75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB

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 >> Tech Support >> 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 3:43:46 AM

SeethingErmine

Posts: 34
Joined: 1/2/2010
Status: offline

As one might surmise from the title, I dislike the rule change that made many formerly free IJA level bomber upgrades from 1 engine models to 2 engine models now cost 75 political points for each group. I think this is especially silly for the 12 plane chutai groups. You could change 30 or 40 air group leaders for that cost.

(edit: Realized the obvious workaround after a night's sleep for vs AI. The walls in our minds are the trickiest ones.

)

Also, I searched for and failed to find the discussion where someone concluded this was a good idea, and would be interested to see it. To me, this seems like a pretty significant gameplay change as it either affects proper level bomber production or dramatically reduces political points available for other uses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(edit: Added for fun)

(Scene: Hangar, 74th Chutai flight crews assembled)

(Quartermaster addresses the assembly)
Quartermaster: Tremendous news! HQ is shipping out brand new planes for you, you're being upgraded to the Ki-21 IIa.

(shocked silence)

Flight Leader: What! No! We are the elite pilots of the Ki-36. We have mastered the art of achieving maximum damage from its 4 mighty 30kg bombs. They can keep their new flying death machines.
(voice in the back): Yeah, I bet this new plane doesn't even have a camera.

Quartermaster: That's right. It's faster, has much better range, and eight times the payload. But no camera.

(general commotion breaks out)

(voices overheard): ...an outrage ... insult to our honor... what are they thinking ...

Quartermaster: OK! Ok. They are prepared to offer you all promotions, and consideration for your families back home. HQ knows how much you love your Ki-36s.

< Message edited by SeethingErmine -- 1/13/2012 3:34:23 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 6:42:23 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

It's a new feature. I think it's reasonable and good one, and the cost is not that much really.

(in reply to SeethingErmine)

Post #: 2

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 6:46:58 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Also the PP cost applies to Allied players who like to switch from MB to HB
as well. Which I welcome from a balance perspective.

_____________________________

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 3

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 8:32:08 AM

obvert

Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

It does seem the cost should be staggered toward size of group. 75 makes sense for big groups, but for 12 planes seems steep. PP costs for LCUs seem staggered by the AV size or the importance of the unit. Why not this?

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 4

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 9:07:44 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

while I agree there should be a difference in cost if you change a small/big unit but in general this is a very well thought out change as it definitely should cost something to change the upgrade paths. I would even go further and put in cost for EVERY aircraft upgrade, no matter if in the same upgrade path or not.

_____________________________

(in reply to obvert)

Post #: 5

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 11:12:08 AM

Atilla60

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Jutland, Denmark
Status: offline

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think about this feature.

My concern is that if implemented, wouldn't it imbalance the game in favor of the Japanese player?

After all, Allied production is fixed and provides only so many frames. Whereas Japanese player can boost production of any desired plane anytime.

Example:
In my current PBEM (as Japanese - early August 42), I'm in the process of switching 1E bomber squadrons to 2E FB (Nick). Whether it's a good idea or not is OT. Point is that before I hit 43, I'll be able to intercept Allied strategic raids with swarms of Nicks in all threatened theatres ( i.e Solomons, Burma and the DEI at the same time).

Since this is my first PBEM, and I haven't seen the Nick in action yet, I don't know if it'll make much of a difference. However, judging from the results I've had with the Oscar in Burma so far. I believe my opponent is in for a rough ride.
Sure! He can upgrade a number of Squadrons from LB to HB, but he'll still have to fill them up and keep them operational.

So, in short. Beside the PP cost, what impact will it have on game balance?

Like I said, I haven't landed on any conclusion yet, but like SeethingErmine, I am curious as to what the reasoning behind this feature is.

Can somebody provide a link to a thread where it has been discussed?

_____________________________

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-Sir Winston Churchill-

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 6

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 11:35:36 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atilla60

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think about this feature.

My concern is that if implemented, wouldn't it imbalance the game in favor of the Japanese player?

After all, Allied production is fixed and provides only so many frames. Whereas Japanese player can boost production of any desired plane anytime.

Example:
In my current PBEM (as Japanese - early August 42), I'm in the process of switching 1E bomber squadrons to 2E FB (Nick). Whether it's a good idea or not is OT. Point is that before I hit 43, I'll be able to intercept Allied strategic raids with swarms of Nicks in all threatened theatres ( i.e Solomons, Burma and the DEI at the same time).

