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: Getting the Bugs Out

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Getting the Bugs Out Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/20/2011 9:25:13 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I don't want to either make G5N ahistorically good, or to introduce a deliberate trap option.

At the moment I having some comments from historical standpoint about late-war Japanese planes, and some ideas on how to make various options more viable. Unfortunately, I need to see how said planes peform in the game before judging how they are actually modelled in the game. Maybe I'll play some Downfall against AI (no time for another PBEM commitment).

I do have one ready proposal for Allied side, though. In the future versions of the mod, Warhawks should be somewhat boosted and Hurricanes should be nerfed. In RL, Hurricane was considered one of the worst, if not the worst Allied fighter still in production by 1942, while Warhawks stacked decently against Japanese planes. In AE Hurricanes are the best second-generation fighters Allies have, and Warhawks, I feel, are more inferior than can be explained by differences in pilot quality. Other people can comment on this, and I'll appreciate any comments from bigred about the quality of his Warhawk/Kittyhawk pilots (mine mostly have EXP around 50 and Air around 67-71 at the moment, although surviving early-war weterans score much better than newbies fresh from the training program). Even if my feeling of Warhawk inadequacy is generally wrong and born out of Zero/Hayabusa slight speed bonus I enjoy in my game, Hurricanes should not be better than Warhawks anyway, and merely nerfing Hurricanes wouldn't nearly be fair to the Allied players.


< Message edited by FatR -- 1/20/2011 9:28:01 PM >

(in reply to BigBadWolf)
Post #: 511
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/20/2011 11:18:37 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Think a slight improvement of the Warhawk is a good idea.

I want to revisit the logic of the Mod for any new people reading this Thread.

We based this whole thing on Admiral Yamamoto taking over the Navy Ministry and being able to FORCE his views through the Kaigun's Officer Corps. In a nutshell those views were the following:

1. Emphasis on Aircraft Carriers and speeding up of several CVL conversions.

2. An expansion of the Naval Airpower, pilot pool, and heavier investment into Naval Air R&D.

3. The creation and expansion of several shipyards to better handle the 4th Circle Building Program where Shinano and Yamato #4 are not even thought, the replacing of Taiho with 3 Shokaku-Kai, and a streamlining of DD and CL construction to specific yards for an improvement in efficiency (shortening build times).

4. The TOTAL support of the A6M design team to the exclusion of all other Government-Sponsored fighter aircraft (George was privately designed and built) that specializes the A6 into a CV-Based Line and an stronger, armored Land-Based Interceptor set of models.

5. The construction and outfitting of Naval Construction, Base Force, and Naval HQs with a limited amount of engineering vehicles to aid in the expansion and repair of bases.

6. The formal adoption of the 3.9" AA weapon as the heavy AA weapon of the Fleet.

7. Every facet of the above-mentioned items to PAID FOR by reducing supply and fuel prior to the war beginning. I think the total ended up being about 1,000,000 less at start.

8. Lastly, a much more forward-deployed Fleet ready to crush the Allied Forces so that the SRA could be quickly captured before resources and oil run out.

It must be noted that ALL these changes begin upon Yamamoto's assumption to power in July-August 1939. This provides the Kaigun with roughly 30 months to accomplish everything with Japan's Navy peaking in mid-1943...

Did I miss anything?



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/20/2011 11:19:32 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 512
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 2:50:21 AM   
bigred


Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Giving Ki-61 line its upgrade path to Ki-100 back, although in with improved Ki-61 KAI in Scen 70 there might be a reason not to follow it.



Seems to me the this fix would have huge impact.  I have one game as Japs and another as allies. I plan to build 90 ki61Ds a month... once the 61a is available I will switch the factories to d model research....

< Message edited by bigred -- 1/21/2011 2:53:34 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 513
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 3:43:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		After tossing out the vision of what the RA Mod set out to do here is a reality check.

