Production: A Simple Approach (Full Version)

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



Message

Greg Wilmoth -> Production: A Simple Approach (3/5/2001 5:42:00 AM)

At the risk of over-simplifying things, I think the changes in the production aspects of the game ought to be limited to a structured decision process similar to what is used in Pacific War to prompt the player to upgrade aircraft squadrons. For example, when shipyard capacity allows, the Japanese player should be asked, “Do you want to convert the Chitose and Chiyoda to CVLs?” I think the design and production of weapons would be a fascinating game, but it would be big enough to be a game in its own right if done properly. A few years ago, before they went out of business, Crusader Studios planned a game called Greyhounds of the Sea. The idea was to play out the Anglo-German Naval rivalry before and through WWI. The game started in the 1890s, and players had to design and plan their fleets. They made their decisions on what to buy and build from battleships to submarines. A key factor was they didn’t know when war would break out. Build immediately, and your ships might be obsolete. Wait for better technology, and you might be unprepared. It’s a shame the game was never done. Using structured decisions, and limiting them to historical options, would keep the production part of the game manageable. The player would work at the margins rather than try and handle the whole task. For ships and navies, I’ve complied the following list of “key” decisions. I invite comments on these and any others I may have missed. US Navy: 1. Rebuilding older battleships of the Nevada, Pennsylvania, California and Maryland classes. This could be done from Dec 41 on, and could be done in conjunction with battle damage repairs. 2. Conversion of up to nine Cleveland class light cruisers to Independence carriers. Could be done from March 42 on. Most of the cruiser names were transferred to later ships that were not cancelled, so they would be available. 3. Cancelling one or more Montana class battleships in favor of Midway class carriers. This could be done from Jul 43 on. Player would get either the Midway or Montana in Sep 45. The Ohio (or another one) could come in place of the F.D.R., if the game lasts that long. 4. Rebuilding the CV Ranger to modern standards. This was proposed, but the price was delaying one Essex class CV because of drydock space. The Ranger was not used in the Pacific because its layout made rapid air operations difficult. If rebuilt to reflect later experience, it could have been used in the Pacific, and possibly sooner than an Essex class CV built from keel up. IJN: 1. Unless the game begins before Dec 41, the conversions resulting in CVLs Shoho, Zuiho, Hiyo, Junyo, and Ryuho need not be included. Nor need the conversions of Kitakami and Oi to torpedo cruisers be included. 2. Chitose and/or Chiyoda from seaplane tenders to CVLs. Permitted from Dec 42 on. 3. Completion of Shinano as battleship or carrier. Permitted from Jul 42 on. 4. Conversion of Ise and Hyuga to hybrid battleship/carriers. Permitted from Mar 43 on. 5. Conversion of CL Isuzu to anti-aircraft cruiser. Permitted beginning 1944. Perhaps other Nagara class CLs could or should be included For air forces I would keep the same basic production system but add the models that could have been produced in quantity to give players more choices. I also would change rules to reflect the fierce interservice rivalry between the IJN and IJA and the lack of a higher decision making authority. The initial production dates are subject to variation. Japanese: 1. No Japanese factory producing IJN aircraft may be converted to producing IJA aircraft, and vice versa. 2. No IJN air units may be converted to IJA aircraft and vice versa. 3. Kawasaki Ki-60. IJA heavy fighter. Available at same time as Kawasaki Ki-61 (Tony). 4. Kawasaki Ki-100. IJA high performance fighter. Available beginning Mar 45. 5. Kayaba Ka-1. IJA autogyro. Inexpensive, short range anti-submarine patrol aircraft. Available from Dec 41 on. 6. Kyushu Q1W (Lorna). IJN twin engine anti-submarine patrol aircraft. Available beginning Mar 44. 7. Kyushu J7W. IJN single engine fighter with canard configuration. Available beginning Aug 45. 8. Mitsubishi A7M (Sam). IJN single engine carrier based fighter. Available beginning sometime in 1945, depending on priority, earthquakes, US bombing, etc. 9. Nakajima G8N (Rita). IJN four engined bomber. Available beginning sometime in 1945, depending on US bombing. 10. Aichi H9A. IJN twin engined flying boat. Shorter ranged less expensive alternative to Mavis and Emily. Available beginning Dec 41. 11. Nakajima/Showa Navy Type 0 Transport (Tabby). License built version of Douglas L2D/DC-3. Available beginning Dec 41. U.S.A. 1. Consolidated PB2Y Coronado. Four engined flying boat. Available beginning Dec 41. 2. Consolidated B-32 Dominator. Four engined heavy bomber. Available beginning Jan 45. 3. Convair (Consolidated) B-36 Peacemaker. Six engined super-heavy bomber. Available beginning Aug 45, depending on priority. Urgency of development declined as US forces advanced and captured new bases and problems with B-29 were solved. 4. Curtiss C-46 Commando. Twin engined transport. Available beginning Dec 41. 5. Douglas C-54 Skymaster. Four engined transport. Available beginning Mar 42. 6. Grumman F8F-1 Bearcat. Single engined carrier based fighter. Available beginning Feb 45. 7. Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star. Single engined jet fighter. Available beginning Feb 45. 8. Martin PBM Mariner. Twin engined flying boat. Available Dec 41. 9. North American P-82 Twin Mustang. Twin engined fighter. Available Aug 45. For those who are interested in exploring games on production, I recommend: Malfador Machinations: Space Empires III. While set outer space in the future, this game has an extensive technology tree for R&D and allows players to design their own spaceships. I approached them about doing a carrier design game, but they said they were too busy working on Space Empires IV. That game has been recently released by Shrapnel Games, but I haven’t studied it enough to comment on it. A demo is downloadable at http://malfador.com Fritz Bronner’s Liftoff! (boardgame by Task Force Games) and its computer derivative Buzz Aldrin’s Race Into Space (BARIS) (by Interplay). These games require players to purchase launcher and payload programs and then spend money on R&D to improve their safety factors. A random factor during launch and spaceflight determines whether they work and consequently mission success. BARIS can be found at http://www.theunderdogs.org Domark’s Flight Sim Toolkit. This product has a editor for aircraft characteristics inolving tradeoffs. Might provide some leads for allowing players to design their own aircraft, or at least project flight characteristics of proposed aircraft. Look for it at http://www.theunderdogs.org Again, comments are welcome.