Since this is my first PBEM, and I haven't seen the Nick in action yet, I don't know if it'll make much of a difference. However, judging from the results I've had with the Oscar in Burma so far. I believe my opponent is in for a rough ride.
Sure! He can upgrade a number of Squadrons from LB to HB, but he'll still have to fill them up and keep them operational.

So, in short. Beside the PP cost, what impact will it have on game balance?

Like I said, I haven't landed on any conclusion yet, but like SeethingErmine, I am curious as to what the reasoning behind this feature is.

Can somebody provide a link to a thread where it has been discussed?

Don't know if I read your post right but without paying PP for upgrades outside of the upgrade path would make it even easier for Japan to do those upgrades.

_____________________________

(in reply to Atilla60)

Post #: 7

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 11:48:51 AM

Atilla60

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Jutland, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atilla60

To be honest, I'm not sure what to think about this feature.

My concern is that if implemented, wouldn't it imbalance the game in favor of the Japanese player?

After all, Allied production is fixed and provides only so many frames. Whereas Japanese player can boost production of any desired plane anytime.

Example:
In my current PBEM (as Japanese - early August 42), I'm in the process of switching 1E bomber squadrons to 2E FB (Nick). Whether it's a good idea or not is OT. Point is that before I hit 43, I'll be able to intercept Allied strategic raids with swarms of Nicks in all threatened theatres ( i.e Solomons, Burma and the DEI at the same time).

Since this is my first PBEM, and I haven't seen the Nick in action yet, I don't know if it'll make much of a difference. However, judging from the results I've had with the Oscar in Burma so far. I believe my opponent is in for a rough ride.
Sure! He can upgrade a number of Squadrons from LB to HB, but he'll still have to fill them up and keep them operational.

So, in short. Beside the PP cost, what impact will it have on game balance?

Like I said, I haven't landed on any conclusion yet, but like SeethingErmine, I am curious as to what the reasoning behind this feature is.

Can somebody provide a link to a thread where it has been discussed?

Don't know if I read your post right but without paying PP for upgrades outside of the upgrade path would make it even easier for Japan to do those upgrades.

Okay, re-reading my post I can understand your confusion.
So, to clarify, IMO, if this feature is to be implemented (from BETA to official upgrade). It should come with a PP cost. How much, and how it should be calculated is one aspect.

Another aspect is what impact does it have on game balance? That's what I was (trying

) to adress.

_____________________________

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-Sir Winston Churchill-

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 8

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 11:52:07 AM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

Does it cost the Japanese the same 50 PPs it costs the Allies to change many 1E fighters to a type outside thier scheduled path?

With a cost of 50 just to change the path of a 1E fighter, 75 doesn't seem out of proportion (at least to me) for a change from 1E to 2E for a bomber.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 9

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 12:21:38 PM

Atilla60

Posts: 69
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Jutland, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Does it cost the Japanese the same 50 PPs it costs the Allies to change many 1E fighters to a type outside thier scheduled path?

With a cost of 50 just to change the path of a 1E fighter, 75 doesn't seem out of proportion (at least to me) for a change from 1E to 2E for a bomber.

Under the version I'm running (1108r6c), it's free to change a fighter's upgrade path. I believe the same goes for my opponent.

However, changing the upgrade path of a single engine bomber from LB to FB cost 270 PP.

_____________________________

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-Sir Winston Churchill-

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 10

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 12:55:53 PM

michaelm75au

Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Being able to change a group's upgrade path goes against what the OOB designer's originally intended in trying to show historical upgrades.

Putting some cost behind the LBA upgrades helped to alleviate their concerns.
We are trying to balance allowing players to change the upgrades against what could be considered reasonable.

I remember looking at one save where almost every second land-based air group for Allies was a 4E bomber.

If the carriers could carry them, I am sure the VS/B groups would have had 18 B-29/B-17

.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Atilla60)

Post #: 11

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 1:20:46 PM

joey

Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline

I believe the number of PPs assessed should be based on the number of planes in the group. Smaller groups should cost less. A group of nine should not cost as much as a group of 41.

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 12

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 1:21:38 PM

Banzan

Posts: 288
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

If the carriers could carry them, I am sure the VS/B groups would have had 18 B-29/B-17.

