RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (Full Version)

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



Message

rtrapasso -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 3:54:32 PM)

quote:

It's not easy understanding the war mobilization prior to Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt did retain executive power since he had to deal with an isolationist Congress and win an election in 1940 (he had no intention to relinquish that power to an unelected official or the military). However, the only organization that could handle military contracts prior to 1942 was the Army-Navy Munitions Board (ANMB), which was the military-civilian organization created by Congress in the 1920's.


Hmmm - currently reading "The Big L" about the US logistics (on a grand scale) in WW2 (while waiting for my P-38 books to show up [8|]). They are mentioning all kinds of organizations active in the mobilization started in 1939, but no sign of the ANMB yet...



Tom Hunter -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 5:07:39 PM)

Going back to the screwed question, if the Allies went from 1459 planes in December 1941 to 9185 in June 1942 where are they? During that period the Allies took some losses, at the very least the Dutch went away and that is over 100 aircraft, and some others were lost in Malaya, the Phillipines and Borneo.

Keeping the numbers simple if we assume the Allies lost 459 planes in the 6 months from December to June they need 8,000 planes to hit the historical number. That is 1333 planes a month. Are they getting them?

If they are not, then why is the scenario historical?



rtrapasso -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 5:17:35 PM)

quote:

Keeping the numbers simple if we assume the Allies lost 459 planes in the 6 months from December to June they need 8,000 planes to hit the historical number. That is 1333 planes a month. Are they getting them?


You keep bringing up inconvenient questions!![:-][8|][:D][:'(]



Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 5:35:35 PM)

On reflection and after further evaluation I dont think the Allies got screwed (which was my initial proposition)

I have thought about it and read what has been said in the thread and spent more time looking it over.

I do think the USAAF has been hurt a little by the removal of the obsolete types and would like to see some added in to starting pools (but not bothered enough to do my own mod) but they do have a lot of P40B's on map at start. I think in early 42 its just about right on so I have more or less changed my position (c 1400 Allied (incl Soviets F and FB at start is a lot)

But the RAF/ FAA changes are good
CAF I like
RAAF I dont like the change but cannot argue it is wrong (on PDU I like being able to make the Hurricanes :P)
USN/ USMC are untouched.

I think the argument re the P38's in late 42 I will leave until rtrapasso's analysis is finished but my gut instinct is that if the P38's are correct then P40's should probably be higher. Overall I think we would be talking an additional 20 - 30 P40 or P38 fighters in late 42.

Anyway thats me I take my hat off to the CHS people I think they got it just about right

Andy



Don Bowen -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 6:12:01 PM)

quote:

Anyway thats me I take my hat off to the CHS people I think they got it just about right


This praise belongs to Lemurs, who did most of the aircraft work in CHS.







worr -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 6:23:21 PM)

Is Lemurs around still?



Terminus -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 6:27:12 PM)

Scuttlebutt is that he went off and got married. Hasn't been seen since...



Bradley7735 -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 7:06:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

On reflection and after further evaluation I dont think the Allies got screwed (which was my initial proposition)

Andy


Has anyone been able to answer whether the Japanese aircraft replacements are historically accurate? Does the player need to pay for factory expansions through the war (ie, they get all their R&D capacity for free)?



mdiehl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 7:14:06 PM)

quote:

I have a silly question:

Is the point of the game to have fun and make it a challenge to both (or all) players? Or is the point of the game to grind the Japs into the dirt just like they did in history?

I play the game to have fun, personally. If I want to know what they did historically, I'll read a book.


It is a silly question and more to the point a straw man argument that is predicated on the assumption that the only choice is between an ahistorically incorrect production and logistics model that favors the Japanese and "the historic war recapitulated verbatim." You can have a game with meritorious and historically accurate assumptions about the capabilities of the combatants that allows both players to "deviate" from history as to where to deploy these assets and overall campaign strategies and goals.

Frankly I can't see why anyone who "wants to have fun as the Japanese" demands that the Japanese strength be so overestimated. If you want "Whee. Everything Japanese propaganda said about the opposition turns out to be correct" rather than playing a game just entertain yourself by reading Japanese propaganda or a Philip K. Dick novel.

quote:

In my humble opinion the production firgures should not be based on what was historical or historically possible. I think they should be based on what makes a challenging game for both players.


Well, in that event one could call the game "A World War Two Parody as it Occurred on Planet Xenon."



mdiehl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 7:24:37 PM)

quote:

Midway was a "Dicey Affair" when one considers all the things that went wrong on the American side. Because of the limited perspectives translated from the Japanese one is forced to conclude that only incredible luck brought forth the American Victory.


That is a common misperception and it is only sustainable by ignoring most of the salient facts. Luck greatly favored the Japanese at Midway. Despite that, the American plan was sufficiently sound to prevail and the Japanese plan so thoroughly unsound that it was virtually predestined to fail.

