Production: a Complicated Approach (Full Version)

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



Message

Warpup -> Production: a Complicated Approach (6/11/2001 12:06:00 AM)

That other thread is getting too long! Need to start another... Not sure what could be added to the production system to make the Pacific War a more interesting conflict. Superbattleships and giant carriers and Japanese four engine bombers would be candy for some. Does either side really need big projects like this, though? The Iowas and Yamatos and B-29s are already pretty big. Not sure the game needs to allow design and production of even more expensive projects than these. Even at the size of the current BBs and CVs, is a change of design really going to matter that much? What about the low end? Does the game need to give players the ability to build better PT boats, destroyer escorts, destroyers, and fighters? There is already a fair number of light ships and planes. The ships and planes all improve through the course of the war also, so there's a fair amount of variety to play with. On the other hand, I agree with the author of "Production: a Simple Approach" that some production decisions, including those related to ship and plane classes, would add to the variability of the game and thus to the longevity and magnitude of its popularity. Also, although I never played the SPI War in the Pacific, I did take a look at it when one of my friends was playing it solitaire. The production system did look really interesting. The option for Japan to produce a couple of 10" BC was cool. I think those kinds of options would boost the popularity of the game by at least 15 to 20%, maybe more... Frankly, I would like to have some choices. I'd like a choice whether to produce more or less DD, CL, CLAA, and CA. I'd like a choice whether to form more LCU and LBA. And I'd like a choice whether to put more or less into strategic weapons like heavy bombers and subs. Of course, if I get more choice, production will be more complicated... :rolleyes:



Greg Wilmoth -> (6/11/2001 6:00:00 AM)

