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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 10:18:56 AM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think PDU ON is a better simulation because it provides the kind of flexibility (for both players) that everybody in this thread says the Japanese should have for production.


Yeah right, Japan can switch over all his factories and make 70% of them Tony’s and 30% Zeroes and change all his fighter groups to Tony’s and Zeroes, but the allies are still forces to use their crap planes because they cannot switch 100% of their fighter production to their best plane like Japan can. The allies may get 100-150 or so of their best fighters each month while Japan can produce well over 1,000. PDU sucks, it breaks the game.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 121
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 11:02:50 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
I'm with Jim..., PDU simply makes abuse more possible and common.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 122
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 11:04:25 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

First; the reason the average Jap player does much better than his historical counterpart is because he knows from hindsight not to do certain things/do certain things. There is no real consequence of doing something wrong. Let KB hang around Pearl a week or two and bomb the base to bits. If you screw up and lose a CV or two, a new game is just a restart away. There is no IJA/IJN conflict, the supply system is abstracted enough to let you reload 16 inch-shells from any random base on the map you captured two days ago. Aircraft magically appears on a remote jungle base simply by clicking on a button. Etc etc etc. Production comes very low on this list of why the Japs do better than historically.

Second; the idea to cripple the Japanese industry by putting a limit on the production is ridiculous. That is like claiming that it was physically impossible for an industrial nation with millions of citizens to build more than 1000 aircraft a month. Thats just stupid. Does anyone in here really believe that if the Japs had had enough resources, factories, manpower, oil, infrastructure etc, they wouldnt have been able to build more aircraft than they did in real life? The US would always be able to produce more, yes, but that is a different kettle of fish entirely. Then your beef is with the US production system and not the Jap production system. A far better solution would be, then, to increase US production if Jap production reaches a certain threshold. For example, if Japanese aircraft production gets higher than 1000 aircraft per month, then the US production doubles. If it gets higher than 2000 aircraft per month, then the US production is quadrupled.

In many of the AARs where the Jap player has huge production numbers, the Jap player has also captured large parts of China, sometimes even India or Australia. With all that the added industry, resources, manpower who can really argue that it would be impossible for the Japs to produce more than they did in history?


I re-read the whole thread this morning and I think that what "Panzerjaeger Hortlund" suggested is best idea so far...

Therefore I would suggest the following compromise so that everyone can be happy (i.e. both sides)!

Please read below...


#1 Disabling of AI only "crutch" researching factories for human Japanese player

Let's disable the researching factories for human player. Those are only meant to be AI "crutch" and should not be touched by human player!

Thus if WitP AE game has human player for Japanese those factories are not present and we instantly get much much more realistic Japanese factories (still if player wants to build some more it would require time and it would require precious supply/resources)!!!

I sincerely hope this can be done rather simply and that it would not require much programming. Can WitP AE developers please answer if that is possible?



#2 Adjusting Allied production to what Japanese player is doing

The Japanese player can be better than historic Japan and thus able to produce more that what happened historically.

This is quite OK because this is game after all and everything is possible (including the conquer o China and/or India and/or Australia and/or DEI...)!

But if Japanese player is doing so much more better than history the Allied production should be increased accordingly as it would (in such hypothetic case) be because USA had so much power that it could outproduce every nation in WWII)!!!

Thus let's simply introduce some thresholds which simply trigger the doubling of Allied production!


Simple examples (for simplicity sake - numbers are just for making a point):

a)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 fighters per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied fighter production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese fighters per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)

b)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 bombers per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied bomber production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese bombers per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)



What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 123
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 11:58:49 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think PDU ON is a better simulation because it provides the kind of flexibility (for both players) that everybody in this thread says the Japanese should have for production.


Yeah right, Japan can switch over all his factories and make 70% of them Tony’s and 30% Zeroes and change all his fighter groups to Tony’s and Zeroes, but the allies are still forces to use their crap planes because they cannot switch 100% of their fighter production to their best plane like Japan can. The allies may get 100-150 or so of their best fighters each month while Japan can produce well over 1,000. PDU sucks, it breaks the game.

