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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:23:31 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline
quote:

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


Not sure if this responds, but I ran my game vs. AI to 25Feb46 for self-instr, and occupy all except PH, SFO and Anchorage, the last maybe will fall before game ends. Thus the HI and armor production is skewed by conquest. Does show how much of late model JA a/c can be produced, as I throttled back only in 1946.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ken Estes -- 1/14/2008 4:39:32 AM >

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 151
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:24:24 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline 		and




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Ken Estes -- 1/14/2008 4:27:24 AM >

(in reply to Ken Estes)
Post #: 152
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:28:54 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline 		and...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ken Estes)
Post #: 153
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:39:52 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		So far I count a total 38,664 aircraft produced through 1946 in Ken's game where the Japanese have run the map and presumably haven't had their economy bombed to smithereens....I'm guessing another 5,000 aircraft we haven't seen pool reports for so just to round off lets say 50,000 aircraft.

Historical Production - c. 76,000 planes... I guess WitP production is too low ...



< Message edited by treespider -- 1/14/2008 4:40:23 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 Ken Estes)
Post #: 154
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:51:49 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline 		Yes, I could have produced more. Some of you will recall I screwed up my industry [HI] and had low/no production during Nov42-Nov43, so that's why only the late model a/c production works as an indicator here.

I attach one more slide so you have the bulk of my effort.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 155
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:55:44 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: Ken Estes

Yes, I could have produced more. Some of you will recall I screwed up my industry [HI] and had low/no production during Nov42-Nov43, so that's why only the late model a/c production works as an indicator here.



Even still when compared to historical numbers your production seems low... and you ran the map...have the Allies been able to conduct any strategic warfare?

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/14/2008 4:56:16 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 Ken Estes)
Post #: 156
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 5:37:13 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		It appears that he is producing 4000 (plus or minus a few) aircraft per month, so this gives him the capacity to produce 48,000 aircraft per year. Are you so sure that Japanese production is too low?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 157
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 5:39:07 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

It appears that he is producing 4000 (plus or minus a few) aircraft per month, so this gives him the capacity to produce 48,000 aircraft per year. Are you so sure that Japanese production is too low?



Who cares what that number is...it is a hypothetical snapshot...you have to look at what was actually produced and the pools indicate ...generously - 50,000 airframes.

_____________________________

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 bradfordkay)
Post #: 158
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 5:44:36 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		He himself mentioned that he had almost no production for a full year - and I'm sure that it took some time for it to build up from there - so I think that the shanpshot of capacity is more telling than what the player actually produced. If that's going to be your criteria for examining the situation, then you need to check the results of a lot more games than just one.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 159
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 5:47:00 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

He himself mentioned that he had almost no production for a full year - and I'm sure that it took some time for it to build up from there - so I think that the shanpshot of capacity is more telling than what the player actually produced. If that's going to be your criteria for examining the situation, then you need to check the results of a lot more games than just one.



Okay give him another 12,000 aircraft now we're at 62,000 generously...and in a game where the Japanese have run the board and have no pressure on the home front from strategic bombing.


I am examining other games...by the way.

_____________________________

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 bradfordkay)
Post #: 160
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 6:14:40 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Why only 12,000?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 161
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 7:24:15 AM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: treespider
Who cares what that number is...it is a hypothetical snapshot...


Talk about extreme bias, no wonder Japanese production has never been addressed. With this kind of desperate search for justifying the over-production by team members we’ll be stuck with a fantasy game forever…

The question is and should be, could he have maintained 4000+ planes a month not what did he actually produce. He was playing the AI, more than likely there was little or no major air combat so he didn’t NEED to produce many planes. Hell he went a year without production and still won a map conquering game.

I no longer trust your impartiality after these statements, you appear to have an agenda here.

Jim

P.S. I noticed how you failed to highlight one critical line in another recent post where you quoted some unknown source:

"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.”

