RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?

Yes

69% (145)

30% (64)

Total Votes : 209

(last vote on : 1/17/2005 7:42:03 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

2ndACR -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 12:53:15 AM)
That is all I need to know, thanks. Got basically the same thing with Lemurs mod, but whenever a incoming air group down grades to a lower a/c in the tree due to lack of ac in the pool it is stuck with that a/c for a while. I now have no worries about the upgrade paths.

Zeta16 -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 1:08:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaws43 Basically I think the Japs are better off at the start of the war (otherwise they probably didn’t start him at all [;)])as the Allies at this moment. But the upgrade gives them an extra advantage at the start ( They can make more zero's, adjust the factory and have more PP as Mogami wrote). Man is this amusing[:)]. I thought that the allied factory was also adjustable but that seems not the case. Question: is it hard to make the Allied factory adjustable? If the answer is no I think here is an opening to balance the game. If yes I agree with Mogami. How are going to get more Zero's than before. The only plane that can upgrade to the Zero will be the caulde. It all ready does this. I think you can not change any army planes to navy, so there will not be a change there. I think it will only help the japanese after 8/42 when they can change more army planes to tony's.

freeboy -> RE: What about EXP? (1/7/2005 1:33:52 AM)
I am not sure why the players cannot have more control over all builds.. but as a strictly non historical "toggle"... If the JAps had better planes.. if the US can adjust builds of ships etc... and it should be a "toggle" or option so players in either pbem or solo have the option of using this or not... as for political points... not sure I see the need to give players a "non" historical.. ie not what wass done but what might have conceivably been done and then restrict its use.. thanks all for the imput !![:-]

Mr.Frag -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 2:56:29 AM)
quote: How are going to get more Zero's than before. You are not [:D] What you will get is more non-nate groups earlier. As far as the late war aircraft, well, you can dream of being able to build them, but if you didn't kick the allies butt into a victory before then, i doubt you'll be in any building shape [:D] Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? [X(]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 3:13:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: How are going to get more Zero's than before. You are not [:D] What you will get is more non-nate groups earlier. As far as the late war aircraft, well, you can dream of being able to build them, but if you didn't kick the allies butt into a victory before then, i doubt you'll be in any building shape [:D] Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? [X(] Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? So why not address this?[&:]

mogami -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 3:21:03 AM)
Hi, I have never seen a wargame from cardboard days to now where the results were not much more bloody then the event being gamed. In real life the sight of a single wounded soldier can cancel the next attack. In wargames if a player is repulsed in one attempt he tries again as soon as he can bring more force into contact. Air attacks that WITP plaers consider minor are enough in real life to turn a TF around. Players would have fits if 1 hex from the landing site the transport TF turned around because a few bombers attacked and missed. In real life a TF that was promised CAP would turn around if they were attacked by enemy air and no friendly CAP was over head (I'd be screwed)(I always have Daitai stood down that I placed just to fly CAP over a TF)

Reiryc -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 3:54:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: How are going to get more Zero's than before. You are not [:D] What you will get is more non-nate groups earlier. As far as the late war aircraft, well, you can dream of being able to build them, but if you didn't kick the allies butt into a victory before then, i doubt you'll be in any building shape [:D] Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? [X(] Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? So why not address this?[&:] Play someone like thayne and then, voila, it's fixed.