Jim


Jim, you prove your own argument false. It's a production issue, not a PDU issue.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 124
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 11:59:58 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I'm with Jim..., PDU simply makes abuse more possible and common.


If you believe so, play with PDU OFF. But don't work to take the option away from people who choose to use it.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 125
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 1:27:35 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
As has already been stated there won't be any changes to Allied production (well, not any major changes) in AE.

I still see lots of opinions and interesting discussion, but no hard figures indicating the actual aircraft production rates from any games. If I had time to do so I would try to find more information myself, but unfortunately I do not have the time.

Andrew

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 126
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 1:47:57 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I'm with Jim..., PDU simply makes abuse more possible and common.


If you believe so, play with PDU OFF. But don't work to take the option away from people who choose to use it.


Never said people didn't have a right to choose..., just agreed with Jim that I wouldn't play with it on. Everybody needs to stop being so "defensive".

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 127
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 2:34:38 PM   
treespider


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I still see lots of opinions and interesting discussion, but no hard figures indicating the actual aircraft production rates from any games. If I had time to do so I would try to find more information myself, but unfortunately I do not have the time.

Andrew



If you hadn't noticed guys ...thats a HINT...go get some stats...

_____________________________

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 Andrew Brown)
Post #: 128
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 2:44:34 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Now I agree bombers, recon planes, transports etc. can and are turned off for long periods of time. But I seriously doubt any Japanese player turns fighter production off for any significant period of time and that’s the area of over-production that causes Japan to have a more powerful airforce than the allies.

Jim


I'd just like to throw in here that the way one person plays often is a direct result of his opponent. In a PBEM game I'm currently playing (Mar 43) I have some of my fighter factories turned off. These include Tonys, Tojos and A6M3a. The only fighter currently producing (that I can think of right now) is the Jack. It just came online this month. My opponent is rather conservative and it shows in my losses and requirements.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 129
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 3:21:30 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I'd just like to throw in here that the way one person plays often is a direct result of his opponent. In a PBEM game I'm currently playing (Mar 43) I have some of my fighter factories turned off. These include Tonys, Tojos and A6M3a. The only fighter currently producing (that I can think of right now) is the Jack. It just came online this month. My opponent is rather conservative and it shows in my losses and requirements.


Right, but Jwilkerson was making the argument that Japan could not utilize all that capacity, and a lot of it was excess. I argue that Japan can and does use it when needed, because its economy is far too powerful and resilient.

Lots of Japanese players turn off production of air frames when they don’t need them, but it’s because they don’t need them, not because their economies are crashing due to such high air frame production capacity being online.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 130
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 3:30:36 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
I'd just like to throw in here that the way one person plays often is a direct result of his opponent. In a PBEM game I'm currently playing (Mar 43) I have some of my fighter factories turned off. These include Tonys, Tojos and A6M3a. The only fighter currently producing (that I can think of right now) is the Jack. It just came online this month. My opponent is rather conservative and it shows in my losses and requirements.


Right, but Jwilkerson was making the argument that Japan could not utilize all that capacity, and a lot of it was excess. I argue that Japan can and does use it when needed, because its economy is far too powerful and resilient.

Lots of Japanese players turn off production of air frames when they don’t need them, but it’s because they don’t need them, not because their economies are crashing due to such high air frame production capacity being online.

Jim



I've got no argument with what you're saying, Jim. My current games are with PDU on, but I'm tempted to play one with PDU off. I think it would be an interesting challenge.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 131
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 4:53:04 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
I think it is rude to post data from a live game where you know the opponent will see it without that person approval I now need to never look at this thread again - thanks Jim for giving me free intel.


Oops sorry Andy and PZB, it was very late and I was caught up in the discussion and didn’t think. I’m very sorry about that it won’t happen again.

As to Jwilkerson’s assertions that the capacity isn’t being used, I seriously doubt that’s the case. If you look at just the Oscars used, he’s used 31+ months of Oscar production (assuming it hasn’t been expanded from the day they came online) so it’s been going full speed ahead since they became available for production.