If you really want to make it complicated, (and I don't), take a look at the table of contents of I. B. Holley's book on production of aircraft for the USAAF in World War II. Which of these topics would be worth including? Holley, Irving B. Buying Aircraft: Materiel Procurement for the Army Air Forces. U.S. Army in World War II. Center of Military History, U.S. Army. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989. This volume, one of the “Green Books” series from the Army’s Center of Military History, is written by a distinguished airpower historian. It provides useful information on the U.S. aircraft industry prior and during World War II. However there is a great deal of information on such subjects as government contracting that will be of interest only to the specialist. One valuable bit of analysis is to break the aircraft industry into four parts: (1) airframe manufacturers, (2) aircraft engine manufacturers, (3) sub-contractors, who represented a wartime expansion capacity, and (4) vendors and suppliers, who supplied everything from rivets to cockpit instruments. Of course some firms, such as Curtiss-Wright, embraced more than one part. The Table of Contents gives a clearer idea of what the book contains. I. Introduction II. The Aircraft Industry on the Eve of World War II A Survey of the Industry The Market for Aircraft The Domestic Civilian Market The Export Market The Domestic Military Market Research and Development Production Financing the Aircraft Industry: 1934-38 III. Congress and the Air Arm Authorized Strength: How Many Aircraft? The Lassiter Board The Lampert Committee The Morrow Board The Air Corps Act The 1,800 Program in Operation Agitation for Reconsideration The Drum Board The Baker Board and the Howell Commission A New Target: 2,320 The 2,320 Act An Evaluation Authorizations, Appropriations, and Aircraft Air Strength in the Booming Twenties Air Strength in the Depression Years Relief Funds for the Air Arm Further Delays in Reaching Full Strength Congress Tries Some Short Cuts, 1935-38 The Air Arm Imposes Delay IV. Procurement Legislation, Organizations, and Administration Organic Legislation for the Procurement of Aircraft The Statutory Tradition Procurement Legislation in World War I Procurement Under the General Statutes 1918-26 Protests from the Aircraft Industry The Air Corps Act of 1926 The Organization of the Air Arm for Procurement The Structure of OCAC The Materiel Division Problems of Coordination and Command Some Staff Difficulties The Administration of Procurement V. Procurement Under the Air Corps Act Procurement: 1926-34 An Artful Evasion Congressional Cloudburst The Merchants of Death The Delaney Committee A Confusion of Issues The Rogers Committee Congressional Panaceas New Procurement Policy VI. Aircraft Procurement on the Eve of World War II The New Policy Reconsidered Premature Boasts The Transport Case Drawbacks of the New Policy The War Department Seeks a Solution Peacetime Procurement: A Retrospect VII. Planning for Industrial Mobilization The Problem The War Department and Industrial Mobilization The Air Corps Organization for Mobilization Planning Air Corps Mobilization Planning A Healthy Industry: Key to Defense Conversion Versus Expansion Air Corps Planning in Perspective VIII. The Tide Turns The President Proposes; Congress Disposes White House Meeting The President’s Message to Congress The Air Corps Budget: Fiscal Year 1940 Executive Leadership The Congress Disposes From Bill to Statute The First Expansion Program The Role of Louis Johnson The Industry’s Reaction OCAC Conference, July 1939 The Search for a Yardstick Data Contracts The Yardstick Board Tools For Planning The Realities of September 1939 IX. Foreign Policy, Politics, and Defense Politics and Armament Aircraft Exports and National Defense Aircraft Exports and Mobilization Planning X. Requirements An Essay on Requirements A Mission Unknown The Army and the Navy Agree to Disagree The Political Factor in Requirements Computing Requirements for Spare Parts The Attrition Factor In Requirements Peacetime Thinking and Wartime Requirements Requirements Computation: A Summary Origin of the 50,000 Figure Hemisphere Defense Reconsidered Aircraft Requirements in the Crisis of May 1940 XI. 50,000 Aircraft From Slogan to Program Matching Ends With Means How Many of What Kind? Productive Capacity Versus Aircraft On Hand Planner’s Lament There’s Danger in Numbers: The President’s “Must Program” Programs in Evolution The President’s New Targets “The Numbers Racket” Observations on the Numbers Game Return to Reality Schedules Versus Deliveries An Unarmed Air Force XII. Organizing for Production Posing the Problem Military Foresight Theory and Practice Evolution of an Organization In Search of Coordination The NCAC and the Air Corps The Achievement of Coordination The JAC in Retrospect XIII. Legislation for Procurement Wartime Buying With Peacetime Laws The Problem: Inadequate Laws The Solution: New Legislation Return to the Hill Procurement Law: An Appraisal Improvising Legislation in a Crisis The Turning Point Emergency Legislation Patchwork Laws XIV. The Problem of Industrial Capacity The Beginning of Facility Expansions The Foundations of Policy How Much and When? Financing Facilities The First Round of Expansion Enter Detroit: Air Arm Use of the Automobile Industry Mr. Knudsen Takes the Initiative The Bomber Plant Program The Reuther Plan Leading or Lagging? Expansion or Conversion? Big Business and Small Business The Facilities Problem After Pearl Harbor The Facilities Program: An Appraisal The Record of Achievement The Cost in Time Conversion or Construction? XV. The Negotiation of Contracts The Transition to Wartime Buying The Variable Objectives of Military Purchasing Speeding Procurement by Administrative Means Manufacturers’ Resistance to Government Contracts Special Legislation No Panacea A Land Office Business The Negotiation of Contracts The Letter of Intent The Setting for Negotiation Negotiating in the Dark Perfecting the Organization A Note on Buyers and Sellers Negotiating at High Noon The Administration of Contracts The Contracting Officer Changing Concepts of the Contracting Officer Disputes and Appeals XVI. The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contract: Negotiation and Administration Some Revolutionary Implications The Fixed-Fee Problem The Determination of Allowable Costs Auditing and Accounting The Problem of Property Accountability The Relation of Primes to Subs The Conversion of Fixed-Fee Contracts XVII. Price Adjustment Escalator Clauses Excess Profits and Voluntary Refunds Statutory Renegotiation The Organization for Renegotiation The Administration of Renegotiation Renegotiation and Repricing Renegotiation in Review XVIII. Contract Termination The Background of Termination The Character of the Termination Problem The Organization for Termination Some Illustrative Aspects of Administration An Afterward XIX. Organization for Procurement Coordination, Control, and Command Expanding the Procurement Organization for War Problems of Coordination and Control The Army and the Air Arm Cross Procurement Procurement Assignment Problems of Cross Procurement Cross Procurement in Action Centralization and Decentralization Centralized Procurement Military Buying Under Fire Decentralized Procurement The Difficulties of Decentralization XX. Production The Problem Defined The Dilemma of Mass Production More Airplanes or Better? Willow Run: A Tooling Triumph? Resolving the Dilemma Modification: A Working Compromise Coordinating Committees: An Effective Solution XXI. The Procurement Record A Statistical Summation [Includes various statistical charts, including the total and yearly procurement of AAF aircraft by type and model.] The Measure of Success Counting the Cost The Contribution of Industry XXII. Some Concluding Observations on Military Procurement What is Air Arm Procurement? Procurement and Politics Procurement Leadership in Wartime Air Power and Organization Appendices A. Membership in the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce; 1938 B. Wartime Producers of Aircraft [With plant locations and production figures; by aircraft type and model for AAF, aggregate types for Navy/Marines] C. Major Producers of Aircraft Engines: July 1940 – August 1945 [With plant locations and numbers and types of engines produced]



Warpup -> (6/11/2001 7:19:00 AM)

Heeeelllppp!!!!! That really would be a game all by itself! Imagine players representing the different factions, the President, each of the services, and each of the major manufacturers, all trying to win something, and the AXIS hardly figuring into it but representing an obstacle for the different players as a sort of random event generator: "Japanese aircraft prove completely superior to P-39 Airacobra!" What I would really like to see is just some slide bars or something to set production priorities to heavy bomber, medium bomber, light bomber, fighter-bomber, fighter, naval bomber, naval fighter, DD, CL, CLAA, CA, BB, CVL, CV, and land combat units. That way priorities could be adjusted according to the strategy you wish to pursue. The selected priorities would get faster developement and more resources. :rolleyes:



madflava13 -> (6/11/2001 8:03:00 PM)

I really like the slider bar idea. I think that might be the most workable solution to this problem. It definitely seems do-able. I imagine that if you put the slide bar all the way to "heavy bombers", then you may be pumping out B-17s or -24s, but there's only a trickle of B-25s, or Dauntlesses reaching the aircraft pool. The player still has to make strategic decisions about what airframes are most needed- especially factoring in wartime attrition, but the model is simple enough that you don't need to be an aconomics major to figure it out. I also imagine that individual factories could still be given build orders ("Build P-40", etc.) but the factories set to build whatever the slider is set on will have production bonuses whereas the other factories have negative production bonuses. I like it. Great suggestion!



