RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 7:06:38 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

And yet is almost all games I have seen PDU is on for the game.

Like it or not (and I have my own views on that that I would want to repeat in public) its part of the game now and I dont think we will change it.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 61

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 7:26:59 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
No my beef is with the tendency to limit the allies to historical figures while allowing Japan to over-produce at levels they never could have achieved no matter how much they tweaked their economy.

Again, it seems that your beef is with the US production, or perhaps the relationship between US and Jap production. And that is a different kettle of fish.

quote:

I want both sides limited to their historical capacity as I prefer an historical scenario over a fantasy scenario.

Ok, so Japan produces exactly what it did in ww2, regardless of how well they manage to capture resources and ship them home?

quote:

Don�t get me wrong, I have no problem playing the game as is, I just get tired of everyone hamstringing the allied production quoting historical reasons, yet no one seems to care how over-powered the Japanese production model is.

If you�re going to give Japan the ability to compete with or dominate allied production levels, you can�t really claim you�ve got an historical scenario.

I think that what is needed here are triggers that increase US production in case Japan fills certain production criteria. For example, if Japan produces more than 1000 aircraft per month, then US production is quadrupled.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 62

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 7:38:25 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

I would like to ask a questions. Is Japanese "only" production Hardcoded(ie: the game can not support Allied production)? If not then, does anyone know the exact production of every factory in Japan and the Allied Nations during the war? If yes then, looking at a production model such as to appease both sides, why not have said model based on these production numbers with what you build being the choice of the player? If factory x produced 20 single engine fighters/month then the type of fighter would be the choice of the player but the production numbers would be the historical capacity of the factory in question. This would allow for flexibility while not allowing the Japanese to out produce the allies. As for production increase due to the Japanese player bringing in more resources than historical that could be handled by an equation that the program controls. Increase in production output would be a function of resources aquired.

< Message edited by okami -- 1/7/2008 7:40:03 PM >

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 63

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 8:13:08 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"I think that what is needed here are triggers that increase US production in case Japan fills certain production criteria. For example, if Japan produces more than 1000 aircraft per month, then US production is quadrupled."

This is something I can support, with a built in delay (it would take a little while for the allies to recognize the results of increased Janpanese production).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 64

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 8:13:43 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Allied production is not something that is on the table for AE.

We are looking at everything we can but some things are just simply not in scope

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 65

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 9:25:22 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I think that what is needed here are triggers that increase US production in case Japan fills certain production criteria. For example, if Japan produces more than 1000 aircraft per month, then US production is quadrupled.

The danger here is that the game model will totally break down under these conditions as the game was designed/balanced to the current (historical??) force levels.

With production is quadrupled for both sides, it really will become Age of Empires, The Wrath of Kimono, to quote Ron. (OMG someone else has agreed with him

)

< Message edited by Reg -- 1/7/2008 9:30:01 PM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 66

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/7/2008 10:19:18 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Again, it seems that your beef is with the US production, or perhaps the relationship between US and Jap production. And that is a different kettle of fish.

Not entirely. I actually like what they are doing with the allied production and wish they would do the same with Japan. That being said, I think if they fail to scale back the Japanese in a similar manner, then what they are doing with the allies is actually going to make the game worse from an historical point of view not better. Because all they ultimately are achieving with a one sided approach is to increase the overall Japanese force ratios against the allies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Ok, so Japan produces exactly what it did in ww2, regardless of how well they manage to capture resources and ship them home?

LOL, using this logic, then the allies should not be hamstrung to historical production either. Give them the same dynamic production and I�d agree with you 100%. But to strictly limit the allies no matter how many losses they take or how much territory they hang on to is just as illogical as strictly limiting Japanese pools.

Had the UK lost all its tanks in India in a massive Japanese drive, I have no doubt that the UK would have taken steps to get more tanks to India. In fact they would have probably tried to double or triple the original numbers since they obviously weren�t sufficient.