Now I agree bombers, recon planes, transports etc. can and are turned off for long periods of time. But I seriously doubt any Japanese player turns fighter production off for any significant period of time and that’s the area of over-production that causes Japan to have a more powerful airforce than the allies.

Jim




I turn off fighter production - or any aircraft production when the pool levels reach the target stocking levels - then I turn back on when pool levels fall below safety stock levels. I manage my inventory. No real reason to over produce. The real bottleneck on Japanese fighters is the number of slots in the OOB, not the number of aircraft produced.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 132
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 6:31:36 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,




#2 Adjusting Allied production to what Japanese player is doing

The Japanese player can be better than historic Japan and thus able to produce more that what happened historically.

This is quite OK because this is game after all and everything is possible (including the conquer o China and/or India and/or Australia and/or DEI...)!

But if Japanese player is doing so much more better than history the Allied production should be increased accordingly as it would (in such hypothetic case) be because USA had so much power that it could outproduce every nation in WWII)!!!

Thus let's simply introduce some thresholds which simply trigger the doubling of Allied production!


Simple examples (for simplicity sake - numbers are just for making a point):

a)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 fighters per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied fighter production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese fighters per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)

b)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 bombers per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied bomber production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese bombers per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)



What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"



This is the way to go imho. Good summary Apollo, as always
PDUs are ok imho. Well, maybe there should be a code that allows upgrades/downgrades only in certain bases (like for converting AKs),thus to prevent that 200 tonies appear in Tarawa just because there are 200000 supplies there...however this could be tough to code, so i think PDUs aren't the real problem.
Real problem is the stuck limited allied a/c production.

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 133
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/10/2008 6:32:40 PM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think PDU ON is a better simulation because it provides the kind of flexibility (for both players) that everybody in this thread says the Japanese should have for production.


Yeah right, Japan can switch over all his factories and make 70% of them Tony’s and 30% Zeroes and change all his fighter groups to Tony’s and Zeroes, but the allies are still forces to use their crap planes because they cannot switch 100% of their fighter production to their best plane like Japan can. The allies may get 100-150 or so of their best fighters each month while Japan can produce well over 1,000. PDU sucks, it breaks the game.

Jim



It is certainly possible in the game to produce 1000 Tonys or anything else a month. In practice though it would be foolish to do so.

-A million supply to build the factories.
-Limited squadrons in to use these planes.
-Even more limited trained pilots to fly then.
-Limited resources to fuel the factories to build them. I'd rather stockpile excess recources an oil against the dark days to come when I won't be able to freely transit the sea.
-Limited points on the map where the Allied player can bring pressure, where you need your best fighters.

Yes you can train pilots with low-threat bombing missions, but when they start off with 20-30 experience you will take horrendous ops losses initially.

PDUs give the Japanese player the ability the abuility to manage his air force, something of a fantasy to be sure, but not the overwhelming advantage some picture it to be. Depending on the mod and house rules, it may even be more of advantage for the Allied player, given wholesale upgrade of 2E to 4E bombers.

I've never seen the need to produce anything more than 200-250 a month of anything. When a new type comes on line which will be a mainstay I will produce such a number for a few months, but once the conversion is done I want to maintain a pool of no more than 150, and some factories get turned off. I never want too big a pool, since the follow-on type will render all these obsolete pretty quick.

So yes, it's possible to overbuild Japanese industry. If you are playing however for the long-term is is a very foolish thing to do.



_____________________________

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 134
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 2:37:26 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: bilbow


It is certainly possible in the game to produce 1000 Tonys or anything else a month. In practice though it would be foolish to do so.




I think Jim's point is - that whether it's foolish or not, the Japanese in history, no matter how successful they were, could not approach the production levels he perceives in the game...

...but all of that is not germaine to Andrew's request ---- Does anyone have game stats demonstrating over-production?

I believe a more useful screen shot would be the one showing Japanese aircraft pools as well as the armament and industry pools...

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/11/2008 2:53:31 AM >


_____________________________

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 bilbow)
Post #: 135
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 3:25:38 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: bilbow


It is certainly possible in the game to produce 1000 Tonys or anything else a month. In practice though it would be foolish to do so.




