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  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 7:58:21 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL!


Prove me wrong.

_____________________________


(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 601
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:04:03 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Mr Frag,

a. I agree
b. I agree if what you are saying is research is generic i.e. you allocate research points to Navy or Army (or possible Navy Bombers/ Navy Fighters/ Army Fighters/ Army Bombers) and that availability dates are therefore accelerated across the board for these categories dependent on research.
c. Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? I agree

hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Not sure about this one but could be livable with if it was a 15 day or 30 day return

Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Yes

Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

Not sure of these I would say if a player is silly enough to leave no reserve then thats there fault. On allied side I would like it (I only really play allies ) but could live without it I only really view it as an issue for Japanese.

d. For simplicity (and I accept this will give some strange situations) I would keep reinforcements as is.

e. Would love it but as with d above I would leave it as is as long as upgraded gp keeps old pilots but at reduced exp.

f. This is the real nasty one. I am guessing it would have to be PBEM only via a toggle. The simpler we keep any amendment the easier the computer could cope with it but there is no easy solution hence i think tobggle is best answer.

Andy


F. is always the killer on these types of changes. This rework would probably require a fairly extensive rewrite of the AI, IF the AI were to be made to make use of it. Otherwise, in AI games the Jap AI just uses the existing upgrades and research configured at the start. This "fix" is really for the human Jap player, really. Although I'm not sure it would be too tough to work the AI to do a pool check to switch models if the pool was empty of it's current models and suitable model was available in sufficient quantity in the pool

On reinforcements, I'll speak from personal experience on cross-training. Cross training, even in the next seires in a model (F4C to F4D for instance) typically required a minimum of 4-6 weeks, longer if say F4D to F15. So disbanding for a period of 30-45 days would probably be realistic to simulate cross-training of pilots. Not sure what cross training timing was in WWII, though.

Bottom line, a logical progression research model that does not allow player to jump directly from Claudes to Reppu's. Maybe not as restrictive as no A6M5's before A6M3's (as there WAS some parallel development going on), but certainly the preceding model needs to be well along before beginning on the next one. And updrade system that let's you upgrade, with some logical limits like IJA to IJA, Fighter to Fighter, etc... to anything in the pool, up or down. And something to simulate cross-training. The "cost" of upgrade is reflected in the time the unit is out of action due to cross-training. Penalties for changing plant production from one model to the next and perhaps the same limitations on those as upgrades (fighter plants produce fighter or pay an extra penalty if converted to different general type).

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 602
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:09:14 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, lets try and net out the thread.

a) Planes should have a variable cost?

Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model.

b) Research should be blind to the player?

While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft.

c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft?

Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

d) Reinforcements?

Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability?

e) Pilots?

Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above?

f) AI?

How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls?



Mostly good stuff here. Doesn;t need to be that complicated, though. Bottom line

1) Reasonably logical progression of research.

2) Upgrade/Downgrade to anything in the pool within certain logical limits (IJA-IJA, Fighter to Fighter, etc...)

3) Some penalty to simulate cross-training. It usually takes pilots 4-8 weeks to adequately cross train. So disbanding upgraded units for 30-60 days is fair. And simulates other "costs" as well vs complicated PP systems

4) AI doesn't need to use the system at all. It just defaults to the starting setup and upgrade paths. It shouldn't be too hard to add some AI flexibility, though, to switch to allowed models if the pool is empty, the plant bombed out, and other models are in the pool.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 603
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:10:01 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
So, what's everyone doing this weekend?

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 604
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:11:01 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
Perhaps on #3 player could opt to trade serious reductions in pilot skill levels for less training time to simulate stressed out Jap pilot training late in the war....

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 605
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:12:07 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: byron13

So, what's everyone doing this weekend?


I'm actually going to do a PBEM turn or two.....imagine that. After my Sat golf date, that is....

(in reply to byron13)
Post #: 606
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:12:53 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 607
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:17:14 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution.