moore4807 -> (6/12/2001 6:24:00 AM)

Bravo!!!!! May I have the honor of seconding madflava's and warpups suggestions? Its stated much better than anything I've come up with so far. I like the slider bar (or even percentages)as a possible solution and assigning values to airframes, hulls etc. COULD even make for a good game as G. Wilmoth suggests.



johnfmonahan -> (6/12/2001 10:51:00 AM)

Great ideas! I am a poor one to speak, as I am an economics major(once, a long time ago). By being able to vary the basic assumptions, i.e., how many of what when, we can make the game last much longer. The games that have lasted, like the SP series, have features that accomplish this like scenario editors, instant battles etc. By enforcing historical orders of battle, with a little variation, we can only vary our play. By allowing significantly different OOBs, we vary the underlying assumptions of our strategies. Having the players start long enough before the War to enable different starting forces would be another feature that would add longevity. I think a choice of interface, like sliders or a complicated text based would be something to look at. They could both have the same production effect, just allowing more or less tweaking. R & D and the uncertainty of results would also be nice. Kind of like the untried unit kind of thing, but in equipment. The combat effect of logistics is also a factor, as the effect of arty is measured in tons of ammo, not tubes to shoot it. Too much already.



sulup -> (6/20/2001 6:44:00 AM)

The slidebar is simple but effective solution to use. Anyone played the "Settlers" games? I know in the Settlers II the production system and distribution of resources are set with slide bars. There is even a system to set the priority of what resource or material gets transported around first. Those who have played the game will know what I'm talking about. In War in the Pacific you could use the slide bard to prioritize what natural resources get loaded and delivered first and wether the resource should go to producing ships,tanks or planes..So if you've got plenty of tanks, why not devote more steel to build to ships



Dan in Toledo -> (7/10/2001 3:01:00 AM)

The slider bar idea is a good one. What we really need to determine is steel, iron ore, coal, oil, and other resource production of the beligerents. A good resource for this is The History Book Clubs' Encyclopedia of Facts & Figures. I will put some of these stats in this forum soon. We should be able to determine what to convert to different classes. The Junyo and Hiyo were converted from liners. The Shoho and Zuiho were converted from fast oilers. The Chitose and Chiyoda were seaplane carriers. The Independence class was converted from Cleveland class CLs. The list goes on and on. The Mogami class was originally a CL. All of these options were available and should be available in some aspect for the game. More production should take place elsewhere as well. Taipei, Formosa produced aircraft and parts during the war. Also, besides war material production, a slider should be used for technology such as radar, jet engines, and nuclear power. Another aspect that could be considered is controlling production from pre-1941. If I was the Japanese I would not have dumped so many resources into 4 Yamato class BBs (4 laid down, 2 finished as BB, 1 as CV, 1 cancelled). Both the Japs and Americans had very interesting ships commissioned in the 30's: Tone class CA (1939), Shokaku class CV (1941), Zuiho class CVL (1940), Katori class CL (1940--only made 18 knots??), Yorktown class (1939-1941). I would like to determine things like this from a prewar stand point. We should be able to determine what tanks are in what units. An AFV could mean anything. The Jap tanks were pathetic for the most part but it would be neat to pick em just like in War in Russia. I think there should also be regular artillery and coastal artillery/ fortications. Guns like this were used in Singapore and Fort Drum. The Singapore guns were removed and taken to Tarawa. We should be able to produce mines, torpedoes, ammunition, etc... Upgrades in technology should be available. These are just ideas that I am rattling off the top of my head. What does everyone else think??



moore4807 -> (7/10/2001 10:14:00 AM)

Dan, Look up production- a simple approach- first it contains several references to your suggestions... There have been many posts on this over the past year. However it also pretty much eliminates these options as too cumbersome for this game to operate at all, (its almost a game of supply/demand in itself!). I too would love a pre-war political and supply type beginning to a grand strategic wargame...maybe when online gaming becomes more popular... (online servers vs CD-ROMS :cool: )



Ringbolt -> (7/12/2001 9:05:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Greg Wilmoth: If you really want to make it complicated, (and I don't).....
I do not mean to pick on you, but this is exactly what I do NOT want. I think PACWAR is where we need to look for the right way to handle production, not in the actual way that this new game should work as PACWAR is oversimplified, but in the level of importance it plays in the game. It is important, as it should be, but it is NOT the focus, or even in the top three in importance IMO. Sure you want to make sure you stop building P39's, but I play PACWAR to sink enemy ships and take their bases. I want to play as Nimitz, Yamamoto, or Montbatten, not the Quartermaster General. Ringbolt