I think Jim's point is - that whether it's foolish or not, the Japanese in history, no matter how successful they were, could not approach the production levels he perceives in the game...

...but all of that is not germaine to Andrew's request ---- Does anyone have game stats demonstrating over-production?

I believe a more useful screen shot would be the one showing Japanese aircraft pools as well as the armament and industry pools...



Tree - I agree with you that is Jim's point.

My point is different. There are two parts to my point

1 - The bottleneck in terms of how many fighters the Japanese can apply against the Allies is not determined by the Japanese production - but instead by the number of slots in the fighter units. Whether I have 100 Tony's in my pool or 1,000,000 Tony's in my pool will not change how many Tony's I can use at any given point in time. And if I lose lots of Tony's fast - I might be able to replace them - but I have to retrain the pilots and this takes a lot longer than it takes to make more planes.

2 - Because of the above - there is no reason to overproduce fighters - no reason to fill the pools up much beyond 200-300 for even the most used types. I typically set limit of 200 for most heavily used types and only 100 for types like recon. I think turn production off. The real priority on use of HI points for the Japanese is Naval Ship Yard points. So I'd rather spend my HI now on ships than spending it building extra fighters I do not need now and cannot use now.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 136
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 4:08:47 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Never said people didn't have a right to choose..., just agreed with Jim that I wouldn't play with it on. Everybody needs to stop being so "defensive".


Didn't mean to sound defensive. Saw Joe's comment about PDU's, Jim and then you seemed to quickly agree. I figured without any dissenting voices it would look like "everybody" agreed, and I felt I should also present the actual argument of why I think they're okay (as an option, not a forced feature).

[Edit for crummy typing.]

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/11/2008 5:04:50 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 137
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 4:16:02 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
All the above arguments miss a very vital point -they assume most of the oil resource centres captured intact............
Mine were smashed- overproduction of anything then became just fantasy.......................

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 138
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 4:24:53 AM   
treespider


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

All the above arguments miss a very vital point -they assume most of the oil resource centres captured intact............
Mine were smashed- overproduction of anything then became just fantasy.......................



You just have to figure out how to take them unsmashed....lots of Shore bombardment, Air bombardment and patience and viola - an undamaged resource hex.

_____________________________

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 1275psi)
Post #: 139
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 4:43:46 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

All the above arguments miss a very vital point -they assume most of the oil resource centres captured intact............
Mine were smashed- overproduction of anything then became just fantasy.......................



You just have to figure out how to take them unsmashed....lots of Shore bombardment, Air bombardment and patience and viola - an undamaged resource hex.



You have some control (as Japanese) about taking them unsmashed - essentially beat up all the engineers there before you take it. But there still seems to be a large random element. I usually have several of them heavily if not totally smashed - but ALL of them? Haven't had that (yet) !!!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 140
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 10:07:34 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Can't all of the economic aspects be made editor accessible so that the players can adjust the myriad of factors involved so that the model can be tweaked to players taste? If so, those who want to play silly bugger can fill their boots and those who what a semblance of reality can be sated as well.


They pretty much are. Resources, Oil, HI, Engines, aircraft, etc. are all devices attached to bases ... you want to reduce Japanese aircraft production in your game, go reduce the airframe factores. Nik actually includes this in his mod. What he did was consolidate the aircraft factories into a smaller number of larger factores producing the same totals of aircraft. This makes it generally more expensive to increase production. PDU on really changes things - and I noted Michael Wood's statement a few days ago that if he had it to do over again - he might not have added PDU. I doubt we will take it out - but it is a toogle which can be used or not.


This just plain bugs my butt. I always seem to be a "bridesmaid, never a bride"...to quote a classic lament. I was one of the few who peeeeeeeeeeeeeeed (E=EFFORT)into the wind to not add PDU as it would inevitably result in player abuse, giving us yet another mechanism which takes a noble endeavour like WITP and turns it into a child's plaything (among a myriad of other issues BTW). If it looks, smells, feels and tastes like ****, it must be ****...to bad we stepped in it anyway. I also don't get the developer's desire to keep a Japanese fantasy production model in when it is obviously has no basis in fact, unless of course it is to satisfy the non-grognard, D&D type, real time game community.