Perhaps because the fact the allies maintained a higher kill ratio meant they didn’t NEED more planes in the Pacific sooner rather than later? Had kill ratios been 4-1 or 10-1 in Japan’s favor as we see in games now, I have no doubt the allies would have made up for the losses by sending a lot more fighters to the Pacific.


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/14/2008 7:30:47 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 162
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 7:56:39 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Who cares what that number is...it is a hypothetical snapshot...


Talk about extreme bias, no wonder Japanese production has never been addressed. With this kind of desperate search for justifying the over-production by team members we’ll be stuck with a fantasy game forever…



Not bias - just doing research on what long term games are seeing as actually being produced to determine if their is an actual problem or is it simply a perceived problem.

quote:


The question is and should be, could he have maintained 4000+ planes a month not what did he actually produce. He was playing the AI, more than likely there was little or no major air combat so he didn’t NEED to produce many planes. Hell he went a year without production and still won a map conquering game.


Actual game production figures are of merit...IMO.


quote:


I no longer trust your impartiality after these statements, you appear to have an agenda here.

Jim


No agenda other than historical accuracy. Before the engine is tweaked we have to see if the engine is actually broken or is it just perceived to be broken.

quote:



P.S. I noticed how you failed to highlight one critical line in another recent post where you quoted some unknown source:


Sorry I failed to mention it was the United States Strategic Bombing Survey

quote:


"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.”

Perhaps because the fact the allies maintained a higher kill ratio meant they didn’t NEED more planes in the Pacific sooner rather than later? Had kill ratios been 4-1 or 10-1 in Japan’s favor as we see in games now, I have no doubt the allies would have made up for the losses by sending a lot more fighters to the Pacific.



Different topic.

PS: I apologize if Ken's numbers don't jive with the perceived problem... I didn't invent them. In Ken's case we see less than historical production coupled with greater than historical conquest, coupled with a severe mishandling of the games production routine.

Others numbers from other games seem to indicate a 15-20% increase over historical numbers...

< Message edited by treespider -- 1/14/2008 7:59:49 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 Jim D Burns)
Post #: 163
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 7:58:24 AM   
jwilkerson


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

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Opinion noted - however note the opposing view point of the original designers that the game models the historical Allied effort while offering the Japanese (underdogs) the chance to do better.

You may disagree - but others (such as the original designers) may also disgree with you!



Let’s not be intellectually dishonest here. The reason they gave Japan a more powerful industry than the allies wasn’t to explore some plausible what if scenario. Japan could have never out-produced the US in any production area, let alone all the allies combined. The premise that Japan could double or triple allied front line fighter production as we see in game if some tweaking of their historical economy was done first is pure fantasy.

It was done by the designers for game balance reasons pure and simple. Were Japan held to strict historical production and the allies given their historical production instead of being hamstrung severely, it would be a lot harder for Japan to achieve some of these map conquering games we see.

Oil production alone is probably 1000% higher than it should be for Japan. Every single naval move Japan makes should be a struggle over strategic gains vs. severe oil shortages, but we see non-stop naval action by Japan in every game all in the interest of game balance. I’ve never once read a Japanese post complaining about lack of oil.

Personally I would like to see a strictly historical scenario done for once, but I doubt you’d find many Japanese players willing to play it. Even AE is leaning heavily towards a Japanese production bias. The more they limit the allies without limiting the Japanese to the same strict historical limitations the more AE’s scenario will be even more of a fantasy scenario than CHS or stock was.

Don’t misunderstand, I applauded and am grateful for all the effort that has gone into AE. But I am dismayed by the apparent lack of concern over Japan’s huge production bias. Allied pools are getting slimmed down even more than they did in CHS, but not a peep about Japan’s over-production issues. Again I think it’s due to game balance reasons.

Everyone seems to assume because the allies out-produced Japan historically that it’s ok to scale back the allies as much as you want in game. But no one seems to realize that the allies DO NOT out-produce Japan in game, in fact it’s the exact opposite, they are way out-produced by Japan in almost every area.