I think we should dial back the level of Japanese Naval Air experience. We've expanded the size of the force, added a few units, and expanded the pilot pool. Figure this is started at earliest early-1940. The simple act of pulling out even 10-20% of the veteran China/Naval pilots to create a Corps of Trainers SHOULD bring the experience down some.

In keeping with the view of the Fleet, the reduction of experience shouldn't impact the CVs much but should affect the CVLs and Land-Based Naval Air. I'm not talking a huge percentage but I think a net reduction of up to 10% would be fairly realistic reflecting the expansion/creation of new units and training.

The benefit here would be to realistically portray the changes AND help the Allied player somewhat by a slightly lower caliber of Japanese pilot. This, seemingly, makes sense to me.

Have I just proposed heresy???


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/21/2011 3:44:16 AM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 514
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 7:59:17 AM   
BigBadWolf


Posts: 584
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: Serbia
Status: offline
quote:

Have I just proposed heresy???


Yes, you did. Boys, get some firewood and matches, we have a live one here.

I couldn't comment from my experience yet, but from what I see in both yours and Stanislav's AARs, Japanese air power may need to be toned down a notch. Experience reduction seems like a most elegant solution.

I generally like the idea of this mod being something in between Scen 1 and Scen 2, this is main selling point, at least as I'm concerned. Maybe if get in more goodies for AFBs?

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 515
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 1:14:15 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		I have been playing your mod for a while now and generally quite like it. I think there are a couple things that maybe have pushed it a bit toward fanboyism though. I think it is somewhat important to maintain some of the basic challenges facing the Japanese side during the war. Two I think you should reinstate -

pilot experience - return the graduation level of experience to stock level (35 for IJA/IJN). I know this is low, but it was a major factor in the war that Japanese pilot training was inadequate. Combined with the ability of the Japanese to produce huge amounts of improved plane types (or just huge amounts of any type), it changes too much the complexion of the war. The allies did not face hordes of very modern planes with experienced pilots from the mid-war period on. If the Japanese player wants to have lots of trained pilots, then he has to devote on map resources to make that happen. Force the player to face the trade-offs to get the different results.

base units - a major feature of the of the Japanese war effort was poor logistics planning which meant low operational availability of ac and reduced ability to construct forward bases. Even in stock, the operational tempo is far too high on both sides for air ops, mostly because the super-abundance of AV. I know it doesn't feel that way, but players routinely put up plane raids of more than 100, often several 100, planes day after day. It is too easy for allied 4E bombers to attack in huge raids in the mid-war, but it is even more at odds with history for the Japanese to put up some of the raids I see day after day of several hundred planes. I think the approach of The Babes mod is the right one, in reducing the amount of support available, forcing the player to have fewer large bases and make hard choices about where to base ac. I don't see the justification of increasing base forces for the Japanese.

Anyway, that is my take on it. I know it is a bit against the grain, but I think it would help to maintain some of the vulnerabilities in the Japanese war-fighting ability that characterized the fighting. I think it helps the mod if it doesn't just do away with so many of the problems facing the Japanese, but just focuses on a couple of plausible changes.

And please change the device names!!!! hahaha, it is soooo much easier to figure out TO&E upgrades as the allies....

(in reply to BigBadWolf)
Post #: 516
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 2:35:28 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I don't see any changes in pilot graduation EXP levels, certainly compared to Scen 2 the situation is worse. I'm not sure if this even can be changed in mods at all. For that matter, pilots graduating with lower EXP and overall skill levels might be a boon, as this will allow to train key skills on-map faster. At least I get this feeling from comparing IJNAF and IJAAF's speed of pilot training (the latter gets greener replacements).

John is talking about on-map units EXP/skill levels. And, well, I agree, that their skill levels probably should be decreased a bit, as to make early game less one-sided. The balance of airpower late in the game will depend on strategic and logistical decisions taken by players, rather than on starting forces, anyway (yes, Allies can and should impact potential Japanese industrial capability at the opening stages).

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 517
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 2:57:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Damn---Stanislav I didn't think you would go for the lower XP at start for on-board Naval Air. Teaches me, once again, never to assume...