Hmm, the big brother of the Doolittle Raid. I like that idea, will it be added to the next beta ?

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 13

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 1:32:41 PM

joey

Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline

Maybe we could do some R&D and get B52s. That would make for a great Doolittle raid! I wonder how many PPs for that upgrade. I better start saving now!

(in reply to Banzan)

Post #: 14

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 1:56:02 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Michael, how about basing the PP cost on something like
2 * [max # of a/c in unit] * [# of eng of the new a/c] / [# of eng of the old a/c]?

Based on the above formula upgrading from

16 max a/c Banshee Group (1 eng) to B17 (4 eng) would cost
2 * 16 * 4 / 1 = 128PP

16 max a/c Marauder Group (2 eng) to B17 (4 eng)
2 * 16 * 4 / 2 = 64PP

27 max a/c Susie Group (1 eng) to Helen (2 eng)
2 * 27 * 2 / 1 = 108PP

and so on.

Would make upgrading to an airframe with more engines more expensive than
upgrades to same number of engines, while taking number of a/c to be upgraded into account.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/13/2012 1:57:16 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 15

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 3:01:51 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atilla60

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Does it cost the Japanese the same 50 PPs it costs the Allies to change many 1E fighters to a type outside thier scheduled path?

With a cost of 50 just to change the path of a 1E fighter, 75 doesn't seem out of proportion (at least to me) for a change from 1E to 2E for a bomber.

Under the version I'm running (1108r6c), it's free to change a fighter's upgrade path. I believe the same goes for my opponent.

However, changing the upgrade path of a single engine bomber from LB to FB cost 270 PP.

I'm running 1108r6e and it costs 50 PPs to go outside the scheduled path for many of the Allied fighters.

Doesn't seem to be the case for every squadron and I have not yet discerned the formula for which ones get hit with the cost and which ones can be done for free.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Atilla60)

Post #: 16

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 4:12:41 PM

joey

Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Atilla60

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Does it cost the Japanese the same 50 PPs it costs the Allies to change many 1E fighters to a type outside thier scheduled path?

With a cost of 50 just to change the path of a 1E fighter, 75 doesn't seem out of proportion (at least to me) for a change from 1E to 2E for a bomber.

Under the version I'm running (1108r6c), it's free to change a fighter's upgrade path. I believe the same goes for my opponent.

However, changing the upgrade path of a single engine bomber from LB to FB cost 270 PP.

I'm running 1108r6e and it costs 50 PPs to go outside the scheduled path for many of the Allied fighters.

Doesn't seem to be the case for every squadron and I have not yet discerned the formula for which ones get hit with the cost and which ones can be done for free.

I think with the Japanese the number is more like 75 pps.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 17

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 4:51:31 PM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

The interface with the military industrial complex is a very political animal. One must consider that many of the engines and airframes had already been ordered. The industrialists making these aircraft and engines had connections and political pull. To change what was ordered , planned or contracted would require spending some sort of political capital to change.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to joey)

Post #: 18

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 7:15:58 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

And why I need to pay 100PP to change a USMC squadron of 18 F4F-4 Wildcats to F4U1 Corsairs and then pay another 100PP to changed it back?

It's one time change for Japs to change 1 sentai of zeros to George and use it for 2 years.

But given the scarcity of Allied plane production, Allied player have to play around with whatever planes they got. Squadrons may need to switch between several type of planes frequently.

And this feature is really a waste of Allied PP thus created a unbalanced PP consumption.

(in reply to denisonh)

Post #: 19

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 8:42:31 PM

USSAmerica

Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline

Hmmm, as a normally Allied player, I don't think I like the sound of this PP charge at all, particularly if changing between different types of Naval fighters or other similar ac types.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 20

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 9:02:11 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

I'm just trying to make point that in the game Allied may spend many time more PP than Japan to switch type of planes. Since Allied have to change plane type more frequently.

And Michael's argument is not solid since it's totally reasonable that Allied upgrade all it's bombers to 4E bombers if they have the stock. The problem is Allied are always short of 4E bombers.

