RE: Aircraft Upgrades

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: Aircraft Upgrades

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Upgrades

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 10:40:54 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
It distorts the game historically.

History goes out the window as soon as I enter orders and the random number generator gets involved in resolving the first turn. We can adhere closely to the realities of WW2, but we can't reproduce it. And why would we want to? I can go read books if I want that. The problem with this rule is that it crosses the line between adhering to the realities and enforcing history on a situation that differs from history.

I don�t necessarily disagree, but I think most of us want certain limits. We want the game to maintain some kind of historical flavor as I believe the developers do also. While allowing every Japanese army unit to fly Franks might be great in the game, was it likely to happen historically� I don�t believe so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico
I think the present system is the developer�s way of stopping the old non-historical tactic in PacWar where every Allied Groups was fly P-40s by mid-1942. It is a very good tactic in the game, but could never have been done in real life.

Restricting that is fine, as long as it doesn't interfere with making choices consistent with the events of the game. In my mind, the major problem here arises from a situation in which the Japanese do better than history and manage to get more advanced aircraft produced than they did historically. The "historical" limitations to airgroups becomes a major point for the Japanese player.

I would support a BTR style upgrade path limited by IJA/IJN divisions and with a PP cost to upgrade outside of the existing path. It would be appropriate to have additional costs for moving between subtypes - fighter bomber/fighter/float fighter or engine configurations - 1/2/4 engine.

Alternatively, I would support upgrade paths that provided more advanced aircraft as terminal upgrades with the added ability to choose the "upgrade". The list of choices should include all active upgrades and ancestors of the most advanced active upgrade. By active I mean the aircraft is being produced.

I believe the present system is both too restrictive and not logical: the historic realities that allowed the 244 to upgrade to Tony/Tojo may not be there in a player�s game. An increase in the number of option open to the player is good, but unlimited abilities to change air groups based on hindsite might be going too far. IMO

_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to Oznoyng)

Post #: 301

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 10:51:27 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl
Of course, that's not really what Japanese aficionados want to hear. They want to hear "Yes, you can build and man hundreds of Ki-84s by 1944 but you won't have to face F4Us on CVs until some time in 1945."

Actually, I want to know is why the Nate pilots in my 244 group can upgrade to Tojo/Tony�s, but my Nate pilots in my 1st group can�t. Historically, there were reasons why this choice was made by the Japanese Army, but will those same variables be there in my game?

If the Japanese historically were only able to convert 8-10 groups to Tony/Tojo, and this limitation was not caused by the lack of these aircraft, at least let me select which Nate group travels this path. As it is now, I have had to examine the future status of all fighter groups to see where the game will allow me to place my aircraft.

_____________________________

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 302

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 11:00:04 AM

Culiacan Mexico

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
There was a reason they couldn't make a thousand A8M's ...

A8Ms!

Hell, I am more interested in get Tonys and Tojos to replace my Nates, than aircraft that arrive so late in the war as to be pointless.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 303

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 3:05:39 PM

MG3

Posts: 42
Joined: 10/14/2002
From: Mr. Diehls Asshole Country
Status: offline

Just my 2 cents (and opinions):

1. as a Softwaredeveloper myself I really cant understand why someone programms a realtive complex industrial management system where the player can decite what to build and to research freely, but dont let him use the stuff he just produced. Pretty senseless- they could simply done a system like in UV with factories producing a fixed amount of stuff. Less coding for the programmers, same result for the player. Or why I should invest hours and hours as a player in optimating my industry when I cannot upgrade my airgroups even within historic limits (IJA - IJN...)

2. I players like Mr. Frag argure "it would be unhistoric", ok. Maybe we could then simply have an option where the producion and upgrades for the Jap player are fixed like for the USA. So everyone would be happy- Mr. Frag and his group wouldnt need to use the system while the ones (like me), who love micromanagement so much get their forced upgrades unlocked. I cant see why Mr. Frag & Co is so interested to spoil the fun for a relative large group of people, just because he doesnt like it. And no, it wont become suddenly "C&C Generals: Pacific Flame War" just because you allow the Japplayer to use the stuff he produced.