But because the UK got along fine with limited tanks in India historically and never needed to rush reinforcements there, the allies are slaved to that strategic reality no matter what happens on the ground due to their fixed replacement pools.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
I think that what is needed here are triggers that increase US production in case Japan fills certain production criteria. For example, if Japan produces more than 1000 aircraft per month, then US production is quadrupled.

I agree, a more dynamic approach would be welcome. But that still doesn�t fix the problem of Japan producing 100,000 tanks if needed in game when they only built 2500 for the entire war. Japan�s land army is far too powerful and resilient due to the fact its land units will always be at or near 100% TO&E�s and the allies won�t be.

I view the allied land army as a glass hammer in this game. It can really whack the Japanese, but it is easily broken if attrition war sets in. There simply aren�t enough replacements trickling in to keep allied units fleshed out once major attritional combats commence.

Of course this is the exact opposite of historical realities, the allies had no trouble replacing losses for the most part and Japanese units generally received few or none once they were engaged in combat and rapidly lost their strength.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 67

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 5:06:58 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

IRL Japanese troops at the point of the spear in New Guinea, the Solomons, and Burma (the limits of IJ's expansion) all suffered from extreme shortages of just about everything. The IJN sailed for THE decisive battle (at Midway) with scrounged up airframes and pilots and was unable to replace the losses from Coral Sea in Zuikaku's air group. Unlimited anything was not within their capability regardless of how many resources or how much oil they captured. The "model" or whatever it is of the Japanese war economy is just plain no good. I don't have a problem with the Japanese producing 1000 Tonys a month so long as it shows up as a shortage of something elsewhere in their economy and their armed forces.

What was the unit of fire for a Japanese 150mm artillery battalion? How many units of fire would ordinarily be carried by the unit when it embarked in ships for somewhere? What was the unit of fire for a US 155mm battalion? How many units of fire would it ordinarily have when it embarked for somewhere? The greater quantities of supply required by Allied units is often commented upon by the JFBC. Are they really trying to argue that more supply was required to keep the troops stocked with Hershey bars? Get serious.

EXAMPLE: The 2nd Sendai Division was landed on Guadalcanal in Oct 42 and attacked the Marine perimeter late in that month. What's the TOE of 2nd Div? Its heavy guns were landed too (some 150mm by Nisshin and Chiyoda). But one reads the accounts of its attack and all one hears about is mortar fire supporting the attacking Japanese troops. The 150mm guns get an "honorable mention" once in a while in Marine histories as having thrown a few shells at Henderson Field at inopportune times. Yet 2 battalions of the 4th Imperial Regt got shot to pieces before they could even attack by a concentrated barrage by the Marine guns. Yet the Marines considered themselves short of supplies.

I once mentioned "Shattered Sword"'s assertion that the Japanese were hard up for D3's and B5's at the time of Midway. That brought on all sorts of quotes of production figures that positively showed that the IJN had produced skedeliate thousand D3As and upmteen thousand B5s in 1942 and that they IJN had no shortage of airframes. OK - then either the IJN high command was utterly incompetent by not forwarding this amazing quantity of aircraft to the places it was needed OR ordinary wastage in training and or operations kept them from accumulating any reserve of airframes to replace the losses of a pitched battle. There's a thread with a link to the disposition of every airframe the US produced in WWII somewhere around here and one quickly gets the impression that the vast majority of airframes were non-combat losses in the USAAF. So I suspect that a very large share of aircraft production in particular ended up as scrap aluminum somewhere in spite of never having seen a shot fired in anger.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 68

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 2:19:03 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Well I found this relating to The Battle of Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol. At least it is some hard figures. For the big offensive the Japanese quadrupled the load up for their artillery but evidently fired off 1/2 the available ammo in the first 2 days and were unable to resupply enough ammo for their artillery to play an important role thereafter.