Ringbolt -> (7/12/2001 9:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Greg Wilmoth: If you really want to make it complicated, (and I don't).....
I do not mean to pick on you, but this is exactly what I do NOT want. I think PACWAR is where we need to look for the right way to handle production, not in the actual way that this new game should work as PACWAR is oversimplified, but in the level of importance it plays in the game. It is important, as it should be, but it is NOT the focus, or even in the top three in importance IMO. Sure you want to make sure you stop building P39's, but I play PACWAR to sink enemy ships and take their bases. I want to play as Nimitz, Yamamoto, or Montbatten, not the Quartermaster General. Ringbolt



Ringbolt -> (7/12/2001 9:10:00 AM)

That was so profound I had to say it twice....



byron13 -> (7/28/2001 6:22:00 AM)

The sliders sound good, but you've got to be careful how much you can control. If you start directing raw materials towards a particular industry, there has to be a way of knowing how much material and resources are required to support it. If you are allowed to build more carriers, exactly how much steel does that require? And how do you manage naval aircraft production to ensure you have enough planes to outfit the ships? If there is too much input by the human, you run the risk of trying to build lots of carriers and tying up you entire industry doing so only to find that nothing is being produced because you only made 25% of the widgets that you need to make as much as you'd planned. I could see where you could use sliders to direct general production, e.g., aircraft vs. ships or heavy planes vs. light. After that, the computer is going to have to give you some assistance. I think the best way to do it is to rank priorities in production so that the computer fills all the material needs for your number one priority first, then the second, and so on until it runs out of material. The items at the bottom of the list may never get made because higher priority items have drained off the required material/production capacity. The computer would have to graphically show you the results so that you KNOW that something won't be made. You would get some kind of a chart that shows that the steel dried up after being committed to your first five priorities. If there isn't enough steel to make the tanks that you've got low on the production list, then you may just have to readjust the slider and make fewer battleships thus freeing up some steel resources. And what would the raw materials be that would be used as input? Steel, of course. But what else? Aluminum? Rubber? Basically everything was steel, so I just don't see many options here - at least for the Allies. The Japanese would have to worry about oil and rubber. But, then, oil is probably more of an operational problem than a production problem and can be kept out of the production mix. An easy method of handling it while still leaving production entirely in the player's control would be to just have generic raw material points that you can spread around as you see fit. Same thing with manufacturing capacity. You've got 500 resource points to divide among tanks, infantry, different classes of ships, and aircraft. You've got 200 manufacturing points to divide among shipyards, a/c plants and tank factories. Aircraft may require fewer resource points but more manufacturing points. Capital ships may require more resource points but fewer manufacturing points (or maybe not). But that would be an easy way to do it. And if you have enough resource points to make a lot of something but not enough manufacturing points - sorry! You'll just have to strike something off the Christmas list and readjust your production until you're using both at maximum capacity. A long post, but necessary. Controlling production is a lot of fun, but only so long as you know what the problems and bottlenecks will be in advance.



moore4807 -> (8/3/2001 1:45:00 AM)

Byron, Of no real importance whatsoever- I read a book on Mr Wrigley (yes, the chewing gum!) It noted that Wrigley had to convince the War Production Board of his products necessity because the US was so short of rubber that they started to import guava sap from abundant trees in S. America to make artificial rubber. Mr Wrigley conviced them so well that he got valuable cargo space on the ships transporting guava products to include chicle for his gum. He even got the right to pack C-Rations (or K-rations as they called them then) and put a stick of gum in each one. Thats production in my book! Jim



byron13 -> (8/3/2001 2:43:00 AM)