2b. I really dont understand this "its unhistoric, so lets forbit it for everyone" kind of people. A pretty selfcentered bunch mostly. As I said above: nobody forces them to use this kind of system- they would still have the option of historic production. And what means historic? Maybe for some people it would be better when there would be a hardcoded movie like scenario, where everything happens at the right time and same outcome. Lets remember, every thing you do which wasnt done back then is unhistoric. So great, while we could do crap like directly attacking Tokyo with the 1st Marines in 1942, we cannot use the 1000 Franks we just produced in our Nate/Oscar IJA squadrons. Very logical, indeed.

I guess there are many people here who are micromangement fetishist like me- I sometimes enjoy the R&D more then the actual game. In BTR I alway played the Axis side because of the producion and that made more fun then the actual game turn (even it had a pretty crappy interface).

(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)

Post #: 304

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 3:36:17 PM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MG3

I guess there are many people here who are micromangement fetishist like me- I sometimes enjoy the R&D more then the actual game. In BTR I alway played the Axis side because of the producion and that made more fun then the actual game turn (even it had a pretty crappy interface).

What is really amazing is that this "on-the-fly upgrade" feature is not asked by some newbies coming from the RTS world but mainly by long-time BTR players - and if the BTR players are not hard-core wargamers and so potential buyers of future Matrix games ... then I am not a bloody frogs-eater

< Message edited by Spooky -- 8/6/2004 2:36:53 PM >

_____________________________

Visit Spooky's UV & WITP Fansite !

(in reply to MG3)

Post #: 305

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 3:46:54 PM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spooky
... then I am not a bloody frogs-eater

And there was I thinking it was only the legs you ate. Didn't realise you eat all the whole frog!

< Message edited by Bodhi -- 8/6/2004 9:47:12 PM >

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 306

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 3:49:59 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

(a) Moving aircraft into production before their time by acceleration of production through over concentration.

(b) Coverting Japan's air force into something it was not.

(c) Using 20/20 Hindsight to control choice of Aircraft.

(d) Over-simplification of Japan's headache by consolodation.

You don't see *any* of these as being problems?

While people will continue to defend this as "I just want to use my 20 Franks that are sitting in the pool", that is just ducking the real issues above with a cop out answer. To think that those 20 Franks will not get burned up in a day worth of losses in your 10 Frank groups is silly, but it is a great way of ducking the real issues and making me into being a hardarse.

The point is that *yes* you made them but so what? You should have balanced your production requirements to meet your needs. That is the whole point of Japan having some measure of control, so you CAN balance your industry against your losses and continue to produce what you need for what you have, not simplify your life by eliminating all but a few aircraft types through conversion of groups to other types to completely remove this headache from japan.

It really comes across that you want a "Allied" version of Japan to play where all this is simply done for you. I can understand that and if that is what you want really, go ahead and ask for *that*. At least you are being honest about it instead of trying to cloak it into something else.

There are 31 unique aircraft types that need to be produced to keep Japan in play with all her many types of aircraft. That is the task you are faced with. Reducing this nightmare to 10 through conversions grossly simplifies your task. That is neither the desire nor the intent of the Developers who went out of their way to make Japan play as painfully realistic as possible within the limited context of what they could do. The Developers also attempted to block research into future aircraft that was unreasonable (against saying they don't want you to go down that path).

If you find that you need the 10 because the 31 is just to complex, please state *that*, it is a far more reasonable line of discussion vs the "I just want to use xyz aircraft because I made them". So what? You made them? The 10+ of the air groups you have will need them anyways.