Greg Wilmoth -> (3/15/2001 7:53:00 AM)

If you really want to dig into the problems of production, read: Buying Aircraft: Material Procurement for the Army Air Forces, by I. B. Holley (Washington DC: GPO, 1964, 1989). It's a Special Study in the United States Army in World War II series (the Green Books) by the Center of Military History, US Army. Holley is a respected historian who also wrote Ideas and Weapons. He breaks the aircraft industry down into four parts: airframe maufacturers, engine manufacturers, subcontractors (wartime only), and vendors or suppliers (ready made items). He examines the actual historical problem of expansion of existing plants versus conversion of other industries to aircraft production. The appendicies have full production figures for all USAAF aircraft by types. There is more general information for naval aircraft production. If you want to do a game on production, this is the book to read first. null



Talorgan -> (4/24/2001 1:52:00 AM)

Greg: Why restrict things to the quasi-historical? Why not allow eg ALL the Cleveland class to be converted? It would surely have been TECHNICALLY possible. Why not bring in projected, thought-about and even downright hypothetical designs? Let dockyard capacity be the real restrictor. To know, as you start a game in 1941, that the Japs will complete 2 Yamato's as BBs and one as a carrier by date X in shipyards Y & Z is not realistic. The real commanders had only sketchy ideas of what the other side was up to. Players should be in the same position.



Greg Wilmoth -> (4/24/2001 7:31:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Talorgan: Greg: Why restrict things to the quasi-historical?
Well, the idea was to keep it simple. A good game is like a good novel or good history book. The decision to exclude is as important as the decision to include.
quote:

Why not allow eg ALL the Cleveland class to be converted? It would surely have been TECHNICALLY possible.
Nearly anything is possible "technically." But are you trying to model a game about military production or military operations? And how realistic do you want to make it?
quote:

Why not bring in projected, thought-about and even downright hypothetical designs? Let dockyard capacity be the real restrictor.
I think that would make a neat game, but way beyond the scope of WITP. To realistically model warship production, you'd have to handle (or ignore) a host of variables. Joel Davidson's book "The Unsinkable Fleet: The Politics of US Navy Expansion in WWII" hits on some of these. He says the main limit on US battleship construction was the capacity to make the special armor plate they required. That capacity couldn't be expanded before 1948. They also competed with the US Army for steel, a battle which they generally won in the first years of the war with the argument that tanks and guns were worthless if there wasn't a Navy to see them safely overseas. But the other big problem was manpower. By the end of 1944 the shortage was so acute Navy Headquarters proposed retiring older warships and transferring the men to newer ones. The Pacific Fleet balked at tampering with a winning team. Norman Friedman in "British Carrier Aviation" says the British had an armor plate problem too. They bought armor for an Illustrious class carrier from the Czechs! Do you really want to get down in the weeds on all these decisions? But you do want to be realistic, right?
quote:

To know, as you start a game in 1941, that the Japs will complete 2 Yamato's as BBs and one as a carrier by date X in shipyards Y & Z is not realistic. The real commanders had only sketchy ideas of what the other side was up to. Players should be in the same position.
Ah, that's very true. But our players also know how the war was fought and who won, don't they? And they know ahead of time that the Germans won't win in Europe, and the atomic bomb will work. You've hit on the classic problem of historical game designers: is the player limited to the knowledge (and decisions) available to the historical actors at the proper time and place, or is he like a time-traveller going back in time with full knowledge of the future? (Many people consider the latter to be more fun because they can "get it right.") If you really want the players to have little or no knowledge about what the other one is up to, then you need a 4X game like Space Empires 4, only set on a single planet with mid-20th century techology. Instead of designing space ships, you would design battleships and carriers. It could be done, and I think it would be fun, but it wouldn't be WITP. [ April 23, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ] [ April 23, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]



Talorgan -> (4/28/2001 7:06:00 PM)

Cheers Greg! You've hit a few nails on the head. Obviously your first concern has to be to produce the historical game within set parameters. Any plans to allow the engine to be put to more hypothetical use at a later date?