Huh? I don't understand your point. More likely, you weren't able to discern mine from my ramblings. The most important point is that, regardless of how detailed the production is in the game, the game needs to provide the human with a clear picture of what the results of the human's decisions are going to be. I refer you to Talonsoft's Twelve O'Clock High: Bombing the Reich game (also by Gary). The German has the ability to change production of various kinds of aircraft. He also has to be sure to convert factories to make the proper engines and parts for that aircraft. Sometimes the aircraft aren't produced in the quantities expected or they don't produce at all, and the game provides no explanation. It could be that there is an engine shortfall because other plane models have priority, or rail damage or a shortage of electricity is preventing a necessary resource from reaching the factory, or some other reason. The point is that the human player doesn't know why the desired aircraft is not being produced and, hence, does not know how to rectify the situation. It just doesn't happen, and you are left wondering if there is a bug in the program. I can see where WiP:SAJ could have the same frustrating problems. You set sliders to build lots of battleships and four-engined bombers, but you only get a trickle. The game needs to let you know why. If resources are an issue, it needs to let you know how many are on hand and how much each item being produced requires. If the Japanese are sinking all the guava, chicle, and rubber ships, then you need to have an indication so that you can say, "Hmmm. Guess I need to provide more escorts" or at least know that you can't count on having chewing gum and had better plan on something else. The point is: the game needs to tell me that if I set my production a certain way, I will get X number of ships. If there is some other factor that could increase/decrease that figure, I need to know that factor's status as well. Don't leave me wondering why I'm not getting the expected results, or these forums (fora?) will be burning up with people asking what the heck is going on. It is a plea to design the production system - whatever it ends up being - right the first time. The other point that emerged only as I wrote is that a priority-based system would be ideal. I can envision an interactive chart with the various items being produced listed down the side, and then columns for desired quantity produced per month (ships would be handled differently), a column for the required amount of each necessary resource input (rubber, steel, etc.) to make the desired number, a similar column showing the amount of resources actually on hand that will be devoted to making the item, and a column showing actual output. Thus, you might desire 100 tanks per month, it requires 10 points of steel, but there is only 8 points of steel available in the third column, which results in the actual output column showing only 80 tanks being produced. You would then rank each item to be produced by numeric priority. The computer would provide the necessary resources to build the highest priority units until the resources run out. You could then design your production by either: 1. Building as much of the high priority stuff as you want/can and just not build lower priority stuff because there are insufficient resources (and you would know this because the quantity produced column would be zero as would the quantity on hand of whatever resource is lacking), or 2. Set up your production carefully so that you're making some of everything by scaling back the desired production quantity of the high priority stuff to provide sufficient resources to trickle down to lower priority. If you fell asleep at the switch and didn't check the chart for a month, and if there was a decrease in resource quantities, the priority of resources would still go to the high priority stuff, and the low priority stuff would stop being produced until you reset the desired production figures again. You might also be able to push a button to instruct the computer to decrease all production by the same percentage if there is a shortfall in resources. For example, once you've set up your production, if there is a 5% decrease in rubber for some reason, all items requiring rubber would decrease production by 5% (assuming you were using all the rubber available) instead of having the lowest priority production item taking the full brunt of the rubber decrease. Finally, if there are production delays due to converting to a new design, the computer would give you a note off to the side. You would then know that there will be a one month delay if you retool the P-40 factory to make P-38's. In some instances, the computer may not give you any advanced warning of a delay, and these would represent unanticipated delays, e.g., problems in converting cruisers to carriers. Though not anticipated, and though the computer may not tell you how long the delay will last, you will still know that the item will not be produced due to a delay. I like this idea because it provides me with maximum control of production, I can see graphically exactly at what rate things are being produced, exactly why things are NOT being produced and what I need to change, and I believe this is an exceptionally easy thing to program. You are simply putting in visual form the exact same math computations that the computer is going to have to do anyway.



madflava13 -> (8/3/2001 11:16:00 PM)

I think we're all getting off track here with the idea of resource allocation and production complexity. If you want to assign resources to factories or worry about getting enough steel, play a game like Command and Conquer or Pharaoh - there's plenty of resource management in those games. I want to worry about which ships are in which task force, who's commanding, and what they're doing. Personally, I think Pacwar's model was not oversimplified - it was right on. I don't care about How many tons of steel it takes to make a Brooklyn Class CL. Thats an entirely seperate game. Just give me the damn CL so I can fight with it. I would be happy if WITP has arrival dates like Pacwar, and very limited ability to change production (ie Pacwar's factory menu). Also, a simple slider would be nice to designate focus on say heavy bombers vs. tacbombers, fighters vs. bombers, etc... Escorts v. capital chips, you get the idea...I don't mean to offend anyone who wants to micromanage the factories, but thats not what this game should be about, IMHO, and putting that into it will only hurt the actual game itself. My opinions - let me know what you think.



byron13 -> (8/3/2001 11:49:00 PM)

I think yours is a legitimate approach for two reasons: 1. It's historical; and 2. Many people just want to shoot the bullets and not worry where they come from. It is, after, a wargame and not a production game. However, as has stated on this and other threads, historical production limits replayability (not that anyone can play a game of this magnitude too many times) because: 1. You are given the same tools to fight the war, which limits your ability to try different strategies; and 2. You (unrealistically) know what and when the opposing side gets what kind of material. In addition, some of us (like myself) are interested in the logistics involved. We would like to be able to mold the war in the way we wish it molded. There happened to be a two-pronged strategy in the Pacific because we had two strong-willed commanders, MacArthur and Halsey, neither of which were willing to be outshone by the other. Well, now I'm in charge, I don't have to keep some other ego inflated, and I'd like to set the grand strategy myself and tailor my forces accordingly. I can do that better if I can tell the War Department what I need built to prosecute that strategy. Bottom line: I want some control over production - more than just deciding when a factory converts from F4F's to Corsairs. It doesn't really matter how detailed the process is so long as I have control over what rolls off the end of the production line. I agree that there should be some limits on extreme production decisions, and whether that is hard-coded or factored in as penalties in a "free market" production system doesn't matter. I don't need to have resource allocation be a part of the game, though my personality would enjoy it. I can see where others, such as yourself, would consider it a distraction. As stated earlier (probably on another thread) the answer may be just to have the option to play purely historical with no production inputs and an option to play with a more flexible (and better :D) production system. Player's choice. My guess is that the design team will not make it as detailed as some have suggested due to time and money constraints.