< Message edited by Mr.Frag -- 8/6/2004 8:50:22 AM >

(in reply to MG3)

Post #: 307

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 3:59:10 PM

MG3

Posts: 42
Joined: 10/14/2002
From: Mr. Diehls Asshole Country
Status: offline

So when players want to do it- whats your problem with it? YOU dont have to use it- why you are so fanatic to spoil the fun for these people?

About your points: (I save myself the quotes- I am a kind of lazy today)
a) Moving aircraft into production before their time by acceleration of production through over concentration.

- so why the hell there is even a R&D function in this game then?

(b) Coverting Japan's air force into something it was not.

- buhuu, see point one

(c) Using 20/20 Hindsight to control choice of Aircraft.

- great argument. You have this hindsight for all the other points about the Pac War too. Using a good task force commander instead the historic indept one? Doing more ASW as the Jap player (Mogami is then the biggest 20/20 hindsight player here I guess)? Reinforcing the right bases? How do you want to keep players from this descisions. Again: see point one.

(d) Over-simplification of Japan's headache by consolodation.

- See point one. Again you have failed to make me understand a) why it is to bad for you if the players who want a little bit more freedom with functions, which YOU dont need to use and b) what sense it makes to let the player do R&D in the first place when he cant even use the junk he just produced.

Just make a switch at the game start where you can toggle the upgradepaths. Mr. Frag gets his crappy Oscars, the others get their micromanagement and a use for the production part. End of story.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 308

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 4:02:40 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Mr Frag, while you are here and making so much sense, could you also opine as to why the Nate-OscarII path in the game does not progress an additional step to Franks or Tonys?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 309

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 4:03:54 PM

MG3

Posts: 42
Joined: 10/14/2002
From: Mr. Diehls Asshole Country
Status: offline

quote:

What is really amazing is that this "on-the-fly upgrade" feature is not asked by some newbies coming from the RTS world but mainly by long-time BTR players - and if the BTR players are not hard-core wargamers and so potential buyers of future Matrix games ... then I am not a bloody frogs-eater

Thats right. Comparing this with a RTS is a big joke. After all, didnt a certain Mr. Grigsby program himself such (relative) open upgrade possiblities for WIR, PACWAR and BTR? I guess these games are also kiddies RTS games.

This discussion is so stuipid, since the people against this freedom of upgrade DONT have to use it. They just want to spoil the fun of others, whatever reason they have. God forbid that this game is being enjoyed by someone who has a different playstile or taste.

Me neither, but at least I am a bloody kraut eater

< Message edited by MG3 -- 8/6/2004 2:06:29 PM >

(in reply to MG3)

Post #: 310

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 4:21:54 PM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

I see this aspect of the game as broken, broken, BROKEN and it's something I'd like to see addressed before I part with my cash for the game, since the second scenario I'd like to try out would be the main campaign, as the Japanese, to see if - with better high-level decision making - I could do better.

(The first would be a much shorter campaign/operation to get into the game!) :)

As an analogy: In an East Front campaign, if the Germans have Panthers 'in stock', would 2BY3 expect us to keep using PZIV "because they did"? How many players would be flaming the boards over that? :)

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to MG3)

Post #: 311

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 4:56:24 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

(a) Moving aircraft into production before their time by acceleration of production through over concentration.

(b) Coverting Japan's air force into something it was not.

(c) Using 20/20 Hindsight to control choice of Aircraft.

(d) Over-simplification of Japan's headache by consolodation.

You don't see *any* of these as being problems?

Not really.

quote:

You should have balanced your production requirements to meet your needs

The point they are making is the game rules are imposing "arbitrary needs" on them, externally defined by the designers, not by the progression of play to impose someone elses opinion of history on them, in what is game conflict that no longer resembles history at all.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 312

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:11:42 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

I think my opinion on all this may well be unique, cause I'd like them (2by3) to drop the research/production/Speer altogether from this game and just give us steady replacement rates a la UV, and tell us how many oil/resurces we have to haul back to Japan each month to keep the country and industry alive.

