Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I don't want to sound polemic or anything like that, but i'm feeling obliged (sp?!) to comment.

Joc: probably the best way to judge if PDU=ON is really a game breaker as you say, for your next game you should simply try to shift sides and play on Japan with Scen 2 and PDU=ON.
I did it and it was an "eyes-opener". An Epiphany.
Once you discover how fragile is japanese power (even in 1942) you'll surely change your mind a bit.

I'm currently playing 2 games, one with Japan against QBall and one with the allies against Mr.Kane (both are DBB-C games) and i can tell you every time i open the allied game i'm amazed by the quantity and quality of my assets. In 1944 "my" Japan is a paper-****cat

I wonder if you (and perhaps a lot of other people as well) has misunderstood me with my PDU ON/OFF speculations? I have never once said its a game breaker or that its ruining the game. What I have said is that I don´t like it and I think it messes with a lot of things. This in turn takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game (at least for me). The air war have been the least enjoyable part of the game for me. I don´t think Erik has enjoyed it very much either but you will have to ask him about that.

I think (speculation on my part) that playing with PDU OFF would make things make a lot more sense and you could do away with all the HRs about night bombing, altitudes, sweep/LRCAP, airfield stacking and the myriad of different variations on this we see today.

Either people are taking things out of context or I´m being unclear. I don´t think PDU ON destroys the game. I have never said that. Is it fun having empty pool in 45 as an allied player when you are forced to push, push and push? Not at all. But it can still be done so it hasn´t broken the game. I never said it did. I´m just saying its not much fun. And I do whine about it a lot. But I think in my own AAR I´m entitled to do that?

I just don´t buy the talk that the game is impossible to play as the Japanese with PDU OFF. Do anyone here envision PzB rolling belly up because he has to play with PDU OFF? Not likely I say.

Again to make it perfectly clear: I´m just speculating around the idea that PDU OFF will give a better overall experience. For both sides. But I guess it depends on what you are after. I´m still very intrigued by fcharton and he his game. It will be very interesting to hear his thoughts when he is further in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I just think you're going to have trouble finding Japan players who will give up their woobie. (American slang for "child's security blanket." )

It think you are right about that.

I would still like to try it at least one time though. As I´ve mentioned many times now its just speculation on my part regarding PDU ON/OFF. I still think playing with PDU OFF could be a lot of fun for both sides and make a lot of the things in the game make more sense. The whole game was designed around PDU OFF after all.

I´m still convinced a potent Japanese player could do very well with PDU OFF. I just have to find one that believes the same!

If nothing else I think it might speed up turn prep time, especially for Japan.

I disagree, at least on the industry part. It would require juggling more aircraft factories. Granted, like all else in Japan's industry, once you have it set up it's easier. But setting it up takes that much longer, and it requires that much more time to check up on it. And as upgrade dates near, it would take that much more time. With PDU On, one only has to keep track of about 7-8 important airframe availability dates (Tojo/Frank, Zero, Val/Judy, Kate/Jill, IJAAF 2E, IJNAF 2E, Jack/George) along with maybe 5 or so subsidiary dates that are less important (Oscar, Nick, night fighters, Ki-83 or Ki-94, etc.).

It might speed up turn prep later when the Japanese OOB is less capable due to being stuck in 1st generation aircraft until 1944, because there won't be as much battle planning to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Have you played with PDU Off all the way through before? I remember in my first AI game I learned what PDU On did (or even that it existed), and even as the Allies my immediate thought was "Why would you ever play with it off?" It can be so frustrating to have state-side units in P-40s and P-38s when your allegedly front line units are still flying P-36s. Or like when you eventually run out of British Buffalos, but the Hurricane replacements begin to arrive and you can switch some of those squadrons.


I also encourage you (everyone) to play Japan against the AI, with or without PDU, for at least a couple of in-game months. For many reasons. I'd list them, but other people have whenever this recommendation comes up and I've got work to do .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I just think you're going to have trouble finding Japan players who will give up their woobie. (American slang for "child's security blanket." )

It think you are right about that.

I would still like to try it at least one time though. As I´ve mentioned many times now its just speculation on my part regarding PDU ON/OFF. I still think playing with PDU OFF could be a lot of fun for both sides and make a lot of the things in the game make more sense. The whole game was designed around PDU OFF after all.

I´m still convinced a potent Japanese player could do very well with PDU OFF. I just have to find one that believes the same!

If nothing else I think it might speed up turn prep time, especially for Japan.