In the Mod the Army Air pilots and aircraft are pretty much not touched whatsoever. This is the mark of RA. Nearly 90% of the changes impact the Navy. I do know there was some tweaking of Army aircraft to better reflect history and engine modifications within the scenario.

Navy pool pilots enter the game in 1941 at 50%, 55% in 42, 50% in 43, and then plunge down in 44-45.

I've found that I am pulling pilots so fast for on-board training that the percentages drop pretty quick as more-and-more are brought forward and trained in the Home Islands, Manchuria, and China.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 518
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 3:35:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Regarding darby's comment on some Allied goodies lets review what the Allies gain for their side:

1. Static training squadrons in San Diego for VF, VB, VT Navy PIlots. The American's can do a limited pilot training program like the Japanese.

2. Additional carriers are in the game as well. The Americans gain 3 new Independence CVLs that arrive earlier (start of 1943) and have the ability to convert 4 AOs at the start of the war into CVEs.

3. The Allies start with two garrison forces at sea:
a. One is in the Coral Sea, covered by all the ANZAC CA-CL, bringing the rest of the units that make-up the Brigade in Port Moresby, a Base Force, and several squadrons of aircraft. Though destined for PM this TF can go anywhere.

b. The other is at Pago Pago carrying more Marines, a Base Force, and two squadrons of planes. It is covered by a CL and some DDs.

4. The Americans gain a batch of F4F-R elements for placement on their CV to add a better degree of Search/Recon ability.


Things that could be added/changed:
1. Start the Lexington TF down at Pago Pago covering that mission. The Vindicator Squadron would be on-board and could deploy with the forces at Pago-Pago. Starting with an American CV IN the South Pacific could be quite nice!

2. Change up the SS.
a. Bring the S-Boats (and a Tender) to Pago Pago and turn it into a Sub Base.

b. Place a couple of S-Boats around Wake. You might actually be able to SMACK something approaching the doomed Marines!

3. Augment the American Forces Covering Pago Pago with several more cruisers from the West Coast and/or add CA Minneapolis who arrives on Dec 8th.

4. How about start with those old BBs (Idaho, New Mexico and friend) at Panama so they could be in the fracas within a month or so?

5. How about raise a few of the American aircraft reinforcement rates? Wouldn't want to do much but that might help...





_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 519
On the Japanese Side... - 1/21/2011 3:55:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Have kept thinking about Yamamoto correcting seeing 'the Decisive Battle' as taking place farther to the east then what the Japanese had planned for (Kaigun) and had a set of ideas:

1. Expand Saipan into a better forward base and start Combined Fleet HQ there? Pull in some of those new units we moved to Truk and the Marshalls and place them there with shipping. The Japanese player could then go wherever he wants with them.

2. To make life slightly easier on the Allied Player we move the massed CVLs and a STF to Saipan so the forces deployed there have plenty of Cover for operations. The Japanese player could send them into New Ireland, New Britain, New Guinea, or SW towards Ambon and Timor.

If the Japanese want to CRUSH shipping in the DEI they can. IT will just take two-three days to start the mayhem. This will also give the Allied player a chance to run...

One cannot tell I've been percolating on the 3.0 Variant for a while can you?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 520
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 4:29:33 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		I just noticed that you have a IJN pilot rate that is lower than stock in 43 on. hmmm, I guess this makes up for the quality increase. I haven't played enough in 43 to really notice yet from the Allied perspective. I still think the qualitative edge is a bit high, were the IJN pilots coming out of school that much better than USAAF (50 vs 30)? Also, I believe the pilot bump that Japan gets in 43 was supposed to also function as a bit of an HI drain for the late war. Have you looked at the potential benefit to Japan from having fewer but better pilots from this balance perspective?