Jim



Jim,


We are discussing this topic internally (off line) - and this team has been accused of bias in both directions believe me. I will give an excerpt of my thinking on this before we go "off line". This is from a recent internal team email I sent out.

A much bigger problem in my mind is that in none of my games have I felt compelled to build any merchant ships other than tankers and oilers. No AK ... no AP. I turn them off and leave them off. My 7000 ton AKs remain pretty busy hauling fuel and resources. The tankers remain busy hauling oil, the AOs remain busy supporting the fleet. But the 3500 ton AK get frittered away carrying supply in dangerous areas. The AP get frittered away carrying troops and supply in dangerous areas. But I have built very few - and if I had it to do again in stock I doubt I would build any, certainly not until 1944. Historically the Japanese certainly felt differently. They thought they had a shipping shortage at the start of the war and they thought it just got worse and worse. I'm not sure whether we are fixing this or not. But we should soon be able to get an idea.

If the Japanese are forced to build AK and AP as fast as they can in the game then they will not have any spare HI to build any spare aircraft or warships.

And one final point - AE is not a brand new game - it must live within the framework of WITP in many dimensions - so the asymmetric "production" systems are a part of that - one of our guiding principles is that we will be better than WITP - in many ways hopefully - but certainly not better in every dimension - and certainly not "perfect" whatever that might be - but certainly not worse in any dimension. Just simply "better" (or equal) in as many ways as we have time and resources for.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 164
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 8:04:52 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline 		Unfortunately, it was only when Joe Wilkerson tutored me that I regained control over my JA industry, and also began to track all the right statistical things. So in Nov43, my production of engines was 2337 with only a 1068 pool. That, as you know, dictates a/c production, not the odd 1389 a/c number. I hit 2718 engines in mid-May 1944, just after the fall of Karachi, whence I had both China-India under control. HI then was 14608/mo and 69139 pool. By Nov44 I have 3000 engines/mo., but have added USSR plus all of Oz from Darwin counterclockwise to Canberra [HI now 16907/580543], and have seized a lodgement in NZ at Dunedin. The rest was just grinding out against the weak AI that sent CVs singly, often unescorted, some [the respawned] w/o air groups, directly from SFO to Cairns, the HQ for SWPAC. I killed the last AI BB [Texas May45], the same month I took USA; SDiego remained lightly defended, LA not much better, and AI never managed a decent cttroffensive once I beat off several attempts vs. P. Moresby. It is unable to solve the early seizure of the outer Pacific perimeter, never concentrates. After I kept KB off Oahu to finish off the battle line and kill 3 CVs, I caught an amphib force sending some of 25th ID vs Midway, nothing happened in Central Pac after that.

The only tough AI is the USSR when invaded, although the 'new' USSR Red Army [some air force] spawning in occupied cities in Jul45 gave me a run for it!

In short, none of this is possible against a human opponent. I was just using the game this far to learn the ropes. Ken


< Message edited by Ken Estes -- 1/14/2008 8:06:34 AM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 165
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 8:09:24 AM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

So, 120 hits and no comments? Am I the only one who feels that the IJ economy as modeled in WitP might just possibly be a bit too powerful, too flexible, too easily expanded?


No, just gone over it before. Holding the Allies to a rigid production scheme when they had even greater flexibility than the Japanese Empire did is ridiculous.


Opinion noted - however note the opposing view point of the original designers that the game models the historical Allied effort while offering the Japanese (underdogs) the chance to do better.

You may disagree - but others (such as the original designers) may also disgree with you!



I think you are right from a game and historical point. Japan could have done better and allowing the allied the kind of model they give Japan would unbalance the game.

Lawrence

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 166
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 8:30:19 AM   
madgamer2

 

Posts: 1235
Joined: 11/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Actually, herwin, why play with the factory machine. Shoot, there’s almost always “enuf” – caves, women, wood, ingenuity. Why not dictate tempo by the inputs. You can always put a factory in a hapa by a hill, but … aluminum, woof !