That said, WitP has made a number of significant historical errors in handicapping the US and you have pointed out some of the notable ones. Hardcoded problems with US carrier coordination (as though the Japanese did not have the same problems when attacking anything OTHER THAN fixed targets i.e. land bases). The "set Cap %" option that allows massive quantities of Japanese (or for that matter US) fighters to fly CAP -- a capability that neither side had in 1942 and that only the US developed and only in early 1943 and thereafter with retooled CICs on board CVs. Japanese carriers with overrated durability. Erroneous assumptions about the relative merits of the IJN and USN training and aircrew quality.



Speedysteve -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 7:26:00 PM)

Think i've heard this before [;)]



tsimmonds -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 8:54:46 PM)

If the Allies did get screwed in the air, at least then they could claim membership in the mile high club.



Terminus -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 8:56:14 PM)

I seem to remember something called an "airscrew" once. Wonder if it's the same thing?



mlees -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 9:39:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

On reflection and after further evaluation I dont think the Allies got screwed (which was my initial proposition)

Andy


Has anyone been able to answer whether the Japanese aircraft replacements are historically accurate? Does the player need to pay for factory expansions through the war (ie, they get all their R&D capacity for free)?



I do not know how much the CHS game produces in engines and airframes.

Tom Hunter, post 151:
quote:

Sorry worr, some of the information was on different thread that is running parrallel to this one, I think it's called Air Combat Too Bloody. That thread had a production figure for Zeros in 1942 of 1250. With control of Japanese production many players push Zero production above 250 a month, or 3,000 a year.



Dereck, in post 156, attached some figures he got from researching the aircraft production comparisons, for 1942 and the first half of 1943, for "historical" rates.

If, to be completely accurate historically, the game can produce similar numbers, then that is good enough I think.

Some players will tweak their factories no matter what the scenerio has them set up as. You cannot get EXACTLY the same numbers, due to the differences in battlefield victories. (More or less tankers sunk by such and such date, for example, will affect how much oil Japan has on hand to run his industry...)

That helps with the first part of your question, I hope...



Yamato hugger -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 10:58:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
It is a silly question and more to the point a straw man argument that is predicated on the assumption that the only choice is between an ahistorically incorrect production and logistics model that favors the Japanese and "the historic war recapitulated verbatim."


No, actually it isnt a silly question. Lets face it, going with a "historical" production/logistics model doesnt make the game a challenge to both players. It recreates history in as much as Yamamoto himself said they could only stand up to the allies (ie make it a challenge) for 6 months to a year.

After that, it becomes an avalanche. So I assume you are one of the "grind them into the dirt" type people that cares little about a challenge and/or "fun". You could have just said so [;)]



worr -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 11:08:24 PM)

It was a silly question. False categories...etc.

Worr, out



mdiehl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/20/2005 11:56:32 PM)

@yamato hugger

quote:

Lets face it, going with a "historical" production/logistics model doesnt make the game a challenge to both players.


It does if one sets game victory conditions that are commensurate with the capabilities of the combatants. The alternative (going with some model of japanese production and logistics that has effay to do with the actual war) obviates any value whatsoever as a simulation and undermines any claim that the sim has any coherent relationship to ww2. If you want perfect produciton/logistics play balance at the expense of production/logistics realism in ww2 the game to play isn't a ww2 sim, it's "Masters of Orion" (which is alleged to be a compusim retread of the old AH Stellar Conquest -- a game in which all players start with identical capability). Better yet, play "Stratego" because you get identical capability and perfect play balance every time.

quote:

It recreates history in as much as Yamamoto himself said they could only stand up to the allies (ie make it a challenge) for 6 months to a year.


Immaterial. The war did not end after six months and the Japanese did not cease attempting to frame the conduct of the war in ways consistent with their objectives after six months.

quote:

After that, it becomes an avalanche.


Why would it? In the AARs here it is apparent that it does NOT become an avalanche nor did it become so during WW2. Indeed, vis the previous aside in re Midway there are many examples to cite where through better planning and execution the Japanese might have done better in 1942 far longer than they did.

quote:

So I assume you are one of the "grind them into the dirt" type people that cares little about a challenge and/or "fun". You could have just said so.


You had a point of view and it's been demonstrated that your pov is illogical. Try to take it like an adult.



Speedysteve -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 12:09:32 AM)

quote:

You had a point of view and it's been demonstrated that your pov is illogical. Try to take it like an adult.


Comment of the day.

***note to all this is not taking any side in this but reading this made me almost spit my wine out [:D]***

What next..........