mlees -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 7:27:38 AM)
quote: I am at work so I cannot look up the allied replacement rates in the game, but IIRC the F4F-4 replacement rate is something like 120/month. Yearly that is 1440 planes, continuing until the end of the war. Just looking at a website:(http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4f_wildcat.html) This lists F4F-4 production total as 1151 planes. In WITP during the war the allies get in excess of 4000 ac. In 42 allies need most of the F4F-4s to fill out F4F-4 squadrons, but after that they can upgrade all their obselete designs to the F4F-4 with a fantasy build capacity that lasts the entire war. This same situation is true for all the allied planes because all the replacements continue on whereas in real life production of old models was stopped. This gives the allies a surplus of AC that NEVER EXISTED. Those figures are for one factory only. I am looking in my "Illustrated directory of fighting aircraft of WW2" by Bill Gunston pg 118: Grumman plant delivered 1169, plus 220 Martlet IV's for the RN. Grumman swtiched to Avenger, Hellcat, and other types, but still delivered F4F-7 reconnaissance versions with 24 hour endurance [X(] and the float plane F4 variant. General Motors delivered 839 FM-1's (not in game) and 311 Martlet V's. Eastern took over the production of the FM-2, and produced 4,777 of those. That max number is not in game, but the FM-2 might have Atlantic commitments, so I have no real problem with that. Hellcats of all types by year (pg 124): 1942=10, 1943=2545, 1944=6139, 1945=3578 for a total of 12272, the majority in the final two years. P-47 total: 15660 P-51: 15,586 P-40's (including kittyhawks): 13,738 P-39: 9588, with 5000 going to the USSR Corsair, P-38 entries do not provide production numbers.[:(] The US industry was a juggernaught. Outproduced the world in all the major categories. Everything from Spam, paperclips, and shoe laces, to complete weapon systems (tanks, ships, planes).

Skander -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 12:17:59 PM)
I voted no and agree with Elf's reasoning. No politician cares what the military decides to fly, they care about what is built. Any political cost should be for changing production. I do think that there should be an experience penalty for switching aircraft types. Sure switching from on subvariant to another or from one Grumman fighter to another might be a minor switch as such things go. But a lot of aircraft vary widely. Merely being able to take off and land and work the guns and instruments doesn't mean that one has mastered the aircraft in stress situations more common in combat. I think a 10% penalty in experience would be fair.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 1:13:52 PM)
quote: I voted no and agree with Elf's reasoning. No politician cares what the military decides to fly, they care about what is built. Any political cost should be for changing production But politicians, and public, would care about their commanders squandering units and ships through gross negligence and careless strategy (basically most players are guilty), but this is not modelled...why decide to rationalize PP as strictly political? These points are abstract attempts to simulate all manner of hindrances, not just political. Add the PP penalty to keep players reined in a bit. The on/off toggle on this feature will be as useless as that for Allied sub doctrine...nobody will use it. Once this is out, goodluck finding a Jap player who'll agree to not use this feature.

Mr.Frag -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 3:28:14 PM)
quote: So why not address this? How Ron? Do I take your dice away if you act too aggressive? [:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 4:16:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: So why not address this? How Ron? Do I take your dice away if you act too aggressive? [:D] There has to be some way to abstractly simulate outside forces and pressures which existed during the context of the game. Why does everything have to be so one dimensional. Hell, even build games have slider meters which show a players current popularity etc. Too bad the AI is incapable, I've always thought players could run the risk of losing command in a theatre if he/she stinks, requiring massive PP to reestablish human control

witpqs -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 9:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker There has to be some way to abstractly simulate outside forces and pressures which existed during the context of the game. Hire somebody to stand behind you with a TASER. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

witpqs -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 9:53:54 PM)
Mr. Frag, What about the allied groups whose normal upgrade path is between plane types? For example, some allied bomber types go to Hurricane II fighters. I think there are other examples. How will these cases be handled?

Mr.Frag -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 10:09:16 PM)
quote: What about the allied groups whose normal upgrade path is between plane types? For example, some allied bomber types go to Hurricane II fighters. I think there are other examples. How will these cases be handled? All normal paths have not been touched. If the path exists, it is available for choice. This does lead one in some strange directions for some groups but overall, they balance out as both sides have these situations. case in point: Various Brit fighter groups convert to transports (or you could override and go with other fighter types). Various Japanese Recon groups can convert to fighter groups due to one of the Recon planes also being a fighter. There are a handfull of these on either side. It is not worth special code to deal with these as it would just limit what scenario designers could do in the future.

witpqs -> RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points? (1/7/2005 11:03:33 PM)
Thanks.