I disagree, at least on the industry part. It would require juggling more aircraft factories. Granted, like all else in Japan's industry, once you have it set up it's easier. But setting it up takes that much longer, and it requires that much more time to check up on it. And as upgrade dates near, it would take that much more time. With PDU On, one only has to keep track of about 7-8 important airframe availability dates (Tojo/Frank, Zero, Val/Judy, Kate/Jill, IJAAF 2E, IJNAF 2E, Jack/George) along with maybe 5 or so subsidiary dates that are less important (Oscar, Nick, night fighters, Ki-83 or Ki-94, etc.).

It might speed up turn prep later when the Japanese OOB is less capable due to being stuck in 1st generation aircraft until 1944, because there won't be as much battle planning to do.

For sure I'm in first grade on Japanese industry and you're in grad school, but I thought the initial set-up of production and R&D was to allow PDU OFF paths to happen by themselves, at least into the second generation? And the only decisions were on expansion for volume, not on models? On R&D you can still turn off or change, but you can't shove more planes into groups which can't take them, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

One more post, RE: strat bombing and your perceived woes.

I think you are approaching this from a perspective of loss aversion and a desire to continue to do what you're doing, which is a very natural human thing to do. However, look at your total losses. Then look at his.

I think you should look at the 4Es as an asset to be expended in the pursuit of victory. So far you've lost 382 planes. That's 764 VPs. How many strategic losses VPs are you sitting on as a result of that? A couple of thousand, right? How has that advanced you towards auto-victory? Don't forget his night fighter losses, either.

The losses may be ahistorical, but so is the quality of Japanese resistance. Isn't that the whole point of playing to the end - to see how much better a human can do in a computer game than the Japanese did IRL?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

However, the whole war isn't fought in the air. When I thought yesterday about the ~400-500k supply I spent just on one cycle of R&D and how I could instead use that supply on the perimeter... well, it just made me think more about choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

However, the whole war isn't fought in the air. When I thought yesterday about the ~400-500k supply I spent just on one cycle of R&D and how I could instead use that supply on the perimeter... well, it just made me think more about choices.

One option you don't mention re things like Lilys is to just let the group "go." That's a valid response to PDU OFF. It saves pilots flying egg crates too. The main threat Lilys have against the Allies is guys on the ground dying laughing. You can just let the group go when you flush the pools and turn the engines to something else, or the engine factory as the case may be. I think it's a rich production decision enviro, although as you say complicated with a lot of dog and cat models.

Tracker has production run planning tabs, right? I never look in there.

Playing the Allies it kills you in 1944 to see hundreds of Corsairs and P-47s sitting in the pools and nowhere to stick them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

One more post, RE: strat bombing and your perceived woes.

I think you are approaching this from a perspective of loss aversion and a desire to continue to do what you're doing, which is a very natural human thing to do. However, look at your total losses. Then look at his.

I think you should look at the 4Es as an asset to be expended in the pursuit of victory. So far you've lost 382 planes. That's 764 VPs. How many strategic losses VPs are you sitting on as a result of that? A couple of thousand, right? How has that advanced you towards auto-victory? Don't forget his night fighter losses, either.

The losses may be ahistorical, but so is the quality of Japanese resistance. Isn't that the whole point of playing to the end - to see how much better a human can do in a computer game than the Japanese did IRL?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
However, the whole war isn't fought in the air. When I thought yesterday about the ~400-500k supply I spent just on one cycle of R&D and how I could instead use that supply on the perimeter... well, it just made me think more about choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

One more post, RE: strat bombing and your perceived woes.

I think you are approaching this from a perspective of loss aversion and a desire to continue to do what you're doing, which is a very natural human thing to do. However, look at your total losses. Then look at his.

I think you should look at the 4Es as an asset to be expended in the pursuit of victory. So far you've lost 382 planes. That's 764 VPs. How many strategic losses VPs are you sitting on as a result of that? A couple of thousand, right? How has that advanced you towards auto-victory? Don't forget his night fighter losses, either.

The losses may be ahistorical, but so is the quality of Japanese resistance. Isn't that the whole point of playing to the end - to see how much better a human can do in a computer game than the Japanese did IRL?

Finally stopped raining Legos....

In general I´m happy with the results of the strat bombings. I´m extremely happy from a VP standpoint. But right now its a game of diminishing returns. During the last month the strike size have been halved. From 220 to 120. This means flak and NFs are even more concentrated. So losses mount while results get less and less. The last raid cost me 30 B29s for only 1300 fires. The strike before that hit nothing. I need to get numbers back up before going again. Sadly this means 2 months without strikes.