You don't get oil/resources to Japan - you lose air replacements, shipyards work slower, and you lose political points (perhaps victory points as well). Simplistic, but overall beneficial to the game.

That way we'll get:

a) turns being less time consuming
b) game more enjoyable (relatively more time would be spent on "fun" parts - conquests, combats and military planning then on being Albertoku Speeregaya

)

We'll lose:

a) ability to be anal about production and upgrades as per 99% of posts in this thread

Hey, thinking again I'd say this is actually a benefit.

I think the *realistic* benefits to gameplay and mental sanity of the players would far outweigh any loss of "realism". Especially if we adhere to the philosophy "Japan industry was **** anyway, what DO YOU expect, you're doomed" etc.

I guess that's what developers should have done right from the start. Both sides - lets call them "Spooky's Side" and "Frag's Side" would have accepted that without the discussion, and with hindsight the game itself would have been released earlier.

Give us the ability to switch to "steady replacements a la UV" under game Preferences.

Oleg

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 313

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:15:30 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

The point they are making is the game rules are imposing "arbitrary needs" on them, externally defined by the designers,

So what, is that not the choice of every designer? to impose their view on how things work? Just because you happen to not agree with them does not make *their* view and design any less valid.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 314

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:32:16 PM

Damien Thorn

Posts: 1107
Joined: 7/24/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Give us the ability to switch to "steady replacements a la UV" under game Preferences.

Oleg

You can add replacement rates for Japanese aircraft with the editor I believe.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 315

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:51:11 PM

MG3

Posts: 42
Joined: 10/14/2002
From: Mr. Diehls Asshole Country
Status: offline

quote:

I think my opinion on all this may well be unique, cause I'd like them (2by3) to drop the research/production/Speer altogether from this game and just give us steady replacement rates a la UV, and tell us how many oil/resurces we have to haul back to Japan each month to keep the country and industry alive.

You don't get oil/resources to Japan - you lose air replacements, shipyards work slower, and you lose political points (perhaps victory points as well). Simplistic, but overall beneficial to the game.

That way we'll get:

a) turns being less time consuming
b) game more enjoyable (relatively more time would be spent on "fun" parts - conquests, combats and military planning then on being Albertoku Speeregaya )

We'll lose:

a) ability to be anal about production and upgrades as per 99% of posts in this thread Hey, thinking again I'd say this is actually a benefit.

I think the *realistic* benefits to gameplay and mental sanity of the players would far outweigh any loss of "realism". Especially if we adhere to the philosophy "Japan industry was **** anyway, what DO YOU expect, you're doomed" etc.

I guess that's what developers should have done right from the start. Both sides - lets call them "Spooky's Side" and "Frag's Side" would have accepted that without the discussion, and with hindsight the game itself would have been released earlier.

Give us the ability to switch to "steady replacements a la UV" unde

Sorry, I have no interest in such a game and would never buy such a thing. In fact, since there is already a system which let the Jap Player produce what he likes, just let him also assign the planes to the sqd. as he wishes- so the production system makes a sense.

You people just can go on with the previous system and play as you like, as you can do now and we turn a switch and can do what we like to do. I dont see a problem here.

Oh and shutting down a already implemented part of the game so the "all have to play what I think is historic" have their way is just plain stupid. I guess it did take more then 20 hours to program the industrial code in this game- so there should be some use of it.

I am starting to sound like a parrot:

why is it a problem for some people if some others have a different opinion what to expect from such a wargame? After all they are not forced to play with the new possibilities of upgrading after it would be changed, while we have to play their game and have NO chance to play like we want. Thats pure arrogance and a sun-out-of-my-a++ attitude. If they would implement a flying saucer and elephant archers in this game tommorow to make it interesting for more gamers, I wouldnt care as long as I could switch this feature off and play the game like before. So denying this upgrade change to us by some players is egoism at his best. Maybe someone of this historic experts want a special routine which deletes every game on the users which historical enough in their opinion. What- you have installed HOI? delete it or you cannot play WITP.