Greg Wilmoth -> (4/29/2001 7:47:00 AM)

Well, WITP isn’t my game. I’m just making suggestions, the same as you. I did E-mail the designers of Space Empires 3, Malfador Machinations, and asked them if they would consider doing a game on the naval developments and construction in the interwar era. They replied they were too busy getting Space Empires 4 ready. They were looking for a distributor to help them break out of the direct sale shareware business and into the major leagues of computer games. If you do want to explore some of the possibilities, I’d recommend reading a couple of books by Norman Friedman: Battleship Design and Development 1905-1945, and Carrier Air Power. Chapter 1 of Carrier Air Power is entitled “Elements of Compromise,” and it gives you an idea of how different design features trade off in terms of tonnage. Chapter 2 of Battleship Design, entitled “The Squeeze” is even more explicit. Friedman talks about “the 60% rule,” a rule of thumb battleship designers used. It held that the guns, armor, and propulsion systems together added up to 60% of the displacement. Any increase in one of the three was at the expense of the other two. These books could be the starting point for formulas to allow players to design their own warships. Again, I think that would complicate WITP beyond playability, but it could be part of a neat game focused on naval construction. A couple of years ago I took a course at Johns Hopkins University called Understanding Military Technology. We had a class exercise where we sat as the U.S. Navy’s General Board in 1931 to decide how to spend the remaining U.S. tonnage for aircraft carriers under the Naval Treaties. We had to decide, based on the original testimony, how many carriers with what characteristics to build. I wrote the experience up in an article that appeared in Strategy & Tactics magazine earlier this year, #204. Anyone can get the exercise from Johns Hopkins for $4.00, including postage. If you’re interested, check out the website of their Center for Strategic Education: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/cse/products/index.html



Sabre21 -> (4/30/2001 8:00:00 PM)

It's fine and good if your purpose is to re-create WWII as it occured. Like you mentioned, we all know who won and why. People must remember that this is a game. Some like to re-create what actually happened, fine...but I already know the outcome..it's kinda like reading the last chapter of a new book first...it's spoils the story. From the Japanese perspective, the only way to possibly win is to be able to alter production types..like producing more carriers than BB's, increase production by re-allocating resources, increase the number of available pilots, change submarine tactics, increase ant-sub assets, improve radar earlier, improve electronic warfare capability...the list goes on....but most of these have nothing to do with taking territory or combat..it's about those production decisions at the gov't level. If all the game incorporates is a historical outlook upon the war, the Japanese can not win. Even if they sunk every BB at Pearl, even if Midway did not occur, the war may have lasted a little longer, but the end result would have been the same. Remembering that this is a game, there must be Victory Conditions so that either side has a chance to win, but if it's based historically, the resolve of the US was nothing short of complete capitulation of the Japanese. I have already seen the last chapter of that book, I know the end result. By looking at what if's must include the ability to change production...ships, planes...all of it. Sabre21



Major Tom -> (5/1/2001 6:15:00 AM)

Having the player control 100% of production will result in almost exactly the same problem. Instead of having a balanced fleet, the IJN and Allied player will just pump out as many CV, CVL and CVE's that they can, knowing what we currently know. The question of what this game is, is it going to be a historical wargame, or, an empire builder. Historical wargames do not go into the R&D that an Empire Builder does. You fight generally with historical units and equipment offered. There should be choices, but, not absolute control.



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/1/2001 8:55:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Sabre21: It's fine and good if your purpose is to re-create WWII as it occured. Like you mentioned, we all know who won and why. People must remember that this is a game. Some like to re-create what actually happened, fine...but I already know the outcome..it's kinda like reading the last chapter of a new book first...it's spoils the story.
I’m sympathetic. I remember the SPI boardgames in the 1970s that were so historically deterministic that you had to fight the battles the same way, never mind having a different outcome.
quote:

From the Japanese perspective, the only way to possibly win is to be able to alter production types..like producing more carriers than BB's, increase production by re-allocating resources, increase the number of available pilots, change submarine tactics, increase ant-sub assets, improve radar earlier, improve electronic warfare capability...the list goes on....but most of these have nothing to do with taking territory or combat..it's about those production decisions at the gov't level. If all the game incorporates is a historical outlook upon the war, the Japanese can not win.
That depends on what you mean by “winning.” Even if you change all that, the Japanese still cannot win, if by winning you mean dictating terms in the White House, to use Adm. Yamamoto’s phrase. But the Japanese can still win on points, as they can in Pacific War, or the boardgame Victory in the Pacific. At a more basic level, I don’t think historical realism automatically means historical determinism. You described a historically realistic strategy for the Japanese to use their resources to improve their military performance. I’m fascinated by military innovation, and I think it would be a neat game. But I think a fun game also has to be playable, and that’s why I proposed a simpler approach. I realize WITP is going to be a monster game, but even when computerized, a monster game can easily get too complicated to be playable.
quote:

Even if they sunk every BB at Pearl, even if Midway did not occur, the war may have lasted a little longer, but the end result would have been the same. Remembering that this is a game, there must be Victory Conditions so that either side has a chance to win, but if it's based historically, the resolve of the US was nothing short of complete capitulation of the Japanese. I have already seen the last chapter of that book, I know the end result. By looking at what if's must include the ability to change production...ships, planes...all of it.
I don’t know how changing Japanese production is going to change US resolve. Here’s a “what if” for you that I think is as realistic as the production alternatives you propose. Suppose in December 1941, instead of attacking Pearl Harbor and launching a general offensive throughout Southeast Asia, the Japanese merely occupied Dutch Borneo to obtain the oil the US, Britain and Holland had embargoed. Without a direct attack on US forces, would the US have gone to war to defend Holland’s colonial empire? After all, only a year before Roosevelt had counseled the French to give in to the Japanese occupation of northern Indochina. And even if the US went to war, would it have been a limited war for limited aims? Would that mean a different level of US resolve? Think about how you’d put that into the game.



