuff to support your operations. Too many logic problems start to surface at that point as the games design was aimed at using the historic units that show up on historic dates. The entire concept of an OOB goes out the window with variable production. It becomes a military turn based strategy game at that point, not a historical war game.

The real question becomes:

Do you want a historical military game at the operational scale or a pure strategy game where history (apart from basic starting GNP) has no bearing at all?

I'm game either way, I just don't think you can have both in one game as they are rather opposed in nature.



Damien Thorn -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 7:56:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It seems rather illogical to say it's ok for Japan but not ok for the Allies. Japan's production was a very small fraction of the USA. Japan improving 10% of her GNP should be balanced by a 100%+ increase in the Allies.


How can you say improving one side by 10% is balanced by increasing the other side by 100%???? That would only balance out if Japan's economy was 10 times bigger than the Allies, something I don't think anyone would try to support.



Buck Beach -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 8:17:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell[:D][:D].


Just what I was thinking - though I don't see tham as fanatics. Much. As I half agree with them. Sometimes.

Let's get back to bulldozers. I really understood the bulldozer argument.


Perhaps fanatics is the incorrect label it was not made to offend only to discribed the neverending, unrelenting, post and post after post pursuit of their objective.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 8:36:43 PM)

quote:

How can you say improving one side by 10% is balanced by increasing the other side by 100%???? That would only balance out if Japan's economy was 10 times bigger than the Allies, something I don't think anyone would try to support.


Think you'll find you read that backwards [;)]

10% increase to Japan grants 100% increase to USA. 100% increase to Japan grants 1000% increase to USA.

Of couse there are those who will probably say it's more like a 1:100 instead of a 1:10 ratio, but lets not get too serious about it ... even at the 1:10, it's brutal [:D]



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 8:50:57 PM)

Let's throw in a hypothetical "Japan First" scenario while we're at it.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 8:52:10 PM)

quote:

Let's throw in a hypothetical "Japan First" scenario while we're at it.


[:D]

Whats that make it 1:1000 ? [X(]



tsimmonds -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 9:02:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Let's throw in a hypothetical "Japan First" scenario while we're at it.

Okay. What dates shall we select for Russia's surrender to Germany and for England's complete withdrawal from the Far East and India?[;)]



Sultanofsham -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 10:53:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Let's throw in a hypothetical "Japan First" scenario while we're at it.

Okay. What dates shall we select for Russia's surrender to Germany and for England's complete withdrawal from the Far East and India?[;)]


Someone could set up A Japan first scenario without too much trouble I think but could someone do a total withdraw of England or render Russia inert with the editor?



Rebel Yell -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/19/2004 11:57:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

The P51 was in use by the Brits very early on. I think 1942 or so. They called it something else though.

If you look at the A36 Apache, I believe it is a P51B.

A36 is an Allison engined P-51A serving as a low level attack aircraft.
The British, as they often did in WWII actually coined the name "Mustang". Brits called theirs Mustang I, II, and III depending on the model.
P-51B is the first Merlin engined variant.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:02:14 AM)

quote:

Russia's surrender


You are kidding right?

The USA was more likely to surrender then Russia. Russia literally would have fought to the last man, woman and child.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:06:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Russia's surrender


You are kidding right?

The USA was more likely to surrender then Russia. Russia literally would have fought to the last man, woman and child.


Frag!! Do ya know what you are risking?[:D][X(][:D][X(] This thread is now goingto be the bigger that the Wildcat vs Zero thread![;)]



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:16:41 AM)

quote:

Frag!! Do ya know what you are risking? This thread is now goingto be the bigger that the Wildcat vs Zero thread!


Not likely.

Anyone who thinks that a government in the USA could exert the level of power Stalin had is dreaming. Russia would have continued to fight until there was no one left or until Stalin was killed. This is hardly something worthy of debating. I can not imagine the public in the USA giving that kind of support to any president forget about getting all the house and senate guys to back him. Had it gone to that level, the USA would have sued for peace and let the rest of her Allies hang in the wind.



tsimmonds -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:18:31 AM)

quote:

You are kidding right?


That's a, I say that's a joke, son!

[image]local://upfiles/10816/Tr492216474.jpg[/image]



vonmoltke -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:20:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Anyone who thinks that a government in the USA could exert the level of power Stalin had is dreaming. Russia would have continued to fight until there was no one left or until Stalin was killed. This is hardly something worthy of debating. I can not imagine the public in the USA giving that kind of support to any president forget about getting all the house and senate guys to back him. Had it gone to that level, the USA would have sued for peace and let the rest of her Allies hang in the wind.

Who said the government need to exert any control? I think the people of the South at least would have fought "dem durty furriners" with great vigor, as would millions of people elsewhere. If anything, I think the challenge would be for the US government to control all the independently operating private militias.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:22:43 AM)

quote:

That's a, I say that's a joke, son!


Yep, pretty much figured you were kidding ... Stalin surrender? He didn't even want to stop half way through Germany ... matter of fact, had the USA pulled troops for PTO, I think a lot more then just half of Germany would have ended up as part of the USSR [:D] He *might* have stopped just off the coast of England ... but then again ... maybe not ...



Mr.Frag -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:23:43 AM)

quote:

Who said the government need to exert any control? I think the people of the South at least would have fought "dem durty furriners" with great vigor, as would millions of people elsewhere. If anything, I think the challenge would be for the US government to control all the independently operating private militias.