Seems to me, a smart way to apply limitations would be to limit what comes in. We are dealing with this on a very serious level in AE; it applies in a 7 way matrix (to production, transport, construction, ship conversion, military logistics, you name it. The math is extensive, and a real bitch in application, but it’s working extremely down to early ’44.

Imagine … your choice as Yamaherwin, is to keep boats as transports, or maybe convert them to tankers, or maybe ammo carriers, or maybe you already screwed yourself by converting them to ASs, or AVs, or maybe you let some convert to Army landing ship carriers. You got pooploads of options, early war, just like Tojo. You get fancy, you get squat, later war, just like Tojo. The more you convert early to support ops tempo, the less you have later to support production tempo. Oh, you definitely have type options for the boys on the building skids, but which option do you choose ??

This works fairly well. It took me almost a month to develop a complete set of coefficients, so’s the determinants of the various matricies reduce to the limits. Now, all I gotta do is skew up or down on one set, and just watch the tilts on the others. I really think you will like the results in AE.



I get really scared in reading this because I have no head for this type of thing. In every game I own if there is some kind of economic model Iam in deep dodo. I have found that over the years the help from a friend who does understand math models,production and such is all a total waste of time (SIGH) I can deal with the allied side
but adding some economic choices for them would be my doom and may keep me from buying the great ZAE expansion,,,,,but we will see next summer.

Lawrence

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 167
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 10:36:22 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Lawrence, you can play WITP without worrying about the economic model if you stick to playing the allies. Their economy is basically fixed (you can increase supply and fuel production slightly by sending resources and oil to cities with Heavy Industry, but you don't have to do that and you'll still get plenty), so you can concentrate on the type of game you like to play. So please don't let this concern chase you away from WITP.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to madgamer2)
Post #: 168
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 4:46:24 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madgamer

I get really scared in reading this because I have no head for this type of thing. In every game I own if there is some kind of economic model Iam in deep dodo. I have found that over the years the help from a friend who does understand math models,production and such is all a total waste of time (SIGH) I can deal with the allied side
but adding some economic choices for them would be my doom and may keep me from buying the great ZAE expansion,,,,,but we will see next summer.

Lawrence


Not to worry Lawrence, herwin and I are just "number heads". We are talkin about the background of the economic model development; about what's under the hood, not what you gotta know to drive it.

There are some excellent threads on how to work Japanese production, and several after-market utility programs to help. Actually "doing it" isn't hard. Fear not !

(in reply to madgamer2)
Post #: 169
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 8:09:33 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: treespider
Not bias - just doing research on what long term games are seeing as actually being produced to determine if their is an actual problem or is it simply a perceived problem.


The only number that matters is potential production and whether or not that potential number is a sustainable level in game. Just because a player decides to turn off air frames does not mean players will HAVE to turn off air frames.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Actual game production figures are of merit...IMO.


If you’re going to use subjective data based on individual games you’d need to collate hundreds of thousands of games given the fact there are literally billions or trillions of possible outcomes for the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
No agenda other than historical accuracy. Before the engine is tweaked we have to see if the engine is actually broken or is it just perceived to be broken.


If you want historical accuracy as you claim, then why aren’t you advocating Japanese production start from an historical beginning? We know Japan built these figures in 1941:

1,080 fighters
1,461 bombers
639 reconnaissance

So given these numbers we can assume Japan’s monthly output of air frames at the start of the war was:

90 fighters
121 bombers
53 recon

Even if we assume Japan started 1941 with very low production and ramped up some by the end of 1941, Japan should not start with more than

150 fighters (a very generous figure)
150 bombers
70 recon

This would be an honest and historically accurate start point for Japanese production at game start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Sorry I failed to mention it was the United States Strategic Bombing Survey


So now my question is were they talking about combat strength (i.e. the number of operational fighter groups in theatre) or actual production. I suspect they were simply comparing US fighter groups in theatre vs. Japanese fighter groups.