Bradley7735 -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 12:10:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

On reflection and after further evaluation I dont think the Allies got screwed (which was my initial proposition)

Andy


Has anyone been able to answer whether the Japanese aircraft replacements are historically accurate? Does the player need to pay for factory expansions through the war (ie, they get all their R&D capacity for free)?



I do not know how much the CHS game produces in engines and airframes.

Tom Hunter, post 151:
quote:

Sorry worr, some of the information was on different thread that is running parrallel to this one, I think it's called Air Combat Too Bloody. That thread had a production figure for Zeros in 1942 of 1250. With control of Japanese production many players push Zero production above 250 a month, or 3,000 a year.



Dereck, in post 156, attached some figures he got from researching the aircraft production comparisons, for 1942 and the first half of 1943, for "historical" rates.

If, to be completely accurate historically, the game can produce similar numbers, then that is good enough I think.

Some players will tweak their factories no matter what the scenerio has them set up as. You cannot get EXACTLY the same numbers, due to the differences in battlefield victories. (More or less tankers sunk by such and such date, for example, will affect how much oil Japan has on hand to run his industry...)

That helps with the first part of your question, I hope...


thanks for the reply Mlees,

I would look at this issue a bit different, though. I don't want to give Japan capacity as of 12/41 to build 1250 zeros as of 12/42. What I mean is we need to determine exactly how many planes Japan was producing as of 12/41 and give the player that same capacity. I think of it as a balance sheet, not an income statement (BS is as of a point in time, IS is over a period of time). Give the Japanese player the same capacity as of 12/7/41 (or as close to it as possible), and allow them to expend the HI/Supply/Manpower to expand their industry through the course of the war. Right now, players can convert R&D factories for no HI cost. They still pay the supply, but would have anyway if they allowed the R&D factories to repair.

I think we're treating Japan and US the same in regards to production, and that is wrong. We look at how many P-38's were historically given and divide that number by the number of months and poof, there is the magic number of production for the P-38. That works for the US, since that player can not change production.

But, the Japanese player has choices in regards to production. Don't give them the same capacity that the real Japan had at their peak or some other point in time. Give them the exact same capacity as of 12/7/41 and make the player choose what/when/how much to change.

Make sense? All we need now are exact production figures as of 12/7/41 and CHS can make any necessary changes.

bc



eMonticello -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 1:57:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Hmmm - currently reading "The Big L" about the US logistics (on a grand scale) in WW2 (while waiting for my P-38 books to show up [8|]). They are mentioning all kinds of organizations active in the mobilization started in 1939, but no sign of the ANMB yet...

Gropman calls it the "Army and Navy Munitions Board". Page 7.

Koistinen, in Arsenal of World War II, calls it "Army-Navy Munitions Board".



jwilkerson -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 2:01:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

You had a point of view and it's been demonstrated that your pov is illogical. Try to take it like an adult.


Comment of the day.

***note to all this is not taking any side in this but reading this made me almost spit my wine out [:D]***

What next..........


Maybe if some of the others can spit their "whine" out - then we'll all be clean !! [:D]



Mike Scholl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 6:19:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
No, actually it isnt a silly question. Lets face it, going with a "historical" production/logistics model doesnt make the game a challenge to both players. It recreates history in as much as Yamamoto himself said they could only stand up to the allies (ie make it a challenge) for 6 months to a year.

After that, it becomes an avalanche. So I assume you are one of the "grind them into the dirt" type people that cares little about a challenge and/or "fun". You could have just said so [;)]


Hugger. You are wrong. About everything. The "avalanche" you fear and forcast doesn't really happen HISTORICALLY until mid-1943. Things got bad earlier for the Japanese HISTORICALLY because of Midway (an unlikely event in the game). In the real world, wars which are "equally challenging for both players" are very unlikely---people rarely go to war just to test their military capabilities. Especially if they believe the other sides to be "equal".

If you want equality, try chess. If you want an historical simulation, you have to accept that historical situations are generally unequal. In this case, the Japanese and the Americans both underestimated the resolve and rationality of the other side. A "simulation" of that struggle is going to be unequal except in the broadest sense. One side has "suprise" and an early "readiness" advantage, the other has a massive superiority in "potential". In the long run, the "potential" is far to great for "suprise" to overcome, and the issue in the long run is never in doubt. Yamamoto said as much when he admitted that the only way to get peace with the US would be to march up Pennsylvania Ave. and dictate it in the White House..., and that Japan could never do.

However, within that historical reality there is plenty of room for both sides to seek a "game" win. To do things better, or differently, or sooner, or longer than their historical counterparts. To do that, the game has to provide an accurate historical situation and unit roster. You can't claim a "win" if you are using a different TO & E, or the jungle in your simulation doesn't make movement very difficult, or basically if the simulation isn't as accurate as it can be made. If it's not, you're not playing a simulation, you're just playing around.