Nomonhan liken no hoheisen, pp. 70�71. The standard five-day loads for artillery batteries were as follows:
Battery type - total - Per Gun Per Day
38 Type Field Artillery 12,000 100 rounds
12 Type Howitzer 3,600 60 rounds
90 Type Howitzer 4,000 100 rounds
10 Type Cannon 800 60 rounds
15 Type Howitzer 4,000 50 rounds
15 Type Cannon 900 30 rounds
Source: KG. p. 561.

< Message edited by spence -- 1/8/2008 2:20:11 PM >

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 69

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 2:27:58 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Well I found this relating to The Battle of Nomonhan/Khalkin Gol. At least it is some hard figures. For the big offensive the Japanese quadrupled the load up for their artillery but evidently fired off 1/2 the available ammo in the first 2 days and were unable to resupply enough ammo for their artillery to play an important role thereafter.

And this was with some months to prepare, and with no other action in Manchuria to distract from the effort. Not a reassuring event for a Japanese Infantryman looking for artillery support. No wonder they were referred to as "human bullets".

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 70

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 3:05:40 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IRL Japanese troops at the point of the spear in New Guinea, the Solomons, and Burma (the limits of IJ's expansion) all suffered from extreme shortages of just about everything. The IJN sailed for THE decisive battle (at Midway) with scrounged up airframes and pilots and was unable to replace the losses from Coral Sea in Zuikaku's air group. Unlimited anything was not within their capability regardless of how many resources or how much oil they captured. The "model" or whatever it is of the Japanese war economy is just plain no good. I don't have a problem with the Japanese producing 1000 Tonys a month so long as it shows up as a shortage of something elsewhere in their economy and their armed forces.

What was the unit of fire for a Japanese 150mm artillery battalion? How many units of fire would ordinarily be carried by the unit when it embarked in ships for somewhere? What was the unit of fire for a US 155mm battalion? How many units of fire would it ordinarily have when it embarked for somewhere? The greater quantities of supply required by Allied units is often commented upon by the JFBC. Are they really trying to argue that more supply was required to keep the troops stocked with Hershey bars? Get serious.

EXAMPLE: The 2nd Sendai Division was landed on Guadalcanal in Oct 42 and attacked the Marine perimeter late in that month. What's the TOE of 2nd Div? Its heavy guns were landed too (some 150mm by Nisshin and Chiyoda). But one reads the accounts of its attack and all one hears about is mortar fire supporting the attacking Japanese troops. The 150mm guns get an "honorable mention" once in a while in Marine histories as having thrown a few shells at Henderson Field at inopportune times. Yet 2 battalions of the 4th Imperial Regt got shot to pieces before they could even attack by a concentrated barrage by the Marine guns. Yet the Marines considered themselves short of supplies.

Was this a symptom of not having artillery shells to be delivered or incompetence on the part of the Japanese high command for not devoting enough resources to the area or due to a tight fuel budget that required the Japanese to make decisions about shipping?

quote:

I once mentioned "Shattered Sword"'s assertion that the Japanese were hard up for D3's and B5's at the time of Midway. That brought on all sorts of quotes of production figures that positively showed that the IJN had produced skedeliate thousand D3As and upmteen thousand B5s in 1942 and that they IJN had no shortage of airframes. OK - then either the IJN high command was utterly incompetent by not forwarding this amazing quantity of aircraft to the places it was needed OR ordinary wastage in training and or operations kept them from accumulating any reserve of airframes to replace the losses of a pitched battle. There's a thread with a link to the disposition of every airframe the US produced in WWII somewhere around here and one quickly gets the impression that the vast majority of airframes were non-combat losses in the USAAF. So I suspect that a very large share of aircraft production in particular ended up as scrap aluminum somewhere in spite of never having seen a shot fired in anger.