As far as buffing the P40, in general I don't think you should mess with plane stats unless you have some data that something is wrong. It is too hard to draw conclusions about plane performance from a single game iteration. Pilot skill, leadership, force ratios, operational tempo, all that stuff adds up to influence the results and I think changing tech data to chase desired results opens up more room for problems. In my game I think the Hurricane has done slightly better than the 40, but British pilots were a bit better and I used them to cover more distant bases so they were up against longer-ranged strikes (higher enemy fatigue and generally fighters are flying escort instead of sweep). On the other hand, I used the Warhawks in more of a pulse tempo, resting them then putting a large percentage up at one time, which means fewer turn-backs and ops losses because of plane fatigue. Of course I did this because my opponent was running really large daily fighter sweeps, so the battles were large when they happened. So is the Hurricane better than historical, is the Warhawk worse?????

The Allied goodies are nice! I don't think they are that big a deal either way, they don't really change anything fundamental. One thing you could think about is turning on reliable torpedoes for allied subs. It is a big deal because it does change a important feature of the war, but maybe it would sort of balance out the effectiveness of the sub campaign over the whole war, which I think is a bit too low in the mid-end war because the Japanese player will take counter-measures. Since I think you did add a couple of E class and ASW planes, more early war carnage will at least motivate those changes!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 521
RE: On the Japanese Side... - 1/21/2011 4:31:59 PM   
Nomad


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

5. How about raise a few of the American aircraft reinforcement rates? Wouldn't want to do much but that might help

I would consider increasing the USA/USN reinforcement rates in the late 43 to 46 time frame by a bunch. This is to counter the flexibility that Japan has in production and considering that the USA/USN production was cut back mostly becasue of the real direction the war took. The US could have build considerably more if needed.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 522
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 4:37:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The Japanese pilots, historically, weren't very good at all upon graduation due to the Japanese never starting a rotation system of bringing in experienced veterans to help teach the hard-won lessons. Also the Training Program stayed too elitist through 1941-1942.

RA changes that where Yamamoto pulls out about 15% of ALL veteran IJN pilots and institutes a real, expanded training program. This holds until 1943-1944 when the war breaks through the system and causes it to fall apart.

Changing US Torps is something I would not like to mess with. That scandal cost the United States sooooo much that it is--for me--a key thing to understand in the frustrating first year of the war. HOW could you have TT that were never HONESTLY tested? How could the Sub Command Admirals IGNORE what their own Sub Captains were reporting? Boggles the mind...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/21/2011 4:49:58 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 523
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 5:16:38 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		I understand what you are saying about the torps, but is that a bigger deal than any of the changes you can see for the Japanese side? As you said, the torp thing boggles the mind, so the change is actually more believable. I don't have a strong feeling about it, but it is sort of funny to say that it is a key feature of the war, but then suggest that the Japanese should get better heavy bomber interceptors, as though that was not also a key feature.

The problem is that Japanese players use hindsight to institute an ASW/convoy program from day 1. It seems that this reduces the effectiveness of the sub campaign in 44-45, which is also a key feature of the war.

But like I said, it is whatever either way for me.

A better change would be to remove all the withdraw orders from the US air groups! It would give them a better training establishment and god it takes away so much tedious micro-management! Actually it is much better for balance to keep the US planes in Oz, rather than add a couple of garrison units to PM. I have yet to play a game where the Japanese player (myself included) is not able to completely shut down resupply ops to PM with long range air attacks from Rabaul. Adding troops there is just adding points to the Japanese when they sink xAK after xAk trying to run a couple more cases of Fosters in there.

I also agree about expanding replacement rates for US in 43+. I think this mod encourages more aggressive Japanese play, and the US could have easily responded to more aggression with a larger share of the production pie going to the Pacific. It is a bit much to buff one side so much without considering the impact on the other side. If the Japanese shoot down many more bombers, well the US could have send many many more to make up for it.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 524
Air Groups - 1/21/2011 5:26:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I agree with your commentary and those are excellent points made in the final two paragraphs above Darby.

What would people think about pulling the 'withdraw' orders for some or all of the US Air Groups? Need to think on that idea some. Stanislav?