Ringbolt -> (8/4/2001 8:52:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by madflava13: I don't mean to offend anyone who wants to micromanage the factories, but thats not what this game should be about, IMHO, and putting that into it will only hurt the actual game itself. My opinions - let me know what you think.
I could not have said it better myself. War is about blowing stuff up and killing your enemy. I also think Pacwar was right on with its level of detail given to production, just enough for it to be watched but NOT a primary concern. Any time spent on overcomplicating production is time that could be used to develope deeper and more acurate combat, which is what this game should be about IMO, not counting beans. Ringbolt



Chiteng -> (8/4/2001 9:07:00 AM)

I disagree with both the above. A computer enables you to handle easily alot of chrome that you cannot with a board game for example. A computer could easily handle the supply distribution in a game like CNA whereas manual handling is a time intensive pain staking chore. Pacwar is an example of that oversimplification. It would be sad if WITP ends up being no more than an enhanced Pacwar. Of course I think that is unlikely since you can compare USAAF to TOH and see that Gary tends to expand the simulation to the limits of the hardware, and I say that is good. (Of course I still wonder if bombing Steel affects repair rate.) I observe that there are apparently two factions trying to promote a polarized view. I doubt that we will see a unified consensus.



moore4807 -> (8/4/2001 3:18:00 PM)

Byron, I was replying to your third paragraph about steel being the only real "need" for the allies... Then your right- I went into a ramble myself! (I thought that Mr Wrigley's solution was a novel way to get around restrictions!) Now as for the posts about production- this is exactly what this forum is for...simple or complicated, I happen to like playing supply/demand type games as a part of the strategy genre. I do like Pacwar- just that as posted above I CANT change history with pre-programmed limits on a game... As Chiteng posted -its pretty much AI driven choices anyhow- make it an option for players and those that want to- make it manual choices, those that dont -keep on steaming! I agree that there are basically two trains of thought going here- I dont mind opposing points of view- I see what Ringbolt's saying, Madflava just wants to do battle- OK by me... I seem to agree more with Byrons point of view, believing that the advancements in CPU's allow us more choices than ever before as Chiteng said. (as I've said before- look at Pong 20 yrs ago, did we stop pushing the envelope then? Nope, why stop now?...) So maybe someone is reading this and will design a supply/demand WWII game that sends us strategy types away happy??? (well I CAN dream, cant I?) Oh well just a thought...



Ringbolt -> (8/6/2001 9:00:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Chiteng: I disagree with both the above. A computer enables you to handle easily alot of chrome that you cannot with a board game for example.
The issue I meant to address, and was not clear about, is not computer capabilities but rather the very finite amount of time Matrix has to work on these projects. I am aware, with enought time you can do anything. All I meant to say is that I would rather see them work on better combat resolution, have better ship and aircraft modeling, and many other things that I feel are more important than making too intricate a supply system. That is only my opinion and not intended as the only valid one.
quote:

I observe that there are apparently two factions trying to promote a polarized view. I doubt that we will see a unified consensus.
Huh? I dont see any factions nor anyone trying to promote anything. I do however see people with varying opinions on what they think is fun which is as it should be. The unified consensus it that we all want this game to be perfect. Ringbolt



byron13 -> (8/6/2001 8:54:00 PM)

Ringbolt: No, I think there are two factions, but we're not at each other's throats. While Chiteng has a point that computers are capable of crunching more numbers these days, I agree that there is a danger that designing a good production model could cannibalize time that could be used to make the operational side of the game that much better. I think your real concern probably lies in the fear that a detailed production model could bog the game down into minutia that you don't want to be bothered with. I don’t know how many of you are board gamers, but I played a game called Campaign for North Africa back in the day. The supply rules were so detailed that you pretty much needed two people per side: one to fight the battles and one to act as supply officer. The game re-enacted the entire desert campaign, so it was large scale, yet you tracked individual vehicles in each battalion. You had to truck fuel from ports to the front line, and you had to account for fuel evaporation along the way! You also had to truck water to the front line. The “Italian Pasta Rule” stated that the Italians needed extra water because they needed it to cook pasta! This was basically a computer game before computers were available for such stuff and was a paperwork nightmare. Though I love a good monster game, this one finally went too far. So, Ringbolt, I understand your fears about being forced to deal with a detailed production model when all you want to do is fight. The answer is to have detailed production be optional. That would give both "factions" what they want. You also have to figure that you’d only have to dally with the production numbers every month or so, which appears to be once every thirty or sixty turns. I also have to chide you in a good-natured way and tell you war is much more than blowing stuff up and killing the enemy. It is logistics from beginning to end. Didn’t some short guy renowned for killing his enemy say that an army marched on its stomach? But a war game should be fun. It is a simulation and should simulate that part of war that you are interested in. Mr. Moore, Chiteng, and I will hope there is a more detailed production model offered as an option (though I’ll pass on an inordinately complicated supply model). I hope you are allowed to focus solely on fighting the battles. Gosh, guys, I think we’ve pretty much run this topic into the ground. It was such a good thread with excellent input, but I’m not sure we can take it anywhere else. Haven’t we said everything?



gdpsnake -> (8/6/2001 9:24:00 PM)