I'm not suggesting that the Production System does not need to be looked at....however the D3 - B5 argument is somewhat misleading in that the Japanese scaled back production of those types prior to Midway and Coral Sea due in part to victory disease. Shattered Sword is somewhat misleading on this topic iirc by making the claim that the Japanese had entirely stopped production of the attack aircraft...whereas an examination of the USSBS reports on Japanese aircraft production revealed that at least one of the Naval Armories reported manufacturing these. Unfortunately those records are at the local university library and not sitting on my shelf. Now whether those reported as being manufactured by the armories were new frames or simply refurbished aircraft is open to debate.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 71

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 3:24:31 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Ok, so Japan produces exactly what it did in ww2, regardless of how well they manage to capture resources and ship them home?

LOL, using this logic, then the allies should not be hamstrung to historical production either...

Well, the question I posted was a valid one. If you dont want to allow the Jap player to outproduce its historical counterparts, then whats the point of having a Japanese production system? And before you get on that train, thats not going to happen. The Jap production system will stay, and the allies will not get a production system. Thats the way it is, and thats the way its going to be in AE. Live with it.

Now, if you dont want to allow the Japs to do better than history, then whats the point of forcing the japs to capture resources and ship them back to Japan? Are we not supposed to allow them to do better than history, only worse?

What happens in 45? Force disband their shipping?

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 72

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 3:37:06 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Was this a symptom of not having artillery shells to be delivered or incompetence on the part of the Japanese high command for not devoting enough resources to the area or due to a tight fuel budget that required the Japanese to make decisions about shipping?

I'd suggest multiple factors were involved..., but at bottom it was a doctrine and organization problem. The IJA was at heart an "Infantry Army". Not that it didn't have tanks and heavy guns and such..., but the whole "spiritual" aspect made them "adjuncts" to the Army's basic drive to "close with the opponant on a basic mano a mano level" and destroy him with the bayonet. Name me one other WW II army where officers carried swords into battle and expected to use them.

Given this basic tenant, the larger "supporting arms" just really didn't have the "support" to function as they did in other armies. Their logistical trains were "thin", and supply and production inadequate to what other armies would consider necessary for modern warfare. Their industrious, dogged and long-suffering infantrymen would take up the slack. And it worked while the other side was an ill-organized and unprepared opponant like China or the Allies in the opening phase of the war.

But when "firepower" became the dominant issue, the Japanese either immolated themselves in hopeless "Banzaii" charges (to preserve their honor), or had to dig in to the eyeballs and resist to the death. They just couldn't compete with the volumns of fire the Allies were now generating.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 73

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 3:43:01 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

Part of the problem faced here is the 20-20 hindsight of history...

-Everyone will implement a convoy system for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will allocate much more resources to ASW for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will try and optimize production for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will optimize supply logistics for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-If playing with PDU's players will concentrate on a few select airframes unlike their historical counterparts.

If playing vs the AI it doesn't matter because the AI is a bonehead anyway, however a human opponent will do these things.

So some suggested house rules for historcities' sake.

-Japanese ships moving resources can only be in unescorted single ship TF's until lets say for starters 1943.
-Japanese players should play with PDU's off.
-Japanese players may only expand factories once per year.
-Japanese units in China cannot have Accept Replacements turned off.

That's for starters....

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/8/2008 3:44:36 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 74

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 3:52:21 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Well, the question I posted was a valid one. If you dont want to allow the Jap player to outproduce its historical counterparts, then whats the point of having a Japanese production system?

How about "So the Japanese Player can control just how his limited production capacity is used."? As in "Stop building the Shinano and build more escorts", etc. If we are going to deal with history, we also need to deal with "reality". And reality is that while Japan COULD have made somewhat better use of her industrial capacities and capabilities (given a LOT of "what ifs" going right), there is no way on earth she could even come within a fifth of out-producing the Allies.

America had started cancelling orders for war material in 1943..., about the time when Japan really came to grips with the fact that they had a production problem. The game saddles the Allies with this historical circumstance..., when in reality production orders would have continued to rise if the need was forseen. The convoluted workings of the Japanese Production System in the game simply allow Japan to produce WAY more than was actually feasible. It's a problem we need to address.

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 75

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 3:57:22 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
If you dont want to allow the Jap player to outproduce its historical counterparts, then whats the point of having a Japanese production system?