Replacement Rates are easily do-able. The key here is to be realistic. What would be logical and POSSIBLE for the Allied Side here?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 525
Air Groups - 1/21/2011 7:40:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael made the comment over the phone that any bump in replacement rates would have to be 'keyed' into the discovery of Japanese strength. If we work with that the increased numbers would start in--say--April/May/June of 1942.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 526
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 8:04:48 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline 		With the latest beta patches the Allies can turn production of aircraft at on-map facilities on and off, even if they can't directly upgrade them - seems to me you could easily add f.ex some number of 10 unit/month P-39 factories to, say, Vegas, and HR their activation and use by PP expenditure - maybe put a static 'trigger' unit worth however many PPs there and tell the player to switch its command every time he wants to turn a factory on.

Not perfect, but it's some control.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 527
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 8:07:47 PM   
gajdacs zsolt

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline 		I'm Darby's opponent in a slightly modified RA game and I thought I'd say a few words about pilot training:

You can edit the national average exp of pilots per year in the editor, but that number is not a constant thing. If there aren't enough pilots in TRACOM to keep quality up it steadily falls during the year. (And with the pulling out of experinced pilots from the on-map units you simply cannot put enough pilots into TRACOM!)

To give you some numbers:
IJN exp starts at 55 in '41. We are in 42/08 right now and my pilots are graduating at 39xp.
IJA seems to fare a bit better though: starts with 45, it's at 34 right now.

So it's not all that good on the evil side :)

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 528
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 8:22:28 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Since there would have been "some" reaction from the Allies, and especially the Americans to the build up of Japanese naval strength, I looked at some minor tweaks in airframe production.

PBY-5 and PBY5A would each go to 15 airframes/month
TBD-1 Devestator would go from 3 to 10/month
F4F-4 Wildcat from 45 to 60/month
TBF-1 Avenger would go from 35 to 45/month (possibly move from 5/42 up to 4/42)
F6F-3 Hellcat would move up two months to 2/43
FM-1 Wildcat up two months to 3/43
SB2C01C Helldiver up two months to 3/43
SBD-5 up two months to 3/43

The Essex and some of the CVL Independence Class come in early 43, so the planes would help.

Halt withdrawl on three PBYs in early 42 (always need more naval search ability)
#2715 VP-21 (PBY-4) on 18 Apr 42
#2717 VP-22 (PBY-5) on 18 Apr 42
#2717 VP-102 (PBY-4) on 1 Jun 42

The 'only' other thing would be a very small increase in production of P-40s and P-38s as the Americans have enough pilots with the restricted groups training up pilots and don't suffer that badly from medium bombers losses.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 1/21/2011 8:58:08 PM >

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 529
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 8:30:40 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael and I talked about these ideas on the phone. What do people think for a small reaction by the Allies to the Japanese?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 530
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 9:05:24 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Japanese pilots, historically, weren't very good at all upon graduation due to the Japanese never starting a rotation system of bringing in experienced veterans to help teach the hard-won lessons.

They had no opportunity to systematically implements this due to never having enough pilots to begin with. Although a significant number of veterans was transferred to training, judging by biographies of aces and other notable pilots.

Anyway, I'm against acceleration or increasing production rates for early-war Allied planes, both to avoid a mutual power escalation circle and to reflect the assumption that Allies don't perceive their task as harder than it was IRL, at the beginning of the war and don't significantly expand their military buildup at the beginning. I was against the extra carriers for Allies (but not the conversion options) as well, for the same reasons.
But for the planes that arrive in 1944-45, expansion of production numbers might be reasonable, to reflect Allied response to stiffer Japanese resistance. There is also a gameplay/balance reason here as well. I firmly believe that Scen 70 should faciliate long and strategically interesting struggles and prevent early degeneration of the game into one-sided beatdown. Considering how effects of early advantages are multiplied throughout the game, this means that Japanese should be somewhat stronger at the beginning, compared to Scen 1, but not too much stronger. That's why I support less aggressive IJN disposition at the start and pilot EXP reduction. Most modded-in Japanese advantages should come to play in second half of 1942 and 1943, thus hopefully keeping Allied advances the matter of skill, rather than applying overwhelming force. And they do.
Now, in 1944, if Allies have failed to deeply penetrate Japanese perimeter for that long, mere overwhelming force stops being sufficient for the win. They must strike fast right into vital points (against now-hardened Japanese defenses), instead of slowly rolling forward under LBA cover, if they want to secure their objectives on time. So, giving Allies (even) more planes in 1944 is relatively unlikely to detract from the game and might add to it, as trading ground for time against overwhelming forces is a fun part of the game too, assuming it can be meaningful, and in 1944 it can (at least in terms of victory level shift, if nothing else).