Sometimes you guys are thick as hell! That was a tongue-in-cheek comment to Frag's insistance on detailed design suggestions when we have no idea what the upgrade/research implementation looks like. We see a lot of "that's a design issue, so no" type of response. Fine, then we can't obviously submit anything useful and "implementable" for substantive change requiring design tweeking, because we are shooting blindly.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 608
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:18:15 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
I understand what it was. I just feel that all of us need to not go OT, so we can get this problem fixed.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 609
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:22:18 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution.


Sometimes you guys are thick as hell! That was a tongue-in-cheek comment to Frag's insistance on detailed design suggestions when we have no idea what the upgrade/research implementation looks like. We see a lot of "that's a design issue, so no" type of response. Fine, then we can't obviously submit anything useful and "implementable" for substantive change requiring design tweeking, because we are shooting blindly.


And you'd be quite surprised how WRONG you may be on the source issue. Most of what I have written over the years has included source code distribution to the customer! They do that en-lieu of big dollar maintenance contracts. Usually once they get the code, though, they give up and opt for a maintenance contract. That, I write a large volume of OpenSource stuff on SourceForge projects. ANd that is a world where anything "Closed" is viewed as the Devil-incarnate. And ever work on Unix? Just about everything that ships on those platforms has source code options. The Configure, Make, Make Install is quite familiar with Unix veterans...

So yes, source-code distribution is NOT that alien a concept in the world I live in.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 610
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:32:14 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL!


Prove me wrong.


Benn there, done that. Have a copy of OS/2? The only title I ever saved from a game I wrote was a version of North Atlantic '86 in 1992 for OS/2. It has a much enhanced AI, added aircraft and new ships and more bases, but it is essentially a NA 86 on steroids written to run on 32bit OS/2 PM and compiled using OS/2 VisualAge C++ V3.0. If I can find the old diskettes, and they aren't rotten, I can zip up the .exe's and .dlls and source code and send it. It used to live on Hobbes (New Mexico St Universities OS/2 software archive slot). It may still be there, I don't know. At one time it had over 6,000 downloads...

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 8/13/2004 6:34:40 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 611
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:34:37 PM   
VicKevlar

 

Posts: 881
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline
Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it?

_____________________________

The infantry doesn't change. We're the only arm of the military where the weapon is the man himself.

C. T. Shortis


(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 612
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:36:00 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar

Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it?


How about ENDING this thread by having a Matrix official give it a thumbs up or thumb down. 21 pages and not a peep.

(in reply to VicKevlar)
Post #: 613
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:41:51 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Benn there, done that.


sure you have. But Vic is right. I look forward to your game if you ever produce it.

_____________________________


(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 614
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:51:33 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
IRRELEVANT POSTING WARNING

I'll admit upfront that i like to play the ija/ijn side and that i'm definately not competent as of yet to handle the production/resource side of the game. Originally I was in favor of changes to allow an ija/ijn player complete control over all of his resources, including upgrades and downgrades. The more i read this thread the more i'm thinking in the "you'll get nothing and like it" judge smails from caddyshack sort of way. Providing one side with a level of control over production/research allows him to more effectively utilize upgrades and downgrades than the other player. That's inherently unfair. If i was playing the allied side (i haven't started one yet) i wouldn't like the fact that the other guy got more toys than i did. When i play japan i start with the greatest single advantage in this game besides the fact that my ship names are so much cooler . . . Midway has't happened and the allied player still has to compete against the Midway has happened timeframe. Maybe I'll change my mind again when i'm up to '44 or '45. Only up to 7/42 atm in scenario 15.

BTW is this the most entertaining or worst thread since the f4f v. zero thread on uv?

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 615
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:58:12 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I understand what it was. I just feel that all of us need to not go OT, so we can get this problem fixed.