I agree that allocating specific resources to this kind of ship or plane is too complex. But how about a slider bar approach that takes the inputs like the Jap/US resources/Oil and converts them to OP points. Then a player could allocate the OP points to shipbuilding, research, heavy industry, intel, and other production aspects. A percentage limit would be inpose on each type so a person could not just put everything into shipbuilding. The lack of heavy industry or oil refining would mean no gas or parts (read repair capacity). Since ships seem to be the talk of the thread, add seperate sliders under shipbuilding to allocate to CV's, subs, whatever. If the combat routines and other things being equal, a player won't build just CV's or BB's because they'd get blasted by subs (no escourts), lack of troop transport, no merchants to get resources, minesweepers vrs minelayers, CL's for fleet AA, CA's as cheaper BB's (three CA's can go a lot farther than one BB sometimes!) etc. I think player's will find that fleets were created because different ships are built to fill different needs. You need them all. But such a simple approach might provide some what if for player's to tweak a few more carriers or APA's (NEVER enough APA's!!!!) or get research to push up the F6F or Midway CV. Of course, you would get to (have to) allocate some of those OP points to your HQ's in order to get anybody to do anything. That would also allow a player to emphasize what 'theater HQ' would do the push that month and for how long they could sustain it. A monthly allocation but day turns would really make a player plan! My two cents worth .



byron13 -> (8/6/2001 11:52:00 PM)

Okay, maybe there is some life left to this thread. gdpsnake? Gross domestic product snake? Hmmm. My comment on working with production monthly wasn't so much a desire to only have the option to fiddle with production once a month as it was a comment on the practicality of doing it more often. In my perfect game, shifting production would impose delays. A player would probably go into production once a month just to fine tune - unless there really was a wholesale change. Okay, so I guess there are three camps: 1. the camp that either doesn't want to screw around with production or wants historical production; 2. the camp that wants to be able to alter production significantly but on a simplified basis, i.e., a total number of production points that can be shifted among various production items; and 3. the most thoughtful, far-sighted, and omniscient of the camps that has the best interests of the gaming community and the whole world in mind (me) that would like to have the option of being able to alter production significantly (as with the second camp), but having it be more detailed with production inputs, delays, etc. I'm either a second or third camp guy. If an alterable production system were done well, it would take into account the various factors the third camp is requesting, and production decisions would have the same effect. Thus, the biggest difference between the two would be only whether the factors are controlled by the computer behind the scenes, or by the player himself. According to my vision anyway.



moore4807 -> (8/7/2001 2:45:00 AM)

Byron, I agree wholeheartedly about being a 2nd or 3rd camp guy... Having said that I'm also limited for gameplaying time so I really have to lean towards the 2nd camp realistically. Snakes suggestion of slider bars is still valid and the most likely to be used if at all in production changes-IMHO it can be done... (I offer up an example- Jim Gindins Front Office Football-2 you choose the amount of time learning plays in training camp AND use the same slider bar method to then decide what kind of plays to run for your team. It works very well) Apply this to a monthly conference (again shades of KOEI's PTOII)and we get our wish for some production control. I am enjoying this thread and kinda hope to hear something from the Matrix staff, good or bad its been fun! Jim



Croaker -> (8/7/2001 3:30:00 AM)

Grid Production & Resource System: Have we considered a simple matrix-type system? The matrix can become as complex as anyone needs it to. On the left hand column are different production factors such as available steel, aluminum, tin, labor, shipyards, civilian population etc. On the top are the different things which can be produced such as weapons, military formations, harbors, etc. As these cross over you have the production requirements given for a particular item. The materials manifest would be subject to stockpiling and depletion depending on the fortunes of the player. If the Japanese player were cut off from some material then eventually that would deplete and their items requiring that substance for production would go dark. This axis could be as complex as anyone needed it. A game like this is largely a matter of interacting databases. Players could even have the option of abstracting more or less of this axis, possibly limiting it to steel, oil, and coal for instance. The top axis would go out to the right as time progressed. As the war progressed different items were brought into production and play. A simple slider system could be used to adjust production for individual items or for classes of items such as "heavy bombers" or "light ships." The idea here is that a player could see what the economic basis of their strategy might require. The time factor could be adjusted by batching production by month or even quarter. At the beginnng of each new production cycle you could look at your available factors and see what was possible. This could be a more complex version of the system used in the "Imperialism" games by SSI. I liked this system although it was too toy-like and not really a simulation-level aspect of the game. The production aspect would be highly necessary for anything approaching an adult simulation. :)



byron13 -> (8/7/2001 4:05:00 AM)

I think I'm a third camp guy for two reasons. First, I'm also limited on game time. Realistically, I don't see ever playing a game through to its conclusion before something else catches my fancy. But despite the lack of time, I'd still like to have more detailed control over production and have to worry about resource inputs. Since I won't look at this too often, it just wouldn't be that much of a time distraction. The second reason is that I'd be afraid that the slider trick won't show WHY something is happening the way it is. Gary puts a lot more detail into his coding than manifests itself on the screen. I'd be afraid that he would design in a penalty/delay/something that wouldn't be obvious. "Darn it! The stupid game won't build more than five battleships whether I have the slider in the middle or maxed out to the right! Why not? Stupid program must be broke!" I'd rather have control over input so I can see why output is the way it is. Give me control of the level higher than production so that I can see the effects of my input at the production level. I also think the sliders have a problem because every production decision affects everything else. A slider is good for determining the odds between two particular choices: running plays v. passing plays; more time v. less time; aggressive defense v. conservative defense; etc. But what does a slider do when you've got more than one choice? Ships v. aircraft v. troops? CVs v. BBs v. CAs v. CLs v. DDs? Single engined fighters v. torpedo bombers v. dive bombers? I think you would agree that you want more control than to weight production toward either heavy ships or light ships or between heavy bombers and single-engined aircraft. When you start using sliders to dictate production of particular aircraft models, I would think you end up with a bazillion different sliders, and you would have no real idea how moving one slider effects other slider decisions you've made. Easier to me if you just show me a chart as to what is being made, and if I up the production of one thing I can see the production numbers for everything else change. Blah, blah, blah. I'd be happy if the second camp wins. Just so long as I can make what I want.