(in reply to Damien Thorn)

Post #: 316

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:53:37 PM

vonmoltke

Posts: 182
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Bloomfield, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

(c) Using 20/20 Hindsight to control choice of Aircraft.

...

The point is that *yes* you made them but so what? You should have balanced your production requirements to meet your needs. That is the whole point of Japan having some measure of control, so you CAN balance your industry against your losses and continue to produce what you need for what you have, not simplify your life by eliminating all but a few aircraft types through conversion of groups to other types to completely remove this headache from japan.

You are contradicting yourself here. You blast the use of hindsight in decding what aircraft to deploy, but then mention balancing your production to meet your needs which, by necessity, requires hindsight insofar as knowing the upgrade paths of current squadrons and the arrival date and composition of future squadrons. So, why is the latter OK but not the former?

quote:

(d) Over-simplification of Japan's headache by consolodation.

There are 31 unique aircraft types that need to be produced to keep Japan in play with all her many types of aircraft. That is the task you are faced with. Reducing this nightmare to 10 through conversions grossly simplifies your task. That is neither the desire nor the intent of the Developers who went out of their way to make Japan play as painfully realistic as possible within the limited context of what they could do. The Developers also attempted to block research into future aircraft that was unreasonable (against saying they don't want you to go down that path).

If you find that you need the 10 because the 31 is just to complex, please state *that*, it is a far more reasonable line of discussion vs the "I just want to use xyz aircraft because I made them". So what? You made them? The 10+ of the air groups you have will need them anyways.

Overcoming this headache is part of doing a better job than the Japanese actually did. I think one of the flaws of the Japanese war plan was in producing so many different models, much like what the German tank programs have been criticized for.

If the intention was not to allow the player the freedom to improve these decisions, then production should not have been given to the player to control at all.

I think the key issue that screws up the player ability to tweak production and upgrades is research. I like the earlier suggestion of undirected research. It removes the ability for the player to power tech their way to the top line fighters, and appears to remove most of the problems with flexible upgrades.

_____________________________

This space reserved for future expansion

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 317

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:53:43 PM

MG3

Posts: 42
Joined: 10/14/2002
From: Mr. Diehls Asshole Country
Status: offline

One addition:

yes, I am a control freak and when playing the underdog at this scale I want to have a high input and influence what to do and what not- and when I think it is better for my cause that all IJA sqd should fly franks and I have them in high enough numbers, then it should be like that. I dont think that Mr. Frags game with this feature switched off gets any less enjoyable for him.

If I want it historic- then I go and buy a book.

Sorry, thats my opinion and I dont force anyone to play like this.

< Message edited by MG3 -- 8/6/2004 3:55:36 PM >

(in reply to MG3)

Post #: 318

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 5:54:54 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

The point they are making is the game rules are imposing "arbitrary needs" on them, externally defined by the designers,

So what, is that not the choice of every designer? to impose their view on how things work? Just because you happen to not agree with them does not make *their* view and design any less valid.

In this case they made their view ambiguous....thus an 11 page thread....

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 319

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:01:04 PM

MG3

Posts: 42
Joined: 10/14/2002
From: Mr. Diehls Asshole Country
Status: offline

quote:

So what, is that not the choice of every designer? to impose their view on how things work? Just because you happen to not agree with them does not make *their* view and design any less valid.

Interesting: if I would write a product with a feature which get such a lot negative response (mixed with some positive) I would do a change. Especially when it is pretty easy to to program (I would understand your point if the community would ask for a complete production system and the game had none, costing a lot of time for implementation) and it wouldnt hurt Group B, because they could use the product like before.

So you can please both groups with a few work and now we discuss already 11 pages why the upgrade path should not be unlocked for players who like to play this way.