But there are some light in the tunnel. The "B" version begins in just over a month. While I think it will be impossible to use them where there are NFs the higher bombload may make it productive to start hitting HI and factories directly. If it does Erik will have to start diluting the NFs over the HI and not focusing on Osaka/Tokyo alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
However, the whole war isn't fought in the air. When I thought yesterday about the ~400-500k supply I spent just on one cycle of R&D and how I could instead use that supply on the perimeter... well, it just made me think more about choices.

Ah, the seed is planted! How many of these cycles would you normally do during one game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

What's to stop you from making him think he has to defend more than Osaka and Tokyo right now?


I would say that I might do a second, far smaller cycle. But I can see how someone really focused on getting the early/mid war planes as soon as possible could focus hard on them (we're talking more than 6 factories, maybe as many as 12) and then later just switch them all to the late war models, the R&D for which doesn't really repair reliably until about that time anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

What's to stop you from making him think he has to defend more than Osaka and Tokyo right now?


I would say that I might do a second, far smaller cycle. But I can see how someone really focused on getting the early/mid war planes as soon as possible could focus hard on them (we're talking more than 6 factories, maybe as many as 12) and then later just switch them all to the late war models, the R&D for which doesn't really repair reliably until about that time anyway.

I have been unable to hit factories and HI/LI directly using the "25" version on extended range at night. I hope the increased bombload on the "B" version might make it possible to hit other targets besides Osaka/Tokyo. Havn´t tried it though so I might not hit anything with that version either.

quote:

Ground combat at Bataan (78,77)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 11324 troops, 222 guns, 352 vehicles, Assault Value = 423

Defending force 4256 troops, 50 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 75

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Allied adjusted assault: 223

Japanese adjusted defense: 13

Allied assault odds: 17 to 1 (fort level 2)

Allied forces CAPTURE Bataan !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
755 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 19 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 79 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 14 (8 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
20 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
754th Tank Battalion
25th Infantry Division

Defending units:
52nd Naval Guard Unit
25th Ind. Engineer Regiment
62nd Construction Battalion
4th JNAF Coy
15th Base Force

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Have you been able to Recon at all for a higher DL? Shouldn't that help with directly bombing factories, especially since you're doing so at night?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CyrusSpitama

Forgive me Joc. I never meant to insinuate you were currently insisting PDU-OFF. I said BEFORE you insist on PDU_OFF :P

Regardless of our opinion on this matter, do we have many AARs that saw end of war with PDU OFF and what the difficulties were with this setting?

Also, to be honest, I consider PDU-OFF to be the *hard* setting as our resident Moose hinted at. Until I am far more competent, I will keep my PDU crutch

quote:


Ground combat at Bataan (78,77)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 11271 troops, 222 guns, 352 vehicles, Assault Value = 419

Defending force 1354 troops, 29 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8

Allied adjusted assault: 383

Japanese adjusted defense: 1

Allied assault odds: 383 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), disruption(-), preparation(-)
fatigue(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1165 casualties reported
Squads: 31 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 183 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 24 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 21 (21 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
754th Tank Battalion
25th Infantry Division

Defending units:
15th Base Force

quote:

Ground combat at Tuguegarao (82,74)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2865 troops, 12 guns, 412 vehicles, Assault Value = 304

Defending force 2097 troops, 12 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 48

Allied adjusted assault: 106

Japanese adjusted defense: 10

Allied assault odds: 10 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Tuguegarao !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1233 casualties reported
Squads: 49 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 33 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 8 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 8 (5 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
193rd Tank Battalion
762nd Tank Battalion
775th Tank Battalion
713th Flame Tank Battalion

Defending units:
Maizuru 1st SNLF
34th JAAF AF Bn

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I wonder how much of that assault shipping is from Europe??

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I still find the whole subject very interesting and fascinating. But I guess the only way I will ever prove or disprove my theories is by learning the Jap side. And learn it well!

Another quite interesting think worth considering with PDU OFF from a Japanese perspective. In my game Erik has lost 35.000 planes. Thats 35.000 VPs. Playing with PDU OFF I´m certain this would/could be halved. Not having endless number of planes to throw at the allies with complete disregard for losses would certainly have a bit of a breaking effect in terms of numbers lost. Although having less potent planes it would mean a lot less offensive combat and more carefully chosen battles. Right or wrong, speculate the Japanese player can cut those losses with 10.000. Thats 20.000 more VPs the allied player has to gain for AV.

20.000 VPs is quite a large number. Then you have the added benefit of not having to produce those 10.000 fighters. There are even more VPs to be found this way. Erik has suffered 2000 losses to 2Es. That should be less with PDU OFF. He also lost a staggering 1000 losses in transport OPS losses alone. Jakes (he has done some "creative" resizing with them) are 2500 VPs.