Well, a good start would be Matrix/2X3 even admiting this is a problem in the first place! The silence is DEAFENING.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 616
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:05:24 PM   
esteban


Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
It seems to me that while the Japanese player should not be able to R&D specific designs (because he already knows their performance from the aircraft DB numbers), there is a lot of obfuscation going on over the issue of model-specific R&D.

It seems, even if you pour a ton of resources into researching a particular model, that you cannot advance that model's availability more than 6-8 months. Having Reppus in December, 1944 is nice for the Japanese player, but hardly a game-breaking advantage.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 617
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:10:54 PM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, lets try and net out the thread.

a) Planes should have a variable cost?

Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model.

Agreed. It does not have to be this complex. Costs for planes do not have to change. The increasing average cost as new planes are developed has the same effect. This is what is in BTR now.

b) Research should be blind to the player?

While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft.

Disagree. The preformance characteristics of planes being developed was not unknown, just often ignored. Also, the planes were DESIGNED to the preformance.


c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft?

Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

I urge caution. It does not take that much to change from similar models of the same planes. As I mentioned before, the Germans often changed Gruppen from ME-109 to FW-190 depending on what was available, and did not disband or stand down for log periods of time.

d) Reinforcements?

Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability?

e) Pilots?

Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above?

f) AI?

How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls?


I'm not sure this is a problem. If the AI can put the best plane availabe into a squdron it should. Did it not work this way in Pac War?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 618
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:11:50 PM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline
Please note most of my responses to Mr. Frag are burried inside the box with his quotes. Sorry I did not use the proper format.

(in reply to joliverlay)
Post #: 619
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:17:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were…?

Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree?


I wasn't talking about 1945. Rather, 1942-3. However even in 1945 there were still P-40 units. Same goes for the German example. ME-109's fought to the end of the war and was the numerically largest airframe built.

So no, i disagree, it is not historical. That doesn't make it wrong but it is rather an inevitable course of action and IMO produces an ahistorical situation. As an option though, i have no problem with it, nor did i have a problem with less restrictive upgrade options. I was particularily in favor of downgrades because they represented a sizable pool for Kamakazi attacks.

_____________________________


(in reply to Culiacan Mexico)
Post #: 620
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:05:16 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Guys

As I see it all I would like as a minimum position is 10 - 20 of the Oscar 2 gps changed to upgrade to a variety of late war aircraft to give a Japanese player able to produce better fighters more options to use those fighters he has produced.

Can be Tojo's Randys/ Franks anything but basically a variety to provide options.

As I see it this is a simple fix that in reality can be done by using the editor without breaking anything.

Exact number and and upgrade path can be fought over elsewhere.

For me that would solve 90% of the problems. (Even just make it an alternative to the existing 15 so that you the player have the choice of which one to play)

I would like a fully flexible model if possible for both sides similar to the one outlined by Frag on page 20 of this thread.

If I have to I can live with the game as is because its such a great game that I will be playing it for years anyway.



Now I think this thread has got a tad out of hand so this will be my last post on it I will watch it with interest

Andy

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 621
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:23:30 PM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered.

Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?


And that has what to do with picking what aircraft a squadron will fly? Oh thats right, nothing. Off and running with the goalposts again Frag?

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 622
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:36:34 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Saying "how many P-40 units were there in 1945" is like the argument about M3 Light tanks. In the ETO and MTO, they were completey outclassed. As such, they were phased out considerably. However, in the PTO, M3 Light tanks were more widely used than Shermans, mainly because a Stuart could deal with ANY of the Japanese tanks.

I for one plane to have several P-40 squadrons at the end of the war. Mostly N, but a few E models.

As to the R&D thing, like vonmoltke I like the old PTO I and II system used by Koei. You would spend money (which for WiTP could be supply, resources, pp, etc) and so much would advance you to a level. At certain levels, particular airplanes (and also ships in PTO) would become available. Then, once you had the ability to produce the plane, you could began building the plane in numbers. While doing this, you could continue research.