Ringbolt -> (8/7/2001 11:08:00 AM)

I guess I am on a more tactical bent than most here. I am probably giving it away when I say that I never played bored games (pun intended) and that my first computer games were flight sim's, although since the original Air Warrior closed on GEnie in '96 I have not played many. Pacwar was more fun. I always saw my role as the player in Pacwar as the area commander of every area, if that makes any sense. I am aware how important logistics is in real war, it just doesn't sound like a fun game to me. Having to plan for evaporation of fuel and getting the Italians extra water for their pasta sounds about as fun as an IRS audit. Getting a root canal is important, but its not fun. The ideal solution, as stated by several above, is to make it optional as to how much imput you want to have on the beans/bullits/band-aids side. I really hope we all do get what we want out of this game, it is just starting to sound like two completely different games to me. Ringbolt



Chiteng -> (8/7/2001 12:22:00 PM)

Yeah well, Thing is, when the Italians surrender, because they are demoralized, how much did them not being able to eat pasta help? What effect does inline aircraft engine have vs rotary? Why were the germans more amused by the Grant tank then threatened? (17.5 gallons to the mile has a bit to do w it) Why does refurbished arty from WWI simply not help in the desert and you are better off simply scrapping the gun and taking the truck? CNA is a game where you can get those details. in fact those details are in your face. You learn that the best eq is sometimes simply the most reliable eq rather than the high-performance eq. There are problems w CNA however. I took Tobruk with Italians simply by shelling it to bits with every available gun I had. Still the point is: EVERY element that makes CNA a nightmare of nuts and bolts could easily be handled by a computer. The database is finite. It could be spreadsheeted easily. No there is little glamor in these small details, but there IS alot of LEARNING. That is why WITP doesnt daunt me. TOH doesnt daunt me, and anyone who has played the germans in TOH should feel VERY daunted because of the grotesque handling of strafing missions. (Hint: compare strafing in TOH to BOB, the diffrence is staggering) Still attempting to make the German economy cough up fighters is a very intimidating exercise. (Hint: get rid of all two engine fighters) So Gary, if you read this: I have bought every game you ever published and some were dogs back in 84-85. I vote you make the production system as complex as possible. As long as it is realistic. I dont want just an enhanced PacWar or Nato85. I recall that first Carrier game you published for the apple way back in the 80's Where operational decisions were crucial(ie prepare a strike or not, and what type) That level of detail is just fine by me. But! I want the ability to push from India thru Burma and swing thru Indo-China and breakout onto the china coastal plain! US armor in China! Build emmense china airbase and bomb Japan. That is just as valid a strategy as Island hopping. Some of us play to learn.



byron13 -> (8/7/2001 8:57:00 PM)

Gee, we've really made the big time! We've wrapped on to a second page. Can't wait to tell my mother . . . Croaker, I agree with your matrix approach. I'd suggested something similar earlier in the thread. I had materiel running down the side since I figured there would be a lot of different things to be produced; better to have the matrix run long than wide. But it does seem intuitively natural. We are used to absorbing information from columns and rows. I also think it is a natural way to visually display the basic information that any algorithm would use. It's also easy to see cause and effect, e.g., if I change production of one thing, it is easy to see the effects ripple throughout the rest of that column (or row). Seems like a natural to me. I don't see any reason for doing monthly batching, however. Considering the scale of the game, it looks like it is going to play slow. If I have an "AHA!" moment lying in bed one night, I'd like to be able to get up and order production changes then rather than wait three weeks until I get to the next monthly production cycle. The computer is certainly able to handle the complexity of building daily, and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to have input whenever we want. The real danger, of course, is that we dither with production almost every turn to our detriment. But that's my problem, and if I wreck my own production system by interfering too much, so be it. I'd like the option to make a mess of it. But does anyone here think that it's not possible to incorporate both of the two main camps in one game by simply having an optional production system? Both sides have very valid points, but they're not mutually exclusive. Since production doesn't effect the grand tactical gameplay and the production routine is completely separate from combat, it would seem so easy to just have the magic "Optional Production" button that allows control over production - if you want it. If you don't, then don't select the option, and your reinforcements are hard-coded. Finally, Chiteng, I can't believe I've actually found someone else that played CNA. I figured they must have sold a total of 100 copies of the game. It would be an ideal computer game. My point was that I think that game went a little too far. As much as I like dealing with some of the non-combat issues, even I did not want to have to worry about fuel evaporation. The first camp is right that production is secondary to the operational part of the game, and a production system should not be so intricate that it becomes the focus of the game or takes more time than fighting the battles. But an OPTIONAL system could be designed that would provide the control freaks with enough to salve our desire to control production and, at the same time, provide us with more tough choices that could affect the war.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.9375