Talorgan -> (5/4/2001 3:05:00 AM)

The other way to give the Japanese a chance would be to expand the scope of the game to include the other Axis powers. Victory over Japan and Italy might always have been a foregone conclusion but the if they had fought long and hard enough they might have bought enough time for Germany to develope nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them! I am sure that in the fullness of time, computer games involving the grand strategy of all of WW II will happen. Who knows, War in the Pacific might be the first module of such a game. Alternatively, what about "variants"? Remember those chance events in board games? These might relate to events in Europe and require the Allied player to redeploy forces away from the Pacific.



Dunedain -> (5/10/2001 1:13:00 AM)

Interesting discussion. I understand the desire to see if one can make things turn out differently, make the war less predictable and so on. This is one of the reasons I am so in favor of having a historical alternative campaign option in WitP. This would involve the Washington Naval Treaty having never been signed. Battleship production would have gone ahead full steam. This would be tremendous fun. Huge fleets of cruisers and battleships ruling the seas and dominating the war effort. With the option to begin carrier production later in the war. But the first few years would be dominated by capital ship surface actions. One of the posters on this forum first suggested this and I think it's a great idea. And it would be easy to implement, just remove the carriers and bump up the number and type of cruiser and battleship classes for the starting war condition. And all of a sudden you have a whole new twist to the pacific war. One with lots of fresh possibilities and strategies. :) Greg: Please give us some examples of the sort of heavy ships (and numbers of ships) that the U.S. and Japan had planned to construct and would have had they not had any artificial restraints on them. If you have that sort of info. available, I imagine we could see a rather fascinating list. :)



TIMJOT -> (5/10/2001 5:11:00 AM)

quote:

Here’s a “what if” for you that I think is as realistic as the production alternatives you propose. Suppose in December 1941, instead of attacking Pearl Harbor and launching a general offensive throughout Southeast Asia, the Japanese merely occupied Dutch Borneo to obtain the oil the US, Britain and Holland had embargoed. Without a direct attack on US forces, would the US have gone to war to defend Holland’s colonial empire? After all, only a year before Roosevelt had counseled the French to give in to the Japanese occupation of northern Indochina. And even if the US went to war, would it have been a limited war for limited aims? Would that mean a different level of US resolve? Think about how you’d put that into the game.
FYI; There is an active discussion on this very same " WHAT IF ", over at the ART OF WAR GAMEING FORUM, under the thread WI NO PEARL HARBOR



Major Tom -> (5/10/2001 5:49:00 AM)

Without a Washington treaty battleships would be larger, around 40-50 000t, and carriers would be smaller. Without the modification of battlecruisers into Carriers the major navies of the world would have built much smaller carriers. Both Japan, US and England planned smaller carriers until the Washington treaty killed their battleship programme (Hermes, Eagle, original Shokaku). With all of those large hulls sitting around they decided to make use of them. Without the treaty the IJN would be larger, but they would not have super weapons. With no restrictions on numbers they would not have to focus on quality. Large Destroyers, and super Cruisers would be replaced by larger numbers of smaller vessels. The IJN planned the following... 4 Amagi BC's (Akagi) 2 Kaga BB's 2 Kii BB's Plus numerous other vessels. The US... 1 more Colorado 4 South Dakota (enlarged Colorado's) 4-6 Lexingtons Gun calibur's for Battleships would be around 18", and Battlecruisers 16". Armour would be thicker, and speed would be less. Aircraft would still be powerful, but carriers would be less potent due to their smaller size. There would be more battleship admirals and fewer aircraft admirals in the respective fleets.



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/13/2001 8:43:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dunedain: Greg: Please give us some examples of the sort of heavy ships (and numbers of ships) that the U.S. and Japan had planned to construct and would have had they not had any artificial restraints on them. If you have that sort of info. available, I imagine we could see a rather fascinating list. :)
Major Tom has done a good job of that. The British were also working up some new ships. The 1921 battlecruiser design with 16 inch guns would have been a class of four ships with the "I" names of older battlecruisers (Invincible, Indomitable, etc). They could have been followed by the "Saint Andrew" class battleships (four) with 18 inch guns. If you're interested in battleships slugging it out, I suggest you download Action Stations from The Underdogs. http://www.theunderdogs.org/ The graphics are crude, but it's the most detailed WWII surface warfare simulation I've ever seen. The designer, Alan Zimm, is a retired US Navy commander who now works for the Advanced Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins. He used info from the US Naval War College games of the 1920s and 30s in it. As for me, I'll take my my alternate history scenarios with less predictable technology. I'll go for the ZVCV, a 10 million cubic foot airship the US Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics designed in the 1930s that would carry nine dive bombers. Roosevelt killed it along with the rest of the Navy's rigid airship program. :)