All those number add up. If you can save 15.000 VPs on this thats 30.000 more allied VPs needed for AV in 45. Considering right now I have 85.000 VPs and need 110.000 for AV. I would need 140.000 instead. So I would barely be half way by now.

Food for thought...

quote:


I would play PDU off again if I could downgrade air units to utilize older airframes if needed or had some flexibility to improve a portion of my air units to better than historic choices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery

quote:


I would play PDU off again if I could downgrade air units to utilize older airframes if needed or had some flexibility to improve a portion of my air units to better than historic choices.

This is also why I elected to go PDU on rather than off when I started a new game. Specifically, towards the end a number of units flying obsolete airframes are provided - presumably to use up pools in the kamikaze role. However, there is no opportunity to select which groups can use up which obsolete air frames. You therefore need to carefully keep groups with old models around and that is too much micro-management with a risk of a mistaken upgrade in 1000+ turns.

On the quality issue, at least for fighters, there is an effect but I'm not sure that it is as much as first appears given careful R&D selections. There are lots of IJA groups that upgrade to the Ki-94-II and by a sustained effort that should be available late'44 or early'45. There are enough groups that can do the Ki-43-IV and that can be available mid'43. There are some things that are an issue - I think there are only 3 groups for the Ki-83 and the Ki-201 is pointless, there is little point in advancing the N1K1-J as only 1 group can use it early, etc.

Bombers is more of an issue as you are stuck with Sallys and Lilys in many groups and most of the Helen upgrades are the IIb model.

Another issue with PDU OFF that hasn't been mentioned is the extra difficulty in predicting and streamlining engine builds. This probably uses up some more supply

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Hi Jocke,

I hope you don't mind the fact I popped in here today. There was a post in obvert's AAR that I wanted to look for a comparison from the Allied point of view. However, I ran across this post of yours instead.

I think your understanding of what PDU on/off means to Japan is slightly off base. In either case Japan can produce as many aircraft as they want and lose as many. The difference is the number of better aircraft you'll face.

For example, with PDU off Japan is limited to three air units that can fly the Ki-44-IIa Tojo until something like mid 1943. These three units total 85 aircraft. So for almost a year and a half you'd face at most 85 Tojo's on any given day. Japan can produce as many Tojo's as necessary to keep these three units equipped and because of the low numbers of them most likely lose a ton of them. So what does that mean, it means you're going to be facing a crap load of Oscar's and Zero's for a long time.

As to your comment about Japan suffering less losses under PDU off, I have to think you'd be wrong. If anything the losses would most likely be higher because the Allied player would be facing a ton of A6M2 Zero and Ki-43 Oscar aircraft for the remainder of the war. They'd be shot down in droves and most likely require even higher production numbers to keep pace with losses. The Allied counter to this is "but you'd face less P-38's and P-47's too" and I say so? I'd rather have 10 P-47's than 100 Oscar's any day of the week. I bet an Allied player's aircraft pools would look great though in PDU off.

PDU on/off has nothing to do with whether Japan produces more or less aircraft, it's only a question of what kind of aircraft are produced. The other downside which affects either player is the ability to downgrade aircraft, you can't! So you have to be aware of the possible ramifications of upgrading units.

As you mentioned, you really do need to play Japan at least once to get a better understanding of exactly what it's like. Then you'll understand the angst most Japanese players go through as any reduction in capability has a huge impact.

I would play PDU off again if I could downgrade air units to utilize older airframes if needed or had some flexibility to improve a portion of my air units to better than historic choices. Without the ability to somewhat customize my air units under PDU off, it remains an option I choose not to play. I don't want to simply simulate the same inept decisions the Japanese High Command did.

Just some thoughts as to why PDU off is often resisted. It may be the more historic choice, but we all know how that went for Japan, don't we? Have you ever looked at some of the late war aircraft Japan is forced to fly with?

I'm outta here and looks like I'm going to have my hands full trying to avoid getting crushed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery
Bombers is more of an issue as you are stuck with Sallys and Lilys in many groups and most of the Helen upgrades are the IIb model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spidery
Bombers is more of an issue as you are stuck with Sallys and Lilys in many groups and most of the Helen upgrades are the IIb model.

Well, my experience with Japanese bombers is that past 42 they are useless anyway. I honestly can´t think of one single instance after 42 where I cared one bit about Japanese ground/airfield bombings.

A good example is when Erik tried to close Tinian AF. He was left complete alone doing that. Only some AA at the base (pre BETA). He never closed it for 2 months going at it daily. Not until supply ran out the field was actually closed. Once supply arrived it was fixed in a day.

With increased flak in the BETA its going to have even less impact. So I think its kind of a moot point about the bombers.