If thats not an arrogant attitude, I dont know what it is...

< Message edited by MG3 -- 8/6/2004 4:02:05 PM >

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 320

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:03:56 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

Why hasn't Matrix chimed in on this one yet? Afterall, this is on pace to become the largest thread in the history of this forum. Could they be as conflicted as we seem to be about it?

(in reply to MG3)

Post #: 321

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:07:23 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

The point they are making is the game rules are imposing "arbitrary needs" on them, externally defined by the designers,

So what, is that not the choice of every designer? to impose their view on how things work? Just because you happen to not agree with them does not make *their* view and design any less valid.

Then what is the point of allowing R&D without having to research certain models first?

Why make an open ended production system and then limit you on the fruits of optimizing that system?

If the designers are imposing arbitrary needs, then they've done a poor job of it as they've created a situation in which a player can spend literally 10's of hours trying to optimize for zero benefit to the player, thus the player wastes his time and effort.

quote:

(a) Moving aircraft into production before their time by acceleration of production through over concentration.

(b) Coverting Japan's air force into something it was not.

(c) Using 20/20 Hindsight to control choice of Aircraft.

(d) Over-simplification of Japan's headache by consolodation.

You don't see *any* of these as being problems?

A) Sort of like moving units in china for concentration like they weren't?

B) Like utilizing the IJA units like they weren't?

C) Using 20/20 hindsight to control the training of pilots knowing full well that the allies will produce planes that will be better than the japanese versions, thus creating some 'artificial' means of training pilots and husbanding them because of this known aircraft information.

D) Oversimplification of Japan's problems by taking the philipines and singapore well before their historic dates?

Do I see a problem with any of this? Nope, just as I don't see a problem with optimizing japans production.

Question for you, how many games have you completed from december 7 to 1946 playing each and every turn without the use of an AI commander for your side as the japanese?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 322

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:07:35 PM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Why hasn't Matrix chimed in on this one yet? Afterall, this is on pace to become the largest thread in the history of this forum. Could they be as conflicted as we seem to be about it?

AFAIK, most of the Matrix team is at the World Boardgaming Championships 2004 (August 3 - August 8) so they will probably give their input about this issue as soon as they are back ...

_____________________________

Visit Spooky's UV & WITP Fansite !

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 323

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:07:55 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Why hasn't Matrix chimed in on this one yet? Afterall, this is on pace to become the largest thread in the history of this forum. Could they be as conflicted as we seem to be about it?

Probably because they are away at the boardwargamer convention.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 324

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:12:08 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

I think the key issue that screws up the player ability to tweak production and upgrades is research. I like the earlier suggestion of undirected research. It removes the ability for the player to power tech their way to the top line fighters, and appears to remove most of the problems with flexible upgrades.

I agree completely ... research is research period. It should not be able to be directed at a specific plane. I think if it was simply removed instead of being targetable, this whole problem goes away. 2BY3 attempted to do this as best as they could without rewriting major parts of the game by making research ineffective against planes too far in the future ...

Where I seem to keep running into the wall here is that people want to use the *loophole* in the code and research aircraft against the grain then complain that because they did what the developers said no to, they should be able to use the fruits of their ill gotten gain.

I would not care about the ability to switch aircraft around at all *if* it was not the product of this *loophole* of skipping over research of planes to get to super plane xyz instead.

Some people are intent on exploiting this loophole then cloaking their intent with the "I have the planes, why can't i use them" defence. Please give a little more credit to people to see through that defense.

Just to set you straight, I am one of those who fought for user selectable aircraft within class limits. What I do not accept is using a weakness in the code to bypass aircraft to get there. I couldn't care less if you refit group with different aircraft within limits. I care about the system being exploited to achieve this due to a way of fooling the code because it doesn't say "has oscar been developed yet? If not, then no frank no matter what"

The alternative is non-directed research where no aircraft type is determined and they are all in one big list of what happens and you just get the next one in the list as available once you have spent enough on R&D. (but again, this requires major code changes so realistically is not going to happen)

Some of you need to grasp the reality that the game has been written, it is done. There will be fixes and some new features but they are not likely to gut major portions of the code because of the large numbers of problems it causes.