Dunedain -> (5/15/2001 7:33:00 AM)

Hey Greg, thanks for responding. Sounds like some really cool ships we could have in a no-Washington-Treaty option. :) I have had Action Stations for a long time, was one of the first wargames I bought for the PC. :) It is the best capital ship combat sim there is. But I'd like to see what would happen with these sort of ships dominating the combat in the pacific for the first few years. Unfortunately, Action Stations only covers tactical combat. I want to be able to move many fleets of these ships around and fight a war with them. WitP is ideally suited to this and it would be easy to implement and would provide an interesting option for us big gun fans, as well as those who like alternate history scenarios. And it would be easier to do than adding giant zeppelins to WitP. ;) And a big thanks to Major Tom for that great list of ships. :) I certainly hope we will get to add those ships to our fleets with this cool campaign option. [ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Dunedain ]



RevRick -> (5/15/2001 10:53:00 AM)

Hi, guys! Greg has touched on one of my favorite games in "Action Stations?" Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have a dinged up Washington closing on a smoke screen (from a burning ship) and find the Yamato coming out it blind as a bullbat but full of fight? That happened in one of Zimm's scenarios - and it wasn't pretty for either side. IIRC, he had a Non Washington Treaty game in which the U.S. had built another class of ships which was evidently under consideration as an expansion on the South Dakota's - but this time with 15 18" guns. Now talk about your basic headache. I've never seen any information on this theoretical monster, but with the propensity for ships to grow, someone might have as easily proposed that as the German bureau proposed the H-20. With regard to building. Why not follow the games namesake - have a certain number of points each month to build whatever you wanted, within reason. Knowing that the IJN subs are going to be acting differently under AI control - DE's will become a necessity. Merchant shipping is always needed. CV's can only be built at a certain rate and a certain number per cycle started, and you sure better keep the number of CA's, CL's, and DD's up to escort the birdfarms. And that is just the naval construction side. How about the number of divisions, regiments, battalions, CB's, Engineers/Baseforces/Support bases which need to be built up for the trek across the Pacific?



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/18/2001 7:53:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by RevRick: Hi, guys! With regard to building. Why not follow the games namesake - have a certain number of points each month to build whatever you wanted, within reason. Knowing that the IJN subs are going to be acting differently under AI control - DE's will become a necessity. Merchant shipping is always needed. CV's can only be built at a certain rate and a certain number per cycle started, and you sure better keep the number of CA's, CL's, and DD's up to escort the birdfarms. And that is just the naval construction side. How about the number of divisions, regiments, battalions, CB's, Engineers/Baseforces/Support bases which need to be built up for the trek across the Pacific?
Your idea has the virtue of simplicity: build whatever you want--within reason. Ah, but the devil is in the details, eh Reverend? Just what would be reasonable? I remember an article by Alan Zimm in a long defunct wargame magazine where he explained why he never put a warship design module in Action Stations. He knew somebody would be foolish enough to try to put a 14 inch gun on a destroyer. When you say "namesake," I gather you are talking about the old SPI monster game. Can you tell me more about how it handled production? :confused: [ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]



norsemanjs -> (5/19/2001 7:43:00 AM)

It's been a very long time since I've posted anything but this sparked some renewed interest and brought back some fond memories. SPI's War in the Pacific was certainly one of the first really big pacific wargames. If my memory serves me correctly. The production was broken down into nearly monthly cycles, 13/yr I believe. THey allowed you to build indivdual capitol ships, cv, bb, ca, cl, claa and groups of dd's de's merchant ships and such. The length of time to get capitol ships was very great of course. The air groups were ordered in blocks of air types, carrier blocks for example had a mixture of carrier style fighters, dive bombers and torpedoe bombers. The exact breakdown depended on the year the units came into service. carrier blocks also took longer to reach completion due to longer training time. I don't recall exactly what the land units were like but I seem to recall that you had to ramp production of land units up. You couldn't just build 5 divisions of infantry one month. You had to gradually increase your production. (I may be remembering production from War in the East/West here). I was trying to track down my old rule book from WITP but couldn't find it (yet). If I run across it I'll let you know. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more detailed version of the old computer game High Commands production. It was nice and simple with some good strategic nuances. By the way I don't mean copy their system but it can give you some ideas. I still really like the way old WITP handled airstrikes on task forces. Rings of ships with aircraft coming in on vectors to hit the TF's center. This also allowed you to model how the japanese later in the war would try to take out the pickets in order to get into the TF centers. Norseman



RevRick -> (5/19/2001 10:02:00 AM)

Norseman has the idea down. A set number of points for production of all types on a regular basis - SPI used four week turns in a cycle with a production segment in each cycle. There was a set number of points, which increased gradually from 12/41 on, and even began to decrease after mid 44. From those points the gamer selected what to build. Each ship costs a number of points and took a certain number of cycles to build. I think a CV took 26 cycles, a DD took nine cycles, subs (IIRC) took 3. The airpoints were handled a little roughly, but that could also be smoothed out, and land units were built. Every construction was built from the earliest numbered unit in each type. But, it took design out of the picture. All you had was the next available DD, etc. I will try to find my copy of the Game - I still have it and take it out to look at it once in a while - takes up a lot of room, much more than a parsonage has room for - but has a lot of information on various unit strengths etc, inculding the fact that most US and Commonwealth division were much "heavier" than the Japanese army division were - both in impact on the field and in transportation costs... Hopefully, I'll have time to look for it tomorrow in our study, but I wouldn't count on it - have to work on sermons. God Bless; Rev. Rick