Nothing against playing around. That's what the editor is all about. But while this thread is about people who are trying to make a better historical simulation, you are complaining that you want the whole game to be just "playing around". Please save it for your own "fantasy varients" and let the "seekers of truth" continue their search uninterrupted.



bradfordkay -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 6:53:55 AM)

"But, the Japanese player has choices in regards to production. Don't give them the same capacity that the real Japan had at their peak or some other point in time. Give them the exact same capacity as of 12/7/41 and make the player choose what/when/how much to change."


This is a very reasonable idea. I am for it 100%. If we can find what Japanese production was in November/December of 1941 and use that as the base upon which the player must develop Japanese industry, this would give us the most "historical" result possible in a system that allows the player to change production.



DFalcon -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 6:58:46 AM)

You can get all the details down to the Nth degree and you will never have any chance of a "historical simulation". The knowlege of all these details by both players oblitherates any chance at at a simulation. The hind sight makes a simulation based on detailing everything acuratly impossible.

How do you simulate the shock at the speed of the Japanese advance and the just as suprizing capability of the US to bury that advantage in a mountain of goods? Both players know this is exactly what will happen and will play accordingly.

Things have to be fudged if you want the game to flow, and feel right. If you get all the details right the feel and flow will almost certainly be wrong.



Mike Scholl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 7:21:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DFalcon

You can get all the details down to the Nth degree and you will never have any chance of a "historical simulation". The knowlege of all these details by both players oblitherates any chance at at a simulation. The hind sight makes a simulation based on detailing everything acuratly impossible.

How do you simulate the shock at the speed of the Japanese advance and the just as suprizing capability of the US to bury that advantage in a mountain of goods? Both players know this is exactly what will happen and will play accordingly.

Things have to be fudged if you want the game to flow, and feel right. If you get all the details right the feel and flow will almost certainly be wrong.


Your argument is a "red herring". No recreation of a past event can be perfect due to hindsight, but you can strive for perfection in all other aspects. That's why it's a "simulation"---it's supposed to simulate the conditions and challanges faced by the real participants (without the bloodshed and devastation). YAMATO HUGGER can't really play the role of "the object of his affections" unless he can command the IJN with it's strong points AND it's warts---and against the opposition the Admiral REALLY faced. Saying it can never be 100% accurate isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. But 90% accurate is still worth striving for..., and it beats the hell out of what we have now.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 1:00:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

If the Allies did get screwed in the air, at least then they could claim membership in the mile high club.


ROTFL - I skimmed through this thread very quickly, luckily I didn't miss this post, very funny! [:D][:D][:D]



JeffroK -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 1:23:47 PM)

Must read article about Japanese Airpower

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/japan.htm



rtrapasso -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 3:43:43 PM)

Reading it some more last night. It stated that the ANMB duplicated the function of another group (under Secretary/Assist. Secy of Army) which had been set up by congress. It also stated it (ANMB) was not funded until relatively late, and it was taken over by the White House about that time.

Here is the quote (Gropman, p.7)
"In addition to the Planning Branch in the Assistant Secretary's office, there was another logistics entity: the Army and Navy Munitions Board, created in 1922 to coordinate "the planning for acquiring munitions and supplies required for the Army and Navy Departments for war purposes and to meet the needs of any joint plans." This Board was also charged with developing "a suitable legislative program" to be put into effect at the appropriate time to "enable the procurement program to be" established. Unlike the procurement and planning duties determined for the Assistant Secretary, the Army and Navy Munitions Board had no specific legislative sanction and no appropriation until July 1, 1939 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt directed that this organization and several other joint boards come under the direct supervision of the president."

Which brings me back to my original point - this was pretty much under the control of the President.



DFalcon -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 3:54:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



Your argument is a "red herring". No recreation of a past event can be perfect due to hindsight, but you can strive for perfection in all other aspects. That's why it's a "simulation"---it's supposed to simulate the conditions and challanges faced by the real participants (without the bloodshed and devastation).



Not a red herring, a different view of how to simulate the challenges faced by the opponents. I think to model the challenge and tension of the begining of this conflict you should fudge the capabilities.

The allies had far more advantages historically than the Japanese. Not all these advantages were immidiatly evedent many were long in in the realization and hard faught for. The player will know what these advantages were and how to apply them right from the get go.

History should be used as the measuring stick of the simulation over all, for look and feel, and not so much to place every bullet in its proper place. This game is one of the few monster games I have played that actually held together and didn't implode. The flow and feel is pretty damd good. Working form the details up instead of from the flow and feel down is a good way to break it.




worr -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/21/2005 4:28:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Must read article about Japanese Airpower

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/japan.htm


Originally published in the January 1941 issue of Flying and Popular Aviation.

Um, you think that might be American propaganda?




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125