(in reply to vonmoltke)

Post #: 325

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:22:13 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

You all seem to be missing Frag's point. If I understand Frag correctly, he's saying that the Japanese production control exists to: 1. Allow the Japanese player to mitigate the damage caused by bombing and by air combat losses of aircraft, because 2. In this way you can hope to generate enough aircraft of a given type to replace the losses for units that are equipped with aircraft of that type.

Consider the possibilities. Since you can deploy units as you see fit and are not contrained to historical locations for units, Kido Butai might see very light losses in 1942. The Allies may not be counterattacking robustly, but you've been taking a pounding from the AVG. So you decide that since you are short on Ki-43s, you get to try to make a few more.

The question as to what sorts of aircraft a unit may fly is answered in advance. You do not get to wholesale rewrite history and deploy advanced aircraft to lots of units that never had them. In effect, you get to optimize, to a certain degree, production in a way that allows you to get the right kinds of replacements for depleted units. It's a good way to allow you to fix "ahistorical" problems in equipping units that might come about as a consequence of "ahistorical" choices as regards which units are deployed where, and losses that differ from historical ones.

It does not seem ever to have been intended as a way for the Japanese to crank out lots of advanced aircraft in greater numbers earlier than usual. The people complaining about it seem to fall into two camps: 1. Those who thought the system could be used in that way and lack a means to correct the production mistakes they've made. Maybe you can edit your game-in-progress to restore some balance to your production. 2. Those who seem to think that this capability to address some balancing problems caused by ahistoric losses should be morphed into some sort of Starship Troopers type time-warp that has the Japanese knowing in 1941 which of their 1944 designs will be the best at countering the as-yet-unseen 1943-44 Allied designs.

IMO the problem requires no "fix" and is not an error. For those who understand how to use it and what the production system allows it should work fine. For those who want a "phased plasma rifle in the 40 GW range" for every Japanese squad, play Pacific General and you can have all the 'Axis-X-Plane-Fantasy-Realized' thrill-bytes you want.

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 8/6/2004 4:25:35 PM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 326

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:24:58 PM

vonmoltke

Posts: 182
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Bloomfield, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I agree completely ... research is research period. It should not be able to be directed at a specific plane. I think if it was simply removed instead of being targetable, this whole problem goes away. 2BY3 attempted to do this as best as they could without rewriting major parts of the game by making research ineffective against planes too far in the future ...

Where I seem to keep running into the wall here is that people want to use the *loophole* in the code and research aircraft against the grain then complain that because they did what the developers said no to, they should be able to use the fruits of their ill gotten gain.

I would not care about the ability to switch aircraft around at all *if* it was not the product of this *loophole* of skipping over research of planes to get to super plane xyz instead.

Some people are intent on exploiting this loophole then cloaking their intent with the "I have the planes, why can't i use them" defence. Please give a little more credit to people to see through that defense.

Just to set you straight, I am one of those who fought for user selectable aircraft within class limits. What I do not accept is using a weakness in the code to bypass aircraft to get there. I couldn't care less if you refit group with different aircraft within limits. I care about the system being exploited to achieve this due to a way of fooling the code because it doesn't say "has oscar been developed yet? If not, then no frank no matter what"

The alternative is non-directed research where no aircraft type is determined and they are all in one big list of what happens and you just get the next one in the list as available once you have spent enough on R&D. (but again, this requires major code changes so realistically is not going to happen)

Some of you need to grasp the reality that the game has been written, it is done. There will be fixes and some new features but they are not likely to gut major portions of the code because of the large numbers of problems it causes.