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/21/2001 1:45:00 AM)

War in the Pacific sounds like it has lots to offer in the way of a relatively simple production process. It appears to challenge the player to plan carefully and “guess right” as to balancing forces for future needs. Did you know that Alan Zimm (designer of Action Stations) was planning a carrier game at one time? It was to be called Fleet Commander, and Zimm discussed it in an article in long-gone Wargamers Monthly back in 1995. (Wargamers Monthly: The Forum of Computer Wargaming, 12 Metric Road, Iowa City, IA 52240; Alan Zimm, “Getting Carried Away, PC Flattops and Fleet Commander,” Volume 4, Number 4, April 1995, page 3.) According to the article, Fleet Commander was to be a follow-on to Action Stations but covering WWII carrier combat. His purpose was to create a simulation so accurate players could learn valuable lessons from it. He considered the current carrier wargames to be full of “egregious errors.” As an example, he went into a detailed discussion of the problems of conducting an aerial search at different altitudes and the impact Japanese doctrine on reporting and forwarding sighting reports had on the Battle of Midway. (Secrecy and surprise valued over timeliness and accuracy.) He also discussed numerous other aspects of WWII carrier operations in the Pacific which he said had not been considered in games up until then. Suffice it to say, the same level of detail and complexity that went into Action Stations was planned for Fleet Commander. Technological surprise was to be an important feature of Fleet Commander. He noted the “perfect intelligence” players usually have in a game does not correspond to reality. To quote from the article: “As a game option, Fleet Commander will allow players to “invest in technologies – aircraft engines, airframes, gunner, torpedoes and lots more. Depending upon the investment, your Bureau of Aeronautics might provide you with a Zero in 1938 instead of 1941, or a Zero with different performance specifications, or maybe an Me-109 or an Oscar. You might also invest in intelligence systems for battlefield use and intelligence workers to give you advance notice of the performance of enemy systems! The point is that players will have the option not to know the exact performance of the enemy systems, which preserves the possibility of technological surprise.” Unfortunately, the game never surfaced. In an earlier Letter to the Editor (Wargamers Monthly, Volume 3, Number 11, November 1994), Zimm expounded at length on the obstacles and frustrations of trying to develop and market a computer wargame. This, of course, was based on his experience with Action Stations. I had some contact with him a couple of years ago by E-mail. He was finishing up his PhD and short of time, but he did say he would like to finish Fleet Commander some day. Maybe we’ll see it yet. ;)



norsemanjs -> (5/24/2001 6:39:00 AM)

Greg: Action Stations was definitely one of my favorites and it sounds like the follow on would have been a great one as well. Action Stations is still a great game, it is a good example of how good a game can be even with crummy old graphics. I really am intrigued by the discussion of technology development. It would be very interesting to have investment pts to guide your armed forces to the technologies you think would be of most benefit. The danger of course is we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the combatants of the time did not. You would really need to add something to make the investments more risky not always a sure thing. I think the technology could have subtle or maybe even not so subtle effects on the various units and weapons platforms. You could see improvements in gunnery control improve the AA or Surface attack strength of the forthcoming classes of ships. You could see the same thing in Radar although the effects could also improve night/poor weather attack factors. The factors would not necessarily be cumulative although resulting redundancy of systems could make platforms more resilient. The potential is kind of fun to think about. The ability to upgrade older classes with new technology would really complicate things, but of course this happened on both sides throughout the war. Also some of these upgrades were very significant as the old battleships at Surigao proved resoundingly. What if the Japanese had been able to upgrade their old battleships with radar, Surigao might have been a bit more interesting. The espionage element is also an interesting idea, I've always wished some of the great European Theater games had some elements of this because I've always felt espionage did in fact play a significant role in that theater. I think the Pacific was less impacted by espionage (but I'm not an expert). This post is of course under the heading of production a simple approach. I'm afraid we've strayed from that thread. I'm sure it is possible for the programmers to make the game flexible enough to at latter date add plug-ins which could allow us to explore things like variable technology, productions on a more intricate scale and even the espionage factor. I did just remember that the intelligence services of the USN did have numerous coups in breaking codes of the IJN and this was very significant at times. Until we can start trying this game out we will certainly continue to enjoy discussing the wide range of posssibilities. Norseman [ May 23, 2001: Message edited by: Norseman ]



sinner -> (5/24/2001 9:05:00 AM)