The big difference is for every operational front line US fighter, it probably had 4-6 crated air frames behind it. Japan would have been lucky to have one crated air frame for every operational air frame.

You are again cherry picking one data point and trying to justify an entire position with it. US production allowed fewer operational groups to achieve more, because replacements were readily available. Japan did not have this luxury.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Different topic.


No it’s not, it is all relevant. The fact the US enjoyed a higher kill ratio historically means they needed LESS overall air combat power in theatre. Had they needed MORE they would have sent more. If you’re going to use historical figures for the allies you have to give them their proper historical casualty ratios. Otherwise you are not justified in hamstringing the allies to historical numbers.

If Japan enjoys the higher kill ratio (as it does in most games), then hamstringing the allies to historical replacements simply magnifies the overall power of Japan. But I suspect you already know this and your motives are intentional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
PS: I apologize if Ken's numbers don't jive with the perceived problem... I didn't invent them. In Ken's case we see less than historical production coupled with greater than historical conquest, coupled with a severe mishandling of the games production routine.

Others numbers from other games seem to indicate a 15-20% increase over historical numbers...


As I said you’re being dishonest here and are looking for a single data point to justify an entire position. The only thing that matters is could he have maintained 4,000+ planes a month if he wanted to. What he did with that level of production was subjective and his choice. Not a hard coded limitation.

At Japan’s highest level of production it built:

13,811 fighters
5,100 bombers
6,147 recon

That’s an output of:

1150 fighters
425 bombers
512 recon

Or a total air frame output of 2,087 a month. At best Japan may have been able to get this up to perhaps 2,300 a month had it conquered some more industrial territory, but no way in hell can any non-biased individual make a case for 3,000-4,000 air frames a month.

And ramping up to over 1,500 a month by early 1942 is pure fantasy as well. Japan built 7,935 combat air frames for all of 1942. That’s just 661 air frames a month or about double what it started the war producing.

You claim you want to be historically accurate, but you hamstring the allies to historical numbers when they take far greater losses than historical in game. You then desperately search for any kind of justification for leaving the over-powered Japanese industry in place. I cannot help but view your motives as biased.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/14/2008 10:56:44 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 170
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 9:44:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		I’ve seen the map conquering games too, and there are a number of factors that go into them. We are trying our best to put governors on those factors in AE, but you gotta realize that those governors have to have some sort of historical justification, if for no other reason than to satisfy the highly knowledgeable customer base for this game.

We’ve drastically reduced Japan’s assault ship capability, and tried our best to force the merchant fleet into its historical limits; with AE, your operations are limited by available lift. If you spool off sufficient lift to invade Oz, or NZ, or LA or Pearl, you won’t have enuf left to bring home the resources and oil you need. It’s a shift in emphasis.

As to production, golly … we’ve spent billions of dollars and man-hours on econometric models that are routinely ignored, or violated. Economics isn’t a science, it’s the art of kissing political butt so that they only screw the pooch somewhat, instead of royally. It’s worse in a totalitarian (ideological) environment.

We are not really intellectually dishonest. We are disingenuous to a degree, but only because we have to be. A computer game can only model reality, it can’t re-create it (unless it’s a daily script program, and what’s that worth?). As much as we can, we try to hew to the clear wood of historical accuracy, but only with respect to parameters.

Yes, Japan’s production elements may be skewed, but there is no way to avoid this if we wish to give the Japanese player some flexibility. The Allies don’t need it. The Allies always “win” in the end, no matter what. But Japan had some “possibilities” that weren’t realized IRL, but which could have had an impact on subsequent operations; not necessarily a dispositive impact, but one that might excite a player.