Oh, we all know all the Confederate boys would have continued fighting forever but them Notherner types ... [:'(]



Tanaka -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 12:59:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I don't think that either side should be able to adjust production. The Allied side is played as if you were Admiral King and had complete control over the other Allies. Japan is run as if you are Not only Tojo but also Head of R&D. Why not just make the Japanese player Commander of Armed forces. They play with what they get, not what they monkey with to get. I think both sides should be allowed to upgrade any squadron to whatever plane type they want within the squadron type. (DB's to DB's or FB's, Fighters to Fighters or FB's, Torpedo Planes to trop planes, LBA to LBA> etc.) You can still play what if, and try to do better than either side did in teh war, so what is the difference?

Has anyone that plays JP often found any real advantage or change in outcome based on Production changes? I am talking about not screwing it up any benificial changes?

UB


Yes Im starting to feel that way myself. I kind of miss the old UV style of play with what you get.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=690128



fbastos -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 1:15:07 AM)

Fun Scenario: give up on every major US vessel and advance SSN 571 Nautilus and a bunch of sisters by 10 years (from 1952 to 1942).

This is what controlling US production (since 1930) could get you... :)

Amazing what 10 years can do... :)

F.

PS: No time-warping the Nimitz back to Pearl Harbor!!! [8D]



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 1:33:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

That's a, I say that's a joke, son!


Yep, pretty much figured you were kidding ... Stalin surrender? He didn't even want to stop half way through Germany ... matter of fact, had the USA pulled troops for PTO, I think a lot more then just half of Germany would have ended up as part of the USSR [:D] He *might* have stopped just off the coast of England ... but then again ... maybe not ...
Is it any wonder that Japan basically fought to the last man against the West, but surrendered in droves to the USSR? Bushido, yeah right!



Charles2222 -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 1:38:41 AM)

UncleBuck:
quote:

Has anyone that plays JP often found any real advantage or change in outcome based on Production changes? I am talking about not screwing it up any benificial changes?


What would it take to achieve that? Seems to me that you would have to run TWO games as Japan ran parallel; one with the changes and the other without them, and do, basically the same warring moves in each. Basically an impossible task.



UncleBuck -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 1:42:10 AM)

I don't think so. I am willing to take empiracal data. If you have played JP a few times and you can show that you were able to increase the production of X ship or X plane type and get them X earlier 80% of the time or You were able to produce more supply and fuel than the JP did in the war. That woud do it. I just wonder what if any benifits you get by changing the JP economy. I know that you can stockpile engines or stop producing aircraft types. Other than getting more of the early war planes than historical what else can you do?

UB



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 8:51:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell[:D][:D].
[:D]

As one of those fanatics...[;)]



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 9:01:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck
Has anyone that plays JP often found any real advantage or change in outcome based on Production changes?
UB
I feel the production rate of 2 H6K-L per month is too low as operation losses plus the need to fill out my units can not be met, so I increase that to 4.

I make other changes, but in general they are minor in nature. I am glad I have the ability to make these small adjustment, but I don’t believe the will alter the course of the war



Culiacan Mexico -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 9:20:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Perhaps fanatics is the incorrect label it was not made to offend only to discribed the neverending, unrelenting, post and post after post pursuit of their objective.
Fanatic is fine with me. Why? This is an operational game on a grand scale, thus for me anything the skews things from historic probability detract from the game. I don’t care about victory points or who wins the game… I just want to enjoy the game in a historical context. Fixed upgrades are there to stop players from doing something complete non-historical and in all reality impossible: completely field P-40s in every group in mid 1942… like PacWar. I commend their intent, but in so doing the screwed up the operation aspects of the game.

Historically, the Ki-44 was an interceptor; some Nate groups upgraded to these aircraft; was produced in numbers of about 1,200; was fielded in late 1942; and was used in the South West Pacific.

In the game Rabual is experiencing B-17 raids and I want to counter this. In an operational game I should be allowed to select the appropriate Nate group, based on location, pilot quality, and other factors to upgrade… but I can’t. Not because it violates reason and history, but because fixed upgrades was instituted to stop all groups from upgrading to Ki-44.

A rule installed to stop a non-historical action on a grand scale has forced a non-historical action at the operational level.

If I can only have ten groups that use Ki-44… no problem, but let me pick those groups.

Fixed upgrade while noble in its intent is arbitrary and non-historical.


The opinion of one Upgrade Fanatic. [;)]



bradfordkay -> RE: Against the unfair limitations of US production! (8/20/2004 9:22:13 AM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

The P51 was in use by the Brits very early on. I think 1942 or so. They called it something else though.

If you look at the A36 Apache, I believe it is a P51B.


A36 is an Allison engined P-51A serving as a low level attack aircraft.
The British, as they often did in WWII actually coined the name "Mustang". Brits called theirs Mustang I, II, and III depending on the model.
P-51B is the first Merlin engined variant.


Thanks, Rebel. Didn't the A36's engine lack the supercharger found in the later versions, thus relegating it to lower altitude work? EDIT: I know the difference between the Merlin engine and the Allison, but I thought also that one of the deficiencies of the Allison used in the A36 was the lack of a supercharger. Am I mistaken here?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875