I'm reading a really interesting book right now: "The Pacific Campaign. The US-Japanese Naval War 1941-1945" by Dan van der Vat. It's truly amazing and enlighting. :cool: I strongly recomend it to any "Pacific Theater kind--of-guy". Anyway, about spionage: Japan inteligence was very poor, to say it in nice words. - They relied on old-fashion spies (a japanese gardner in Hawaii, some dude with binoculars around Port Moresby)... and they were mostly uneffective after december, 7th, 1941. -Japanese guys had no clue on code breaking. -They relied on pre-war subscriptions o freely available books and magazines ("Indstrial production in USA, 1939", "Why our Navy is the finest" and things like that) (note: those titles are made up, but they serve the purpose of explaining my point: Japan had no clue on allied strategic inteligence gathering). Then, the allied: -they had the "Japanese Enigma" called "Magic" and the following version, "Ultra". Yes, we knew and were able to decipher most of the Japanese transmissions and all that. But the thing is that having a decoded transmission usualy does not gives away the exact intentions of the enemy. Also, the access to "Magic" and "Ultra" information was very restricted... after McArthur fiasco at the Philipines (he had a "Magic" unit, he received the reports of an inminent attack, he received the reports on a heavy attack to Pearl Harbour... and he choose to do nothing! And, also, he disclossed (sentitive) information obtained by Ultra and Magic to the media... nearly giving away the secret of the knowledge of Japanese codes. -The Japanese routinely changed the codes (once a year?) but intelligence will break in them in a few months because they were so similar to te old ones. -The were less than ten "Ultra" / "Magic" machines, distributed among Washington, Hawaii, McArthur, the allies (UK, Australia), US Navy, US Army... do not recall exactly. -Anyway, Allied intelligence was brilliant, specialy comparing with Japanese. But, of course, they did not intercept all and everyone the communications, mail info meant unknown info for the allied, etc. -Japan relied on prisioners torture, captured maps and the likes. The whole Japanese intelligence staff (Navy, Army, Tokyo and everyone) was under 200 men. The allied was in the thousands (several). Hope this helps.



moore4807 -> (5/29/2001 1:23:00 PM)

I was part of an earlier thread on this subject and the general thought was while it was an awesome idea- but not practical due to complexity issues such as those raised below. For grins and the appropriate credit due to Grok, Victor & to Joe Osborne for getting us talking amongst ourselves, here goes some of the rough ideas we had. LCU's- Army & Marine (0-20 effectiveness rating) 5=green troops 10=average troops 15=veteran troops 20=elite troops/also applied to engineer/specialty units (SU)-conversion of LCU to specialty unit after reaching 5pts restarts effectiveness rating. (this was so HQ's, cooks and clerks could still be used in combat-would be rated poorly as in real life) Port/Construction- Levels 1-15 #'s are variations for chance of getting complete supplies/repair or refit 1-3=beginning levels- no additions without military SU's and bases. Repairs painfully slow or not possible, supplies difficult to obtain. 4-8= average ports and usual supplies. 9-12=good ports and regular and special supplies, modifications & additions possible with civilian workers. 13-15=excellent ports & supplies, refits and new constructions (ways n ships being built by civilians) Cities- Much discussion here- major problems found... region to be covered...Avg. #'s of residents...Unknown how to rate or what to rate other than scaled or Vs... working / unemployed skilled / unskilled transportation / migration (big ??? here...) morale/productivity loss to Armed Services (monthly draft boards or conscription) Civilian Vs Military Rule of Cities...(especially if you are'nt playing USA) Some kind of War Production Board- as in real life allocated *vital* supplies to industry and military needs. Usually highly political and favored BIG buisness over Mom-n-Pop shops. No final answers but a lot of suggestions thrown around. Unknown how to create or handle other Allied or Axis production needs/supplies I just remembered, Rev. Rick you were there too last year on the thread... Anything else you remember? For that matter everybody kick it around some maybe we CAN get something started here (evil grin) my never-say-die side showing through... maybe creating a windows version or online version of WWII strategy game with historical and/or fictional names could be fun. Anybody remember the PTO II by KOEI back in late 90's. I still think modifying thier system (so to speak) is the way to go to get the strategic side we crave. Oh well blast it or better it-just dont let it die! :D [ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]



moore4807 -> (5/29/2001 1:53:00 PM)

Just another thought before I call it a night...(maybe shoulda already) The windows sports sims out, (eg Eastside Hockey Manager Demo by Risto Remes from Finland is AWESOME and especially comes to mind...)literally DOZENS of categories make up each player, Dozens more handle teams, & league performance and all are simmed out to seasons, playoffs and awards. Why cant something like this be done on a strategy wargaming basis? (never mind the THOUSANDS of hours of coding this would entail after THOUSANDS more hours collecting, organizing it out, etc. hmmm...) Then the questions of how long per turn would be answered, the quality n quantity could be measured and losses could be automatically figured and shown right on a windows screen that affects to other related window screens. (ie: bombing a towns industry affects its production and workers) This could also address the fog of war and intelligence questions by having variables written into the categories. Like I said, maybe I shoulda gone to bed instead. I could be up all nite dreaming up this stuff... [ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]



norsemanjs -> (5/30/2001 6:15:00 AM)

I like your idea on ports. I'm afraid the likelihood of it or something like it actually being included is slim. I think we will see a much simpler approach. I like the possibility of differing levels of complexity in different areas of the game. If you enjoy the supply, economic side of the War in the Pacific you can set the detail level of this part of the game to high. The same can be said for training, or land combat. Or even air operations. But detail on everything may not be everyone's idea of a good game. Everyone has their own niche which they enjoy, and having the ability to delve deeper into some of these areas is very intriguing. By the way I love the hockey manager game, one of the best pieces of free gaming software I've ever downloaded. I'm on my 3rd season. But I don't think I understand how you'd use that type of game play in a pacific war game. Norseman



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/30/2001 7:08:00 AM)