So, anyway, if you want, I might formulate my proposal for late-game Allied production expansion in detail within a day or two.



< Message edited by FatR -- 1/21/2011 11:42:42 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 531
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 10:03:50 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		I would also favor unrestricting about a corps worth of US LCUs that appear in the game but can never leave the CONUS. Two things I think more aggressive Japanese players do that the US would respond to are invade Oz and push very hard in India. Giving the Allies some troops to respond to these moves makes sense. I also don't see it as unbalancing in the long run because by the time the Allies are switching into serious roll back the red tide mode, I don't think lack of major combat formations is the problem.

For increased air craft, seriously just get rid of the withdraws and unrestrict the units. That gives you about 75 more P39, P40B, P40E and B17s. That is a nice bump of several months production, it makes sense because those units were actually in theater, and it isn't unbalancing because it only really matters in the first few months of the war when the agro Japanese players are going crazy all over the map.

< Message edited by darbymcd -- 1/21/2011 10:04:03 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 532
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 10:06:05 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		Gajdacs - I am sooo happy to hear you at least are having some problems in the azz-whupping you are giving me!!!!

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 533
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 10:23:39 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Getting rid of the withdrawals will matter enormously throughout the game, with multiplying benefits over time. Even if Allies won't have air support on the frontlines to utilize them for creation of critical plane mass, and that's a serious "if", expanding their on-map training squadron capacity by up to a couple hundreds of pilots, in addition to the existing advantage in this area, is a huge boost. As about realism, most of the Allied units that get disbanded early in the game were effectively destroyed in RL.

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 534
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 10:28:23 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		I don't think pre-war air frames should be changed at all.  And I'm an AFB.  Seriously, the American public would not have gone for the expense pre-war, even if the Japanese flat out ignored the Washington Accords.  I do think that mid war models might get tweaked a bit to reflect the sudden "exposed danger".  There were already limited plans to direct desperately needed material from Europe to the pacific.  Midway allowed the Europe First plan to get into gear sooner than anticipated. 

There never was enough patrol a/c.  Plus, the Battle Of The Atlantic was taking every possible long range air frame.  It was just facts.  So the withdrawal of patrol squadrons, while a real PIA, is understandable.

The torpedo issue is a definite keeper.  Don't mess with it.  All Americans should be reminded of the cost of equipment complacency.  The war would have ended a year or more earlier if hardware & tactics had been up to the task.

That's my 2 cents.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 535
RE: Air Groups - 1/21/2011 10:29:25 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Sounds like we have an early agreement in two areas:

1. A reduction in Naval Air starting experience.
2. A redistribution of December 7th starting forces for the Japanese.

Stanislav--Your Post above is well-written and thought out. Cannot really disagree with much of what you say. Nice summary of your thinking and ideas!

How about we go back to the early RA brainstorming days and tackle this a topic at a time:

A. What do people think about the idea early in the page about changing the US Fleet distribution on Dec 7th? Specifically regarding bringing some S-Boats from the West Coast to Pago Pago and augment the Pago Pago Operation by bringing CV Lexington into the area?

B. ACTIVE discussion topic regarding whether or not to slightly augment the production/arrival rates/dates on planes listed in Michael's Post.

1. PBY-5 and PBY5A would each go to 15 airframes/month
Seems like we could raise one of these--even by just a few per month--for a slight gain. Which is the newer model? (I assume the 5a) So why not look at that one?