The Japanese production system was created so it could be attacked by the allied strategic bombers. Not so it could be tweaked to a point where it actually out-produced the allies. That was not possible no matter what Japan may have done, and if you think it was you�re delusional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Thats the way it is, and thats the way its going to be in AE. Live with it.

I�ve been living with this fantasy scenario since the game came out. I�m advocating that they try and get it right for a change instead of simply hamstringing the allies and making Japan even more powerful as they are doing currently. If you�re going to hold the allies to history, then please do the same for Japan. Otherwise jack up allied production so it can at least compete with the ridiculously high Japanese production.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Now, if you dont want to allow the Japs to do better than history, then whats the point of forcing the japs to capture resources and ship them back to Japan? Are we not supposed to allow them to do better than history, only worse?

I have no problem with them doing better than they did historically (within reason), but only if they start from and work with a realistic historically viable production system.

The fact Japan can build scads and scads of any equipment item it needs is pure FANTASY and has no basis in history at all.

The fact Japan can sail its ships all over the map non-stop and never worry about fuel costs is pure fantasy.

The fact Japan can keep all its units TO&E�s topped off at or near 100% is pure fantasy.

The fact Japan can out-produce the allies in air frame production is pure fantasy.

Etc., etc., etc..

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/8/2008 3:58:53 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 76

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 4:35:46 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I have no problem with them doing better than they did historically (within reason), but only if they start from and work with a realistic historically viable production system.

Well said! Of course the definition of a "historically viable production system" will always be subject of discussion, but are there really a lot of people around here who think that stock Japanese production is good as it is?

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 77

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 5:39:58 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The Japanese production system was created so it could be attacked by the allied strategic bombers. Not so it could be tweaked to a point where it actually out-produced the allies. That was not possible no matter what Japan may have done, and if you think it was you�re delusional.

That means you think the only reason for the production system to be included in the game is so that the allies can have a target in the later stages of the war. Or in other words, its only there to punish the japanese player.

And again your beef seems to be with the ratio between japanese and allied production, not the japanese proction system in itself. and I agree, the allies should always produce more than the japs, but I dont want to see some hardcoded arbitrary cap on Jap production. Ive asked you already, but you never answered, why should the Japs not be able to reach 1943 production levels in 1942, if they capture all the resources undamaged and manage to get them all home? Why would it be physically impossible for the Jap industry to produce 1000 aircraft per month in 1943, when they managed to do just that in 44? I dont get the logic behind those arguments.

quote:

I have no problem with them doing better than they did historically (within reason), but only if they start from and work with a realistic historically viable production system.

Well?

quote:

The fact Japan can build scads and scads of any equipment item it needs is pure FANTASY and has no basis in history at all.

No, because in history they didnt have the resources, manpower and infrastructure for it. But we are not doing a reenactment of history here, we are doing a simulation of it. And if the japs manage to bring home more resources in the simulation than they did in real life...what should happen then? Nothing?

quote:

The fact Japan can sail its ships all over the map non-stop and never worry about fuel costs is pure fantasy.

What do you mean "never worry about fuel"?

quote:

The fact Japan can keep all its units TO&E�s topped off at or near 100% is pure fantasy.

See "simulation, not reenactment" above. What would have happened to Jap units and their TO&E if the allies had done a sir Robin until 1943?

quote:

The fact Japan can out-produce the allies in air frame production is pure fantasy.

Again, this argument is about relative production, not Jap production.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 78

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 6:05:02 PM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I have no problem with them doing better than they did historically (within reason), but only if they start from and work with a realistic historically viable production system.

Well said! Of course the definition of a "historically viable production system" will always be subject of discussion, but are there really a lot of people around here who think that stock Japanese production is good as it is?

If they are playing Japan they do.