After another high had been reached, you could build that plane too. So, each plane would have different costs to be built, thus forcing the player to decide on large amounts of old planes, or smaller amounts of new planes.

Another conept pioneered by PTO was its aircraft assignment. While it did not use real squadrons (a downer), it did let you assign planes to squadrons at base airfields, and on ships. On carriers, for instance, you had 4 squadrons available. This represented the VF, VS, VB, and VT assigned to a carrier. You could allot a max of 20 planes to each, and assign any plane you wanted (provided, of course, it was a navy plane). So, if you wanted to, you could put 20 F2As, 20 F4Fs, 20 F6Fs, and 20 F4Us.

While that particular system is unrealistic, the concept is a good one. If the player could allot any US naval fighter that he has in his pool to his VFs, or any bomber, etc, that would be what the game was supposed to be. IMO, that would be the best solution.

In addition, since the WiTP website touts "Complete control of aircraft upgrades", what we have here, unfortunately, constitutes false advertisement. I'm not saying that I'll sue Matrix or anybody, because I love the game. However, we do deserve what we were promised.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 8/13/2004 2:37:30 PM >


_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 623
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:53:58 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont.

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)


I would 100% support this solution!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 624
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 10:58:07 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
I also support it 100%, I just got buried in the shouting. I thought about starting a new thread, that way if and when it got out of control I could request it to be locked.

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 625
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/14/2004 5:25:15 AM   
vonmoltke


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

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
So, if you wanted to, you could put 20 F2As, 20 F4Fs, 20 F6Fs, and 20 F4Us.

One minor correction Tankerace: only two models of each type were allowed to be in service at any given time. To produce a new aircraft, not only did one of the old lines have to be shut down, but the existing aircraft had to be scrapped.

The control of loading aircraft on ships was a little more defined than "army vs. navy"; the game did make a distinction between carrier capable and non-carrier capable aircraft. It only mattered to the Japanese player, though.

_____________________________

This space reserved for future expansion

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 626
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/14/2004 5:31:44 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

My idea, nay "solution"


Only 2 could be in production, but on the East coast you always still had some F2As and Wildcats, even after shutting down the prod. lines.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to vonmoltke)
Post #: 627
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/14/2004 12:24:21 PM   
steveh11Matrix


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

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one....



Steve.


Err what did I say that was off topic?
Spoke about upgrades, research and wether things are historical/realistic

Top Cat

Sorry TC that wasn't aimed at you!

My mistake with the "Reply to" button

Actually aimed at certain people who were effectively hijacking the thread with a "My **** is bigger than yours" type argument.

I notice that no devs have been in and finished this yet....

Steve.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Top Cat)
Post #: 628
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/14/2004 4:52:08 PM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

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

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar
Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it?



I didn't even get a chance to brag about my pathetic attempts at programming Basic two decades ago or the joys of FORTRAN on punch cards while owning a cat.

_____________________________

"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 VicKevlar)
Post #: 629
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/14/2004 4:56:56 PM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were…?

Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree?


I wasn't talking about 1945. Rather, 1942-3. However even in 1945 there were still P-40 units. Same goes for the German example. ME-109's fought to the end of the war and was the numerically largest airframe built.

So no, i disagree, it is not historical. That doesn't make it wrong but it is rather an inevitable course of action and IMO produces an ahistorical situation. As an option though, i have no problem with it, nor did i have a problem with less restrictive upgrade options. I was particularily in favor of downgrades because they represented a sizable pool for Kamakazi attacks.
Weren’t most of the front line P-40s N-models and not ‘E’? The same goes with the Me109, most of the model ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, etc were long gone before the end of the war… at least in front line units.

The need for ‘better’ aircraft was constantly being felt by the manufactures. Some of this was taken care of by producing new aircraft while much of it was done with upgrades. Agree or disagree?

< Message edited by Culiacan Mexico -- 8/14/2004 5:06:08 PM >


_____________________________

"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 Nikademus)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Upgrades Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   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

0.641