Djordje -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 2:30:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag odds are that the automatic upgrade will go away to balance out the choice aspect. The two don't really fit well together. I think that this would make production changes way too expensive. Perhaps 1000 supply for single repair point is too high, there are dozens of factories producing hundreds of aircraft, changing them just to match historical upgrades would then cost millions of supply for Japan, and we all know that Japan player should be happy if he can see a few bases out of Japan with more than 20 000 supplies... Not to mention resources being hit by bombers (off the topic, but related to supply issue which will be affected if autoconversions are kicked out of the game), it is not worth repairing anything, as for one point of resources to be repaired you have to invest 1000 supplies, so it will take slightly less than 3 years to pay the supplies you have invested in it's repair. If you transport those resources to Japan and make your HI work with it you get another supply point, but that's still year and a half after repairs for it to pay off... Back to the topic, if autoconversions go into history, then perhaps supply cost for repairs could be lowered, to let's say 500 supplies?

testarossa -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 2:43:01 AM)
No. 1000 is about right. In RL retooling is very expensive idea. Sometimes it is cheaper to build new plant when the new techprocesses are involved.

Djordje -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 2:55:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: testarossa No. 1000 is about right. In RL retooling is very expensive idea. Sometimes it is cheaper to build new plant when the new techprocesses are involved. Retooling is very expensive, I agree. But I am concerned with game balance. Currently, Japan is modelled quite good, with all those choices and limited ability to go after them. But if you take out autoconversion that was happening for free, that's more than million supplies needed for Japan than before, while their supply production remains the same. For Japan, million supplies is a dream... That is why I suggested decreased repair cost, keep the game balanced.

Zeta16 -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 3:22:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Djordje quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag odds are that the automatic upgrade will go away to balance out the choice aspect. The two don't really fit well together. I think that this would make production changes way too expensive. Perhaps 1000 supply for single repair point is too high, there are dozens of factories producing hundreds of aircraft, changing them just to match historical upgrades would then cost millions of supply for Japan, and we all know that Japan player should be happy if he can see a few bases out of Japan with more than 20 000 supplies... Not to mention resources being hit by bombers (off the topic, but related to supply issue which will be affected if autoconversions are kicked out of the game), it is not worth repairing anything, as for one point of resources to be repaired you have to invest 1000 supplies, so it will take slightly less than 3 years to pay the supplies you have invested in it's repair. If you transport those resources to Japan and make your HI work with it you get another supply point, but that's still year and a half after repairs for it to pay off... Back to the topic, if autoconversions go into history, then perhaps supply cost for repairs could be lowered, to let's say 500 supplies? Are people really having that many problems with japanese supply. In my PBEM in 3/43 I seem to have no trouble with supply yet. I guess I don't over do aircraft changes or expanding factories. I do a little here or there and never have had a supply problem.

testarossa -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 4:50:09 AM)
I do run out of supplies all the time too. Now if they remove autoupgrade to prevent us from abusing the game, they should allow changing upgrade paths to Japan only, as Allies don't have any problems with Air Forces at all.

Zeta16 -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 5:37:28 AM)
What do people think a lot of supply for Japan is, or should I say what not enough is?

2ndACR -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 6:28:16 AM)
Depends on what you mean. If I can keep 40,000 supply at Palau, 60,000 at Kwajalain, 100,000 at Truk, 40,000 at Rangoon, 60,000 at Singapore then I am doing alright. I can usually keep these numbers easily with another 400,000 in Japan proper. That does not include the other 7,000 I try and maintain on all frontline bases with troops and a/c. I would have even more in locations if I could control what base gets what and when. I hate seeing all those bases along the New Georgia coastline getting 500-1000 supplies when they are empty. Also makes repairing damage to oil/resources hard to do when the base needing repairs does not suck enough supplies to it unless I stick 3 divisons in it for the duration.