Let me try and summarize what’s transpired so far on topic. I proposed a simple approach to production. Objections came in two main flavors: those who wanted complex production with a gods-eye-view (and control) of it all, and those who felt my proposal would lead to a replay of the real Pacific war—a kind of historical determinism. As far as simplicity vs. complexity is concerned, you’re either on one side or the other. I’m for simplicity, although I’m odd enough to think a complex game solely about production might be fun. (How about a game on the race to build the atom bomb using the game engine from Buzz Aldrin’s Race into Space?) With regard to flexibility, I think the criticisms have merit. The old monster game by SPI, War in the Pacific, seems to hold promise, especially the idea RevRick resurrected (try and say that fast three times) of using points to cross production categories. Have I got it about right? Comments, corrections, questions? BTW, for a really simple game of grand economic strategy, go to my post over in Art of Wargaming, Politcal Simulation, on Stalin’s Dilemma. [ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]



Chiteng -> (5/30/2001 9:17:00 AM)

The problem with a simple approach: The United States could have, if they had chosen to, produced 18 Montana class battleships. They chose not to do that. However THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT. Japan however could barley manage to finish existing ships. Let alone lay down any new keels. I would not wish to see a United States player, locked into a historical mode. That would become old very quickly. If I want to produce nothing but B-29's and base them in Alaska and bomb (or try to bomb) Japan, the game should allow me that. If I wish to field 10 armored divisions and base them in India, that too is my choice. This is where my previous mention of 'attrition' become more than an abstraction. If I WISH to produce 100,000 C-47 and use them to AIRDROP supplies to Chindit type formations advancing thru Indo-china, I want that option! It may NOT be optimal or wise but it WAS possible. (the attrition on airframes makes the imagination boggle) Just like: If I choose to NOT produce an atomic weapon and re-direct those funds to say - famine relief, That too is my choice. War in the Pacific was an excellent model for production.



moore4807 -> (5/30/2001 11:06:00 AM)

Norseman, 2nd season for me on EHM, -imagine each player and ratings to be a squad, platoon, etc. Each team to be the Division, Battalion etc. Then the lineups and type of gameplay -change it to squads are resting, scouting, intelligence, defensive perimeter, patrol, operations, assault... now overlay mapping onto another windows screen (or tabs) and land combat can be achieved against AI or online player (maybe akin to Cinpac Flattops) extremely rough sketch of the idea, definitely would lack the visual punch of SPWaW, but much more in variables and "what if" playability than click n shooters...Having said that I would much prefer an Air War simulation with the counters representing the windows (point n click to bring up flight/base info) than groundpounders but would enjoy either. To answer G. Wilmoth, you obviously have more experience with game construction than me... To ask the naive question.... Simple as in adding onto WitP to create more variables or simple as in making specialty items during the war (ie: R.R.-Merlin engines in P-51's from the beginning?) Ive read the posts and see a lot of different ideas from this group. Interesting stuff so far. ;)



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/31/2001 8:24:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng: The problem with a simple approach: The United States could have, if they had chosen to, produced 18 Montana class battleships. They chose not to do that. However THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT. Actually, they couldn't have. And shouting about it doesn't make it so. As Joel Davidson pointed out in his book, The Unsinkable Fleet, US armor plate production was limiting factor, and that couldn't be increased before 1948. I would not wish to see a United States player, locked into a historical mode. That would become old very quickly. Fair enough, although some of us have more imagination and don't get bored so easily. If I want to produce nothing but B-29's and base them in Alaska and bomb (or try to bomb) Japan, the game should allow me that. Fine, although I'm not sure the B-29 would have the range to reach Japan from Alaska. Since you want the kind of dictatorial control of production that would have made Hitler or Stalin green with envy, why not opt for B-36s? They could have been built in time. If I wish to field 10 armored divisions and base them in India, that too is my choice. This is where my previous mention of 'attrition' become more than an abstraction. What thread was that posted in? If I WISH to produce 100,000 C-47 and use them to AIRDROP supplies to Chindit type formations advancing thru Indo-china, I want that option! It may NOT be optimal or wise but it WAS possible. (the attrition on airframes makes the imagination boggle) Just like: If I choose to NOT produce an atomic weapon and re-direct those funds to say - famine relief, That too is my choice. Wish is certainly the operative word, because your concepts of production and logistics bear no relation to reality. What you want is not a historical game, but rather a fantasy game with a historical veneer. War in the Pacific was an excellent model for production.
Now that is truely an amazing since practically none of what you want to do is allowed under the current Pacific War production system!



Greg Wilmoth -> (5/31/2001 8:33:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by moore4807: To answer G. Wilmoth, you obviously have more experience with game construction than me... To ask the naive question.... Simple as in adding onto WitP to create more variables or simple as in making specialty items during the war (ie: R.R.-Merlin engines in P-51's from the beginning?) Ive read the posts and see a lot of different ideas from this group. Interesting stuff so far. ;)
I wish I had the game construction experience you credit me with, but I don't. Just a lot of game playing experience, but not enough time to play as I'd like. Simple to me merely means playable. Obviously the sentiment in the forum is to add greater flexibility to production. I don't believe in adding chrome for chrome's sake, and I'd just like to see the Matrix folks keep it manageable (and with some basis in historical reality).



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5625