_____________________________

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 79

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 6:48:36 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

IIRC during a discussion some time back a "knowledgeable person" said that there were some number of Japanese factories that were "given" to the AI to give it a fighting chance against the human player but which are still actually in the game when 2 humans play PBEM/H2H. How hard would it be to code the inclusion of these factories to the button that reads "Japanese AI" so that the only time they're included is when someone is playing against a Japanese AI?

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 80

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 7:02:41 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Part of the problem faced here is the 20-20 hindsight of history...

-Everyone will implement a convoy system for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will allocate much more resources to ASW for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will try and optimize production for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will optimize supply logistics for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-If playing with PDU's players will concentrate on a few select airframes unlike their historical counterparts.

If playing vs the AI it doesn't matter because the AI is a bonehead anyway, however a human opponent will do these things.

So some suggested house rules for historcities' sake.

-Japanese ships moving resources can only be in unescorted single ship TF's until lets say for starters 1943.
-Japanese players should play with PDU's off.
-Japanese players may only expand factories once per year.
-Japanese units in China cannot have Accept Replacements turned off.

That's for starters....

So the Japanese players are forced to play stupid while the allies are not? Interesting? Let's look at 20/20 hindsight from allied side. No mining of bases in 1942 just because you know where the Japanese are going to strike. No flooding Burma with Indian Army units ever. All Dutch and British, and 3/4 of the allied Leaders must act like morons until 1943. No use of Australian Army units outside of Australia before 1944. One of your area commanders must be MacArthur and act like that baboon for the whole war. No effective use of ABDA. No use of the Sir Robin strategy to save units that were wasted at the beginning of the war. 20/20 hindsight favors the victor in this game much more than it favors the Japanese. Limiting Japanese expansion should be based on the gamey things of the engine itself. I have run tests and found that the Japanese do not play for rd aircraft. The 1000 supply points that the Japanese play for every plane from a non-rd factory is not payed by rd factories. Thus most rd factories come online with full production at no cost to the Japanese. A simple fix which would have a profound effect on the game would be to zero the counter when the rd factory goes online so that the Japanese player would now have to pay for all those new fighters. This is the kind of things that should be looked at not the 20/20 hindsight issues which are a plague to both sides.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 81

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 7:04:11 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

IIRC during a discussion some time back a "knowledgeable person" said that there were some number of Japanese factories that were "given" to the AI to give it a fighting chance against the human player but which are still actually in the game when 2 humans play PBEM/H2H. How hard would it be to code the inclusion of these factories to the button that reads "Japanese AI" so that the only time they're included is when someone is playing against a Japanese AI?

Now this is the kind of things we should be looking at.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 82

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 7:13:44 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
That means you think the only reason for the production system to be included in the game is so that the allies can have a target in the later stages of the war. Or in other words, its only there to punish the japanese player.

No it�s there because a fixed pool system for Japan would have been easier to implement than the current system. But Japan�s economy needed to be vulnerable to the advancing allies and short of hard coding reductions into the fixed pools system the only other option was to put the production on map.

That way if Japan was doing better than history the economy wouldn�t crash on some arbitrary date.

Had they done it for purely gamplay reasons then the allies would have the same kind of economy, but it does not. The reason it doesn�t is because it is a lot harder to implement, so they took the easy way out with the allies and gave them fixed pools which have been drastically reduced as each new mod comes out.

Were Japan�s economy easy to fiddle with like the allied one is, I have no doubt we�d have seen it corrected by now. But because it is a lot harder to tweak we are still stuck with the same fantasy scenario today as when the game was released.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
And again your beef seems to be with the ratio between japanese and allied production, not the japanese proction system in itself. and I agree, the allies should always produce more than the japs, but I dont want to see some hardcoded arbitrary cap on Jap production. Ive asked you already, but you never answered, why should the Japs not be able to reach 1943 production levels in 1942, if they capture all the resources undamaged and manage to get them all home? Why would it be physically impossible for the Jap industry to produce 1000 aircraft per month in 1943, when they managed to do just that in 44? I dont get the logic behind those arguments.