2. TBD-1 Devestator would go from 3 to 10/month
Doesn't really impact my thinking either way here. THREE is insane but maybe leave them as is and slightly make Avenger higher. Would REALLY leave the US CVs in the lurch but provide more demands for Avenger.


3. F4F-4 Wildcat from 45 to 60/month
Don't know.

4. TBF-1 Avenger would go from 35 to 45/month (possibly move from 5/42 up to 4/42)
See above comment, however, I think we could bring it in a month early OR raise production slightly for May.

5. F6F-3 Hellcat would move up two months to 2/43
Going by Stanislav's thinking and comments this might be pretty appropriate idea.

6. FM-1 Wildcat up two months to 3/43
Ditto the above.

7. SB2C01C Helldiver up two months to 3/43
I'd leave this plane where it is. It did have real teething problems.

8. SBD-5 up two months to 3/43
Would agree and be in line with #5 and #6.

Stanislav--I remember you being opposed to adding those additional American CVLs. It seems FOREVER since we had that conversation doesn't it?

C. Keeping some of the Allied war withdrawals.

Michael suggests the 3 PBY squadrons. I am not sure here and don't really have a strong opinion.




< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/21/2011 10:32:53 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 536
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/21/2011 10:31:24 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zsolo007

I'm Darby's opponent in a slightly modified RA game and I thought I'd say a few words about pilot training:

You can edit the national average exp of pilots per year in the editor, but that number is not a constant thing. If there aren't enough pilots in TRACOM to keep quality up it steadily falls during the year. (And with the pulling out of experinced pilots from the on-map units you simply cannot put enough pilots into TRACOM!)

To give you some numbers:
IJN exp starts at 55 in '41. We are in 42/08 right now and my pilots are graduating at 39xp.
IJA seems to fare a bit better though: starts with 45, it's at 34 right now.

So it's not all that good on the evil side :)



Hi Sir. How far are you in your game?

My pilot graduation numbers are about the same as yours, however, my Home Island, Korea/Manchuria, and China training programs are doing so well I am not very concerned about it.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to gajdacs zsolt)
Post #: 537
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/22/2011 12:00:15 AM   
gajdacs zsolt

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline 		We're in '42 august, almost september. I'm not too concerned either, on-map training mostly solves the "problem". But I don't know how would this effect me if I'd have a full scale air war on my hands...

In our game the US is out of the war till 43/1, or until I attack them directly. The main enemy is the USSR!

Because of this my pilot losses are more than managable.

I personally think that there should be no exp reduction for the japanese (JFB speaking :) ). Strengthen the allies a bit if you want to balance things.

< Message edited by Zsolo007 -- 1/22/2011 12:01:44 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 538
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/22/2011 12:09:08 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		At the moment I can only restate that I'm flatly against any acceleration and/or increase in production for Allied planes before 1944. Particularly for game-changing planes, like Hellcats. Sorry, but looks like you've misread that part of my post. I suggest we return to this topic within two-three weeks, as by that it time it will become clearer, whether often-postulated Japanese ability to outattrit and chase away Allied aviation throughout 1942 does indeed exist. Either Allies will be knocked out by that time or my air offensive in Andamans will likely fizzle from pilot losses/influx of P-40Ks (in addition to Hurricane IIc and P-38F buildup). Allies still have Marines and Canadians to throw into the fray too.

Well, I might have been more willing to accept increase in the number of transport planes, as their operational losses are dire, but I believe they (and patrol boats, which I find OK anyway) already received some boost?


< Message edited by FatR -- 1/22/2011 12:10:44 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 539
RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 1/22/2011 3:52:16 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Zsolo is in Aug 42, Lew and I are in late-July, what is your date FatR? Could just look on the AAR I guess...

Has anyone played RA further time-wise?

Think we have made some good progress here. I think it is easy to correct things from the very start and, as FatR states, very hard to predict what is to happen later in the war.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/22/2011 4:46:53 AM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Getting the Bugs Out Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   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

0.703