Zeta16 -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 6:53:18 AM)
I have over 4,500,00 total in 3/43 PBEM. I have over 300,000 in Truk, for games reasons more than enough in Rabaul. Palau 250,000, Kendari 70,000. Manila 75,000, Sinapore 40,000, rangoon 30,000 and Hong Kong 30,000. Most combat bases have 15,00 to 25,000 and more moved there all the time. Are these numbers good. I never seem to run low unless I forget a base or the Allied bombers and bombardment forces make a call several times to a base.

2ndACR -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 10:18:50 AM)
Those numbers look great to me. My longest game got to Aug 42 before being killed by a bug. Really the only time I am seriously sweating my supply situation is around Feb 42. All my industry changes are basically done, I have moved a bunch of supply to restock my forward hub bases. Supply starts to really climb in March 42 though.

Djordje -> RE: What about EXP? (1/8/2005 2:56:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Depends on what you mean. If I can keep 40,000 supply at Palau, 60,000 at Kwajalain, 100,000 at Truk, 40,000 at Rangoon, 60,000 at Singapore then I am doing alright. I can usually keep these numbers easily with another 400,000 in Japan proper. I don't run out of supplies too, but it takes some effort to supply everything in time. Now if you add the figures above the sum is about 700 000 supplies. There are 677 aircraft factories in Japan at the start of the game. Since most of them convert to something else in the future, and lots of them are changing to couple of aircraft types (A6M2-A6M3a-A6M5-A6M8-A7M? Reppu) those changes are going to cost several millions supplies if free autoconversions are removed from the game, so one can forget about those 700 000 supplies that are on those bases 2ndACR mentioned. In 1942 there are only couple of new plane types, but this would really become a problem in 1943 and 1944 when all the plane types Japan has will have at least one new plane to upgrade to... And Japan will be in supply trouble in 1944 even without having to spend several millions supplies to convert old aircraft factories to new ones.

Culiacan Mexico -> RE: What about EXP? (1/10/2005 2:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag It you are voting yes, you need to qualify your vote with how much and should it vary by type. Keep in mind that both sides have this ability, it is not a Japan only thing. Japan already has a rather large penality imposed for changing production (1000 supply per point + time + instant convert price) for each point of aircraft production shifted off the default track. Explain why you feel an even larger penalty is needed. I would prefer to see limitations built into the production system, but if the only limitation being considered are political points… then the cost should be high. Why? Japan had limited ability to make massive changes in production historically, yet they did have some abitility. quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag Personally, I look at it as a free for all ... thats what you guys wanted ... thats what was built. I never wanted a free for all… just the a little choice in which group got which aircraft type. Limitations should be in production… not fielding. However, I can put self-limitations on myself regarding upgrades if it is changed to a free for all… so I can work with it.

Gen.Hoepner -> RE: What about EXP? (1/10/2005 4:06:47 PM)
I voted yes. Probably the exp loss would be better, but i do think that you must pay something for switching. I do also agree with those who think that this new feature should not be allowed to allies. Their Airwarfare situation is already good enough. It's just Japan that has problems with nates and oscars in the first months of war.

mlees -> RE: What about EXP? (1/10/2005 5:46:32 PM)
quote: I do also agree with those who think that this new feature should not be allowed to allies. Their Airwarfare situation is already good enough. It's just Japan that has problems with nates and oscars in the first months of war. So let me get this straight... you are in favor of allowing the Japanese to alter the historical build path's in order to give the player the most freedom in running the war, but the Allied may not, because, in your opinion, the air Allied OOB is "good enough"? Why not afford both players the same options?

Tankerace -> RE: What about EXP? (1/10/2005 5:54:33 PM)
I say give both players the options, and then let PBEMers have houserules to the extent the Allied player can go. With about 50 thousand house rules already, one more won't matter.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

7.529297