For the same reason the allies don�t have a lot of production early in the war, because it isn�t historical and it took a long time to ramp up production. The US was exporting excess resources throughout the entire war, yet it took until 1943 for their production system to ramp up to high levels of production.

Compared to the US the Japanese industry was archaic, it took them 4 or 5 times as long to retool factories than it took the US. And ramping up production was way harder for them as well because they were not very efficient.

Simply capturing some more raw resources should not translate to increased production capacity. They are two separate issues and should be addressed as such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
No, because in history they didnt have the resources, manpower and infrastructure for it. But we are not doing a reenactment of history here, we are doing a simulation of it. And if the japs manage to bring home more resources in the simulation than they did in real life...what should happen then? Nothing?

See above, it wasn�t lack of resources that kept them from building more stuff, it was the time needed to ramp up production. If you look at Japanese resource stockpiles throughout the war, they declined from day one. Japan never got more resources than they started with, yet slowly they became more efficient at producing stuff. But it took a long time to ramp up.

Japan could have never produced 1943 levels of air frames in 1942, it was not possible. They could have probably achieved 10%-20% more efficiency perhaps, but even that would have been after tremendous effort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
What do you mean "never worry about fuel"?

Japan made some very hard choices in the war due to fuel shortages. They even started using the fuel stocks aboard the Yamato as an emergency tanker for their smaller ships running the slot because fuel was so short. They also chose not to rebase the Yamato because the fuel cost would be too costly just for rebasing the ship.

My memory is very vague on the details here, so perhaps someone else can give better specific info. But I do know the Yamato was used as a tanker and a large capital ship was not rebased due to fuel shortages. I just can�t remember/find the source I read this in right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
See "simulation, not reenactment" above. What would have happened to Jap units and their TO&E if the allies had done a sir Robin until 1943?

You can�t call it a simulation if you don�t start from an point that the historical participants did. Japanese production is far too large in game pure and simple.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Again, this argument is about relative production, not Jap production.

No it is not. It is about the fact the Japanese industry is too big in game, thus historical allied figures are dwarfed by Japanese over-production.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/8/2008 7:17:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 83

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 7:26:04 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

GENTLEMEN. Please repeat over and over until it sinks in.... "The War in the Pacific was NOT an equal contest!"
One side used suprise and preparation to grab an early advantage..., and then the other side used an overwhelming force of material to take it back. That's reality. No amount of Japanese success was going to enable them to compete with the Allies in strength and material. They knew it and acknowledged it with their basic war plan of grabbing a defensive perimeter and holding on until the Allies got tired of attacking. Problem was the Allies didn't get tired of attacking them..., and blasted them all the way back to the Home Islands. They did save their Emperor..., but that's about all they saved.

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 84

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 8:02:42 PM

Charbroiled

Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

GENTLEMEN.�� Please repeat over and over until it sinks in....�� "The War in the Pacific was NOT an equal contest!"
One side used suprise and preparation to grab an early advantage..., and then the other side used an overwhelming force of material to take it back.�� That's reality.� No amount of Japanese success was going to enable them to compete with the Allies in strength and material.� They knew it and acknowledged it with their basic war plan of grabbing a defensive perimeter and holding on until the Allies got tired of attacking.� Problem was the Allies didn't get tired of attacking them..., and blasted them all the way back to the Home Islands.� They did save their Emperor..., but that's about all they saved.

True....and WITP will never be a true "what-if" simulator until the developers add a political interface. The combat AI is hard enough, can you imagine adding a political AI for China, India, etc.

< Message edited by Charbroiled -- 1/8/2008 8:04:12 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 85

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 8:13:54 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Part of the problem faced here is the 20-20 hindsight of history...

-Everyone will implement a convoy system for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will allocate much more resources to ASW for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will try and optimize production for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-Everyone will optimize supply logistics for the Japanese unlike their historical counterparts.
-If playing with PDU's players will concentrate on a few select airframes unlike their historical counterparts.