Seriously, is the non serious play-war-gamer market that huge? Even within this community? I'd like to see someone post a poll asking whether or not they want a product which tries to emulate a "simulation of the WITP"...which, being a simulation adds certain what ifs given certain historical constraints (LIKE REALITY!) or, if they just want a fantasy roll playing game which just happens to have a WITP theme as a thematic backdrop.


Let's seperate the men from the boys...


< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/11/2008 10:07:35 PM >


_____________________________





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

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 141
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 10:26:00 AM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
Has there been a more popular mechanism added to witp than PDU? I remember how much that feature was appreciated by the community, and I think the vast majority of pbems going on have PDU on. If you dont like PDU, then play with PDU off. Its as simple as that really.

_____________________________

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 Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 142
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 10:28:52 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Ron, it is a switch chosen by the players. By either not programming it in the first place or taking it out of the code now what do you think you accomplish - protecting people from themselves?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 143
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 6:53:05 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I am one of those who likes PDU. As an allied player (so far) I realize that it could hurt me far more than help me, but the flexibility it gives in the face of aircraft shortages seems fair to me. I tend to follow the prescribed upgrade path for most of my units, but there are times when I don't - such as in the early going when I downgrade some squadrons scheduled to upgrade from their B-18s to B-17s and I switched them to B-25s.

In my PBEM vs Chez, we agreed that only 2E squadrons scheduled to upgrade to 4E can do so, and that the Japanese will only double the original size of their aircraft factories and go no further will factory expansion. So far that seems to be working...

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 1/11/2008 6:54:28 PM >


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 144
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 8:35:32 PM   
saj42


Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline
Someone mentioned this in an earlier post but I want to raise it again:

I remember a statement made long ago that the Japanese R&D factories were ADDED AS AN AID FOR THE AI.

So... if you are playing PBEM, the Devs could change the code/scenario so you don't get the 'FICTITOUS' factories.
Then the Japanese player has to make a decision, based upon a slightly more restricted set of factories, to either build/expand current aircraft production or invest existing factoies into R&D (by converting).
This IMO would tone-down Japanese a/c production.

Ideas / Comments ?????

_____________________________


Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 145
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 10:06:47 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

Ideas / Comments ?????


Makes sense to me.

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 146
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 10:12:09 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron, it is a switch chosen by the players. By either not programming it in the first place or taking it out of the code now what do you think you accomplish - protecting people from themselves?


Well it just seemed like a waste of effort to me, especially considering that when this was added, more important issues like UBER CAP, endless supply and so many other issues were playing havoc with the game already.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 147
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/11/2008 10:14:20 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
That I understand. I am glad they actually did it, though.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 148
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/12/2008 12:26:50 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

Someone mentioned this in an earlier post but I want to raise it again:

I remember a statement made long ago that the Japanese R&D factories were ADDED AS AN AID FOR THE AI.

So... if you are playing PBEM, the Devs could change the code/scenario so you don't get the 'FICTITOUS' factories.
Then the Japanese player has to make a decision, based upon a slightly more restricted set of factories, to either build/expand current aircraft production or invest existing factoies into R&D (by converting).
This IMO would tone-down Japanese a/c production.

Ideas / Comments ?????


That's a good idea & it would certainly help.

There's a related point that IMO also adds to implausible production numbers. Some of the factory auto-upgrades just don't make sense. As an example, while it might not take much to re-tool from building A6M2s to any of the later A6M models, the A6M family (in game) upgrades to the A7M2. IRL Japan kept building A6Ms until the end of the war because they needed fighters now, and couldn't invest in the re-tooling to build Reppus en masse. In the game hundreds of A6M factories will convert free of charge. Playing Japan I don't need to make such decisions.

There's plenty of similar examples. Another example: in stock Ki-43 factories will freely convert to Ki-61s. Yet they're a completely different design philosophy - radial vs. inline engines, maneuver vs. boom & zoom.

It might make sense for the air groups to convert on such paths, but it often doesn't make sense for the factories to convert.