WiTP is a computer game that rewards “process”. Victory is a matter of process, not outcome

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 171
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 9:58:19 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		To compensate for the flexibility Japan enjoys and the Allies are hamstrung, perhaps the Allied player can expend PPs (theatre specific) requesting more aircraft, squads, weapons etc, and depending on the extent to which Japan has exceeded or failed to match historical production and on the theatre commanders administration rating, an increase or decrease (die roll) in Allied production (ie, equipment available to theatres) can result.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/14/2008 10:05:54 PM >

_____________________________





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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 172
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 10:02:39 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		You've seen my War Plan Orange rules. The inspiration came from Totaler Krieg. In TK, the Germans have three decisions 1) when to go to limited war and against whom, 2) when to open up the second front and go to total war, and 3) when/whether to shoot the moon and go for it all (they didn't). My War Plan Orange rules address 1) when to go to limited war and against whom and 2) when to go to total war (by attacking Hawaii, Alaska, Panama, or the North American continent). You might think about four steps of escalation: 1) Commonwealth/DEI, 2) USA in the western Pacific, 3) Hawaii/Alaska, and 4) Canada/Continental USA/Panama. Each delays the final reckoning, and each decision can be made in turn or in parallel.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 173
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 11:17:57 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: JWE
We are not really intellectually dishonest. We are disingenuous to a degree, but only because we have to be.


I disagree. If you’re going to tout historical accuracy as the reason for hamstringing the allies with fixed pools and limited supplies and then not apply the same strict limitations to Japan, you’re being dishonest. If the true reason for hamstringing the allies is to balance the game and give Japan options it never would have had in reality, THEN SAY SO.

It is commendable and I congratulate and thank every one of the team members for their massive efforts put into *getting it right* for the allies. But PLEASE do the same for Japan.

I and I bet many others are far more interested in a historically accurate game than a balanced game. Victory conditions can always be adjusted to account for reality. And with the editor it’s always easy to boost Japanese production if you want to. But *getting it right* for Japan is a massive effort and will probably never happen if this huge talented team of guys doesn’t focus on it now.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 1/14/2008 11:32:02 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 174
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/14/2008 11:43:23 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
We are not really intellectually dishonest. We are disingenuous to a degree, but only because we have to be.


I disagree. If you’re going to tout historical accuracy as the reason for hamstringing the allies with fixed pools and limited supplies and then not apply the same strict limitations to Japan, you’re being dishonest. If the true reason for hamstring the allies is to balance the game and give Japan options it never would have had in reality, THEN SAY SO.


SAY SO !!

quote:


It is commendable and I congratulate and thank every one of the team members for their massive efforts put into *getting it right* for the allies. But PLEASE do the same for Japan.

I and I bet many others are far more interested in a historically accurate game than a balanced game. Victory conditions can always be adjusted to account for reality. And with the editor it’s always easy to boost Japanese production if you want to. But *getting it right* for Japan is a massive effort and will probably never happen if this huge talented team of guys doesn’t focus on it now.

Jim


Jim, you, and many others, are correct.

But this is a commercial game, for players that don't have your sensibilities as to interaction with reality. This is for gamers, not gnarly grogs like u & me. It's "gamers" that buy the game, that allow discussions like this to exist. What !! you wanna "prove" your contentions, at the expense of the vehicle?? Well, ... ok. We'll just stop work till technology and model development meet your expectations.



(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 175
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 12:02:37 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline 		 
My recordkeeping was poor during the time I lost my industry, but as of Oct43, I had used 209298 of armament, 20614 of vehicle, 3797555 HI, and of the critical aircraft I tracked then had built only 14 G4M2, 17 Oscar II, 179 Tony, 639 Helens, 24 A6M5. Of the original aircraft inventory, I had in pool/used 41/551 Kate, 201/544 Val.
 