If playing vs the AI it doesn't matter because the AI is a bonehead anyway, however a human opponent will do these things.

So some suggested house rules for historcities' sake.

-Japanese ships moving resources can only be in unescorted single ship TF's until lets say for starters 1943.
-Japanese players should play with PDU's off.
-Japanese players may only expand factories once per year.
-Japanese units in China cannot have Accept Replacements turned off.

That's for starters....

So the Japanese players are forced to play stupid while the allies are not? Interesting? Let's look at 20/20 hindsight from allied side. No mining of bases in 1942 just because you know where the Japanese are going to strike. No flooding Burma with Indian Army units ever. All Dutch and British, and 3/4 of the allied Leaders must act like morons until 1943. No use of Australian Army units outside of Australia before 1944. One of your area commanders must be MacArthur and act like that baboon for the whole war. No effective use of ABDA. No use of the Sir Robin strategy to save units that were wasted at the beginning of the war. 20/20 hindsight favors the victor in this game much more than it favors the Japanese. Limiting Japanese expansion should be based on the gamey things of the engine itself. I have run tests and found that the Japanese do not play for rd aircraft. The 1000 supply points that the Japanese play for every plane from a non-rd factory is not payed by rd factories. Thus most rd factories come online with full production at no cost to the Japanese. A simple fix which would have a profound effect on the game would be to zero the counter when the rd factory goes online so that the Japanese player would now have to pay for all those new fighters. This is the kind of things that should be looked at not the 20/20 hindsight issues which are a plague to both sides.

Please note that the house rules I suggested were all related to Japanese production as it is in the game. None of the house rules dealt with Japanese strategy and/or tactics unless the strategy or tactics dealt purely with the transportation of resources for use in industry.

Most of the AFB club is complaining that the Japanese are capable of much greater production than in history...I was merely pointing out that there are other factors in the industry model that need to be accounted for should a player wish to play a more historical game in regards to production.

Those factors relate to how resources are moved and how the end products are utilized. For example China was supposedly a big drain on the Japanese. However how many people shut off the replacements to China in particularly if not pursuing a China first strategy? By shutting off these replacements suddenly the Japanese have that many more replacements available for use on the rest of the map.

In addition PDU's favor the japanese because the US has a fixed production schedule for its aircraft and cannot adjust the way it receives replacemnt aircraft. I always play with the PDU's off...

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/8/2008 8:20:25 PM >

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 86

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/8/2008 10:59:36 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

OK guys this is my last post in this thread so I will keep it brief.

AE is not changing Allied production i.e. its NOT on map.

Japanese production IS on map and will remain so there will be added complications caused by the new resource/fuel structure which we are still testing but fundamentally I do not expect massive balance changes from stock in this area - I suspect and expect there will be tweaks in what ways I dont know about yet.

I honestly believe that there is little point about getting irritated by this until we see how the new game plays out over time and at present we have not done the extensive testing required to say one way or another yet.

Andy

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 87

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/9/2008 1:13:00 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I have no problem with them doing better than they did historically (within reason), but only if they start from and work with a realistic historically viable production system.

Well said! Of course the definition of a "historically viable production system" will always be subject of discussion, but are there really a lot of people around here who think that stock Japanese production is good as it is?

If they are playing Japan they do.

BTW, didja notice who started this thread?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nomad)

Post #: 88

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/9/2008 4:01:00 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Just reduce the a,ount of resources etc available on map and voila, the Japanese production system will be held in check. At least AE has done away with the auto supply and fuel availability at bases with resources and oil.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 89

RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/9/2008 4:05:41 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just reduce the a,ount of resources etc available on map and voila, the Japanese production system will be held in check. At least AE has done away with the auto supply and fuel availability at bases with resources and oil.

Well, yes and no on the fuel availability. Most of the big oil fields on the map, such as those in the DEI, had co-located refineries, so there is a lot of fuel available there due to the refinery output (assuming that the refineries are not all damaged).

Andrew

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 90