(in reply to saj42)
Post #: 149
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 3:13:46 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
Interesting quote I stumbled across while doing some research....

quote:

ELIMINATION OF JAPANESE CONVENTIONAL AIR POWER
Japanese production of aircraft of all types rose from an average of 642 planes per month during the first 9 months of the war to a peak of 2,572 planes per month in September 1944. The rise was particularly great during 1943, after the Japanese had learned the lessons of the 1942 campaigns. Aggregate production during the war was 65,300 planes.

Japanese army and navy plane losses from all causes, both combat and noncombat, rose from an average rate of some 500 planes per month in the early months of the war to over 2,000 per month in the latter months of 1944. Aggregate losses during the course of the war were of the order of magnitude of 50,000 planes, of which something less than 40 percent were combat losses, and something over 60 percent were training, ferrying, and other noncombat losses.

The Japanese were thus able to increase the numerical strength of their air forces in planes, in almost every month of the war. Numerical strength increased from 2,625 tactical planes at the outbreak of the war to 5,000 tactical planes, plus 5,400 Kamikaze planes, at the time of surrender.

Aggregate flying personnel increased from approximately 12,000 at the outbreak of the war to over 35,000 at the time of surrender.

United States aircraft production and pilot training exceeded the Japanese totals by wide margins, but only a portion of this strength could be deployed to the Pacific. United States first line strength in the Pacific west of Pearl Harbor increased from some 200 planes in 1941 to 11,000 planes in August 1945. It was not until late 1943 that we attained numerical superiority over the Japanese air forces in the field. Even in 1942, however, the relatively few United States air units in the Pacific were able to inflict greater losses than they sustained on the numerically superior Japanese. Aggregate United States plane losses during the course of the Pacific war, not including training losses in the United States, were approximately 27,000 planes. Of these losses 8,700 were on combat missions; the remainder were training, ferrying and other noncombat losses. Of the combat losses over 60 percent were to antiaircraft fire.

As previously stated, Japanese pilots at the outbreak of the war were well trained. The average Army pilot had some 500 hours before entering combat and Navy pilots 650 hours. These experienced pilots were largely expended during the bitter campaigns of the opening year and a half of the war. The Japanese paid far less attention than we did to the protection, husbanding and replacement of their trained pilots, and were seriously hampered in their training program by a growing shortage of aviation gasoline. Average flying experience fell off throughout the war, and was just over 100 hours, as contrasted to 600 hours for United States pilots, at the time of surrender. Inadequately trained pilots were no match for the skilled pilots developed by the United States.

At the time of the initial Japanese attack, Japanese fighter planes, although less sturdily built, more vulnerable and weaker in fire power than the United States fighters, had certain flight characteristics superior to those of United States fighters then available in the Pacific. The Japanese improved the quality of their planes during the war, greatly increased the power of their aircraft engines, ultimately exceeded United States fighters in fire power and had first-class aircraft in the design and experimental stage at the end of the war. They lacked, however, the widespread technical and industrial skill to match the United States in quantity production of reliable planes with increased range, performance and durability. After the initial campaigns, the United States always enjoyed superiority in the over-all performance of its planes. By American standards, the Japanese never
Page 10

fully appreciated the importance of adequate maintenance, logistic support, communications and control, and air fields and bases adequately prepared to handle large numbers of planes. As a result, they were unable to concentrate any large percentage of their air strength at any one time or place. Neither did they appear to have the ability to control large formations in the air with any degree of efficiency.

Local air control and its tactical exploitation the Japanese understood and achieved in their early offensives.

But along with all other military powers prior to the war, the Japanese had failed fully to appreciate the strategic revolution brought about by the increased capabilities of air power. The ability to achieve general and continuing control of the air was not envisaged as a requirement in their basic war strategy, as was the planned destruction of the United States Fleet. Had this basic requirement been well understood it is difficult to conceive that they would have undertaken a war of limited objectives in the first place. Once started on a strategic plan which did not provide the means to assure continuing air control, there was no way in which they could revise their strategy to reverse the growing predominance in the air of a basically stronger opponent who came to understand this requirement and whose war was being fought accordingly.



_____________________________

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 ctangus)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.406