(in reply to USSAmerica)

Post #: 21

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 9:58:37 PM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

What does the PP represent.
In game, we change an aircraft type and its able to fly in a couple of days. (I'm going through Bloody Shambles v3 and one of the IJAAF Sentai was withdrawn for a few weeks to upgrade its Hayabusa)

IRL, pilots need to go to a conversion unit to learn how to fly the new aircraft, especially when going from 1E to 2E or 2E to 4E.
If its a 2-3-4 seater there has to be new crews trained up and shipped to the unit.
New engines means training for the mechanics.
New weapons means training for the armourers.
If the airfield has revetments for a 1E, you have to build revetments for a 2E.
And more.

We pay a few PP.

Given that there is more to a change of aircraft type than we have to manage, IMHO every change of type should cost PP, per aircraft and increasing depending on number of engine increase.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 22

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 10:13:40 PM

hades1001

Posts: 977
Joined: 12/17/2007
Status: offline

Then how about 100PP for USMC to upgrade from F4F-4 to F4U1 and cost another 100PP to downgrade?

And, next time, I have to another 100P to upgrade to F4U1 again? Didn't you dumbasses(the pilots I mean of course) just learned to fly a corsair last time?

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 23

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/13/2012 11:58:25 PM

Nemo121

Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Hmm, I just spent 360 PP to switch a Netty unit to flying B7A2 Graces... That's 10 PP per plane.

So I wouldn't go assuming that this is going to hurt the Allies more than Japan. I certainly never found it necessary to engage in multiple changes of fighter type if I planned things right. Instead I just used squadron rotation and didn't have to engage in upgrade/downgrade cycles.

It seems to me that it puts a useful brake on unfettered upgrading to utterly change the capabilities of units for BOTH sides. Often, however, we only see the cost to ourselves in our current game and feel this is unfair instead of considering how it applies ( and can be avoided ) to both sides.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to hades1001)

Post #: 24

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/14/2012 10:06:34 AM

SeethingErmine

Posts: 34
Joined: 1/2/2010
Status: offline

Thanks for the replies michaelm and all. I'm not familiar with the allied side but I can see how costs associated with upgrades to 4E bombers makes sense. I do appreciate the flexibility the whole system now has for changing between types when you want to and the tradeoff is worth it.

Regarding the specific upgrade of 1E level bombers to 2E level bombers, I am still not convinced the cost is really appropriate or well-balanced for IJAAF. From a rough survey, about 100 unrestricted and 60 china-area level bombers (scen 1) that formerly could be switched from 1E to 2E if air frames were available now cost 750 political points to do so. I imagine this is something that was widely done until now, at least for a large number of the unrestricted ones, but with the new rule it pretty much makes no sense compared to paying the political point cost of releasing a larger Kwangtun Army air group that can upgrade to 2E for free. Having 100+ active/usable 1E level bomber groups for duration of the war that cannot be phased out with 2E also affects factory planning (although I will admit that a potential shortage of Sonias at some point is unlikely to bring imperial plans of conquest crashing to a halt). Was this extent of a balance change intended for IJA air groups intended when the cost was set?

And, naturally, I didn't figure all this out until after I tore down my Sonia factory...

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 25

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/14/2012 3:35:45 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

750 political point is just 15 days of points. Also there's no point to convert all 1Es, you do need training sentais and Sonias work fine...

(in reply to SeethingErmine)

Post #: 26

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/17/2012 5:27:01 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

I fully support this change. It helps limit some of what I think are "gamey" early war tactics by both sides ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 27

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/17/2012 9:11:35 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Being able to change a group's upgrade path goes against what the OOB designer's originally intended in trying to show historical upgrades.

Putting some cost behind the LBA upgrades helped to alleviate their concerns.
We are trying to balance allowing players to change the upgrades against what could be considered reasonable.

I remember looking at one save where almost every second land-based air group for Allies was a 4E bomber.
If the carriers could carry them, I am sure the VS/B groups would have had 18 B-29/B-17.

I am still working on a way to pull this off.. Give me time.....

I think it is a great idea. Long as it is play for both sides I have no problem with it.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 1/17/2012 9:13:23 PM >

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to michaelm75au)

Post #: 28

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/17/2012 9:37:42 PM

bilbow

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

I like this change as well, as it puts a cost on varying from the historical path.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 29

RE: 75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB - 1/18/2012 6:43:29 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

Like they said. Frankly it was ridiculous how easily japanese player could upgrade all close support 1E bomber squadrons to Sallies. Eventually player can do it anyway, but IMO there really is more urgent use of PPs in 1942...

(in reply to bilbow)

Post #: 30