I think the best alternative for this particular case is to deactivate research and lock aircraft to their historical availability date. I'm assuming, of course, that such a change isn't that difficult.

The non-directed research is a great idea for future games, though. I liked the research systems in PTOII and especially PTO IV (about the only thing I really liked about that game

). So, if 2by3 ever decides to do a grand strategy game more detailed than World at War, there's my contribution to the wish list.

_____________________________

This space reserved for future expansion

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 327

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:33:29 PM

strawbuk

Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline

Ok I find the industry/upgardes stuff er.. tricky but:

Don't forget downgrades too - I want to use up any rubbish in the pool have in Kamikazes not use Franks.

And who mentioned Albert Speer? Surely point of this wonderful game is to allow me to play God - ish. If Japan had an Albert Speer with the right authority (ie lots of PP) I sense we might have seen more streamlined production. And yes charge me HUGE PP costs to bin some production ie irritate a manufacturer whose brother in law is Tojo's aide de camp. Happily force me to do right research of all types at huge cost but when the thing arrives and my test pilots tell me it is a turkey, let me bin it may be after a minimum run of 10-20 'prototypes' (or after it has flown combat with one grp?) at PP cost as above.

If stopping production of a model is 'expensive' in PP and you still have to do the tech research, and there is still a fixed earliest possible dates for some models, and I still have to out fight the allies big time to actually get all the resource to do this, and with the retraining expe penalty, why do you care who I get to fly the damn things? Frankly you should let me give air defence fighters to bomber units but set experience to 1; they all get lost with a navigator in back and crash into a mountain....

And why not apply same to US, and even more so to Brit air production? Just as many vested interests there. And didn't some later 'great' aircraft almost get chop at protoype or first production model stage - P-47(?).

One last point; research/forced research of all models should be there as proxy for fact that both sides ran design competions for aircraft - plenty of turkeys/great ones never got past model/first proto stage but took up lots of design effort.

_____________________________

Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 328

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:40:59 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

And why not apply same to US, and even more so to Brit air production? Just as many vested interests there. And didn't some later 'great' aircraft almost get chop at protoype or first production model stage - P-47(?).

Because the Allies and in particular the US did not have nearly the resistence to rationalization as the Axis powers. There may have been as many "vested interests" but there was enough cash flwoing through the pipe and enough dedication to the task on hand to grease the points of friction. And when war industries managers were too fubar to see the point the Fed simply stepped in and threw the rascals out, replacing them with new management. Case in point: Brewster Aircraft.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to strawbuk)

Post #: 329

RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/6/2004 6:42:00 PM

Warspite**

Posts: 77
Joined: 2/26/2002
From: CA
Status: offline

The argument that to change it would make it unhistorical is wrong because its not historical now. Here is a list of fighters and the Sentais that used them. Bold are sentais that upgraded from Nates and Red from Hayabusas.

Nate equipped Sentais = 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 24, 33, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 70, 77, 78, 85, 87, 144, 246.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 48, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 77, 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 203, 204, 248.

Shoki equipped Sentais = 9, 22, 29, 47, 85, 87, 246.
Hien equipped Sentais = 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 28, 37, 55, 56, 59, 65, 68, 78, 105, 244
Hayate equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 25, 29, 47, 50, 51, 52, 64, 71, 72, 73, 85, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 200, 246.
Only 2 Sentais operated the Randy

Okay it didn't keep my colours or bold face from my word document I created, nor allow me to attach it, so here is what you have left over after the upgrades:

Nate equipped Sentais = 4, 70, 78, 144.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 48, 54, 63, 77, 203, 204.

We can see that the upgrade paths in the game are meaningless anyway, as there are no where near 34 groups of Hayabusas in WW2 nor anything like 12 Ki-102, and as we can see most surviving Sentais were equiped with the Frank. Its wrong now so whats the deal with letting us use what we build.

(in reply to vonmoltke)

Post #: 330