 
Although I had low/no production for the better part of a year, there was a silver lining. The Home Islands by the Nov43 ‘recovery’ held huge amounts of unused oil/resources and I had been forcibly rationed in A6M2 aircraft, had ceased operating the carrier force and the Betty force was ambushing the USN CV groups as they hit the Marshalls-Gilberts-Pago barrier. Only about 4CV, 4 CVL leaked through to Kiwi/Oz post-1942. Thus I did not produce so many older model fighters, had plenty of materiel to devote to the 43-45 series fighters as the factories converted to them. Even so, it was close run and my land fighter arm was fleeced by the USSR campaign, and the Sally/Helen force brought down to half strength of line squadrons [took 3 weeks to overcome the Red air force]. Throughout this period, I had few if any strategic challenges at sea from AI and of course my resource base only grew in potential, repairing damaged sites, etc. In shipbuilding, I halted a great deal of AP/AK/CVE/SS construction and selectively-alternately accellerated the CV/CVL/CL/DD/AO/TK as much as the shipbuilding quota would allow. For example, once
CVL Ryuho delivered, I accel'd Taiho [8Nov43, delivered 2/1/44, then accell'd 2 Unryus];   I resumed AK/AP delivery under 100 days on 2/14/44; I never built CV Shinano, Ikoma or last 4 CVEs; I started Musashi's construction on 8Dec44, accell'd on 25Mar45, delivered 29Jun so as to be available for the surrender ceremony in Los Angeles 31Mar46!
 
I repeat, none of this could have been pulled off against a human opponent.  The defeat of the CV/BB force in the Pacific came largely because they sailed peacemeal from SFO, weak to no escorts, sometimes no air group, a couple times no CAP put up when they hit my Betty ambushes. In IO, my air bombardment of Karachi from Bombay kept the RN ships damaged in port. The AI failed to launch the LCU's from Karachi before I had taken Delhi. My invasion of Oz, counterclockwise from Broome, provokd no cttrattacks from the huge AI land power on the east coast, all waiting for Pt Moresby to fall; I was even able to take weakly defended Canberra (Feb44)  via the back door; still no response. By the time I took on the huge garrisons of Brisbane-Cairns, I had been able to bring troops from India that I had not used for the USSR campaign, could bring the troops from the conquest of NZ [June45] and my economical force of 4-5 divs completed the seizure of poorly defended SD, LA, USA by 20May45; by then I had a hugely unrealistic HI capacity, but little to be built.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 176
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 1:49:26 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Jim. The good thing about having a decent editor and AE will be that we will no longer be stuck with hardcoded military supply popping up in equal quantity as unrefined resources in resource hexes (same with fuel in oil hexes) and other such nonsense. We will therefore be able to bring Japanese production into line. We can also add aircraft factories etc to a mod so Allied production can be ramped up if needed.

Too bad we can't get the more historically viable version and let the fantasy gamers make the silly mods though.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ken Estes)
Post #: 177
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 2:49:13 AM   
Jutland13

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline 		I will joint the rant on Taming Production. The Japanese system "can" become more than historical. However, poor/unlucky play by an allied player can create new unhistorical results, which everyone seems to want to ignore, but which have far reaching downstream consequences, that while they never "did" occur, might have occured if events had been different. It is these things that a game captures, which makes it fun and frustrating at the same time.
For example, what if the Midway results never happen, or better yet are reversed or more? The Japanese fleet is capable of inflicting a majot defeat on the Allied Fleet early on. Many Allied players are overly aggressive. If this happens, there is no Gaudalcanal, or at least not for another 12-16 months. In that time an unchallenged Japanese fleet and air arm can escort many invasions and followup damage to allied forces without this counter threat. Not having to commit massive troops to counter Island invasions frees up many troops for Ops in China, Noumea, New Zealand etc. What if the Allied player also performs poorly in China and elsewhere? Troops pulled from there can impact Burma, India etc. The Japanese have an extra 12-16 months unchallenged at sea to reinforce, build bases, control supply lines and logistics. Build industry in Japan under less pressure. These situations favour Japanese forces on the ground, at sea and in the air. It is the compound affect. Significant Allied defeats early in the war can have and could have had very signifcant compounded consequences.
Since this did not occur, we do not know. It often seems the Allied player wants a war without consequences for poor play and no or very limited reward for a very well played Japanese game.
I do think that some multiplier for Allied reinforcement (aircraft, pilots etc) could be instituted if the Japanese player is out performing history and the allies.
The game does over emphasize Japanese production, especially if the Japanese can istitute an inproved convoy system, improve aircraft construction, improve logistics. These all could have been improved dramatically historically. So the game is not so far off in this respect. The fact they were not done historically does not negate the fact that it could have been done.
One commander, with historical insight of all Japanese forces further facilitates the potential of Japanese arms. Both sides IJN & IJa working together, sharing resources and goals. Unhistorical, in that it did not happen. Not unhistorical, in that it could not have happened. If argued so, is it any less historical than a completely unified Allied command from Dec 8, 1941 onward? China, india, Aus, US, UK, DEI all sharing military resources without question and sacrificing themselves for the long term victory from day 1 of the war? Coordinating all of these for one goal, without ego, culture, politics etc was completely unhistoric and also nearly impossible under any ideal situation that could have existed.
Despite all of this occurring the Allied player should still win every time! It might take longer, it might involve a great deal more work and combat in unhistorical areas, but it is still a certainty.
Given this, I greatly enjoy the extra capacity of Japan and its potential for more. I also find it makes for a better game for the Allied player. Without it, the game become a mindless cakewalk after 1942 if the Allies perform historically or better. I will gladly assume the Allied player vs any Japanese opponent. I am certainly no genius, but I know I will eventually win, with much room for error.
Many players are indignant and blame the system, when they cannot repeat or improve on the historical result of the Allies. With both sides learning from history and not repeating historical blunders, but likely new blunders, the game will be different from history. Thank goodness for that. I have read extensively on the Pacific War, watched the documentaries, I know who won and how, why do I want to spend the next 18+mos recreating it? I want the game to give and create something new.
The game still so favours the allies, which is historical, that I find so much of this fussing over the PDU of Japan a waste. What is more, with all of the opinions, no one will ever agree what it should be, what it should do, when it should do it, Why is should do it etc.
The game works great for me, is great fun and has great historical feel and still rewards the best player and the best run forces with vicory using historical units and planning decisions and activities in a historical manner.
Neither this game or any that follows it can be all things to everyone.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 178
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 3:20:33 AM   
Ken Estes

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline 		The US/Allied player should win every time. The Japanese lost WWII by attacking Pearl Harbor. However, they did have a chance to do better and in May42, four strategies remained possible and can be explored with WITP: IO/India, Australia, Midway/Pearl/Suva/Pago/Aleutians, and of course a defensive. I suppose one can also explore USSR first and other concepts farther from the historical circumstance.

I suspect there are equivalent economic strategies one can follow as well, hence making PDU ddecisions can also be useful.

There must be a reason so many of us don't have a life, thanks to WITP! Well done to the developers and the crew working on AE.

(in reply to Jutland13)
Post #: 179
RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production - 1/15/2008 3:22:29 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		My 3 cents on the topic:

I agree with those that say there ought to be two Grand Campaign scenarios included with AE. My vote would be for one which is strictly historical and in which Japanese production is turned OFF and the other which would include Japanese industry--albeit perhaps a somewhat scaled down version. My hunch is that AFBs will flock to the former and JFBs to the latter and finding an opponent will be very difficult for either group. However, I'm sure there will be some games which will come to fruition.

I do take issue with the pejorative term "fantasy", though, as applied to anything which is not 100% historically accurate. I prefer to call it "alternative history". Good "alternative history" is PLAUSIBLE or CREDIBLE. Bad "alternative history" may be "fantasy". Not all "alternative history" is "fantasy" (in the pejorative use of the word).



< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 1/15/2008 3:24:50 AM >

(in reply to Jutland13)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Taming Expansion of IJ Production Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

1.078