RE: What about EXP?

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: What about EXP?

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: What about EXP?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

[Poll]

Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?

Yes

69% (145)

30% (64)

Total Votes : 209

(last vote on : 1/17/2005 7:42:03 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 12:11:48 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

The Allied production rates are 1711 aircraft per month when the game starts. It only goes upwards from there.

Even dealing with the FG (the largest unit in the game), thats 23 complete groups of aircraft every single month.

yea, but for the most part that is 23 groups of planes that can not be used

most times until the later part of the war, every P-39, P-40 and B-17 made is used as soon as it is made, and Whirleaways and A-20's build up by the 100's

most times, the SBD and TBF's build up to large numbers unless there is a major sea battle, and only then, if you win, are they lowered any

the Allies (at least in the games I play) gets lots and lots of planes, that they can not use

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 61

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 1:51:47 AM

Jaws_slith

Posts: 615
Joined: 1/11/2002
Status: offline

Well Yes or No... just give us the option (with or without PP ) in the next patch so we can start playing

_____________________________

Good Hunting

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 62

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 2:57:22 AM

rogueusmc

Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I voted yes.

Reason? Gamey tactics. While no one would do it, without any hit it would be possible to go from A6M2s to A6M3s (assuming you had them) to A5M4s, and Back to A6M2s. The player should have to do something to facillitate a change. That said, I don't mind if they don't pay PPs, but if the pay in supply, HI, etc. But the player should not be allowed that as soon as all planes get shot down he can instantly up or downgrade and get new planes. I applaud giving the player a choice, but lets not make it gamey.

I thought about this too...

Why not keep the paths and make the player do what the computer has to do when a squadron arrives with no planes in the pool for it. It draws planes from the pool that upgrade to the aircraft needed. Make the player take a step back, then take the other branch path.

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 63

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 3:12:42 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

vote yes bring it on.....

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 64

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 3:15:13 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

Who got what for any side was random and situational, in the real war.

All units that upgrade should pay a small hit after an upgrade in experience points.

Those with greater experience points should lose less, percentage wise.

Better pilots do adapt better and sooner.

While the aircraft are being uncrated and made ready (under repair), the grounded unit (essentially) would get the opportunity to train some points back, at a fatigue and supply cost.

------------------------------

How many of us voting no play the Japanese most of the time, while those voting yes play the Allies most of the time.

I rarely play as the Allies.

Managing the tight resources and time schedule of the Japanese Empire is a difficult task - its engine dependant aircraft production system is a real joy.

< Message edited by Wilhammer -- 1/5/2005 8:20:12 PM >

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 65

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 3:38:38 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

It's on my 1968 Corvair.

ah-HAH! They stopped making 'em in 1965. I KNEW you were an imposter!

One last chance before I turn you in to the Grand Wizard. What is the origin of license plate number KKK-U2?

quote:

An on/off button is fine. That should satisfy the grognards and sci-fi players alike.

That's my whole problem. They are messing around with the guts of the game. "On" will mean "Totally ridiculous," and "Off" will mean "Totally ridiculous because the game has all this sh1t built into it."

One last thought. Scan through the "leader leak" material. Who's to say that this "option" will not have "leak" effects on games where the players have said, "No"?

How much do you trust the integrity of this game system anymore (and those who fiddle around with it)?

(in reply to Halsey)

Post #: 66

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 4:21:45 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

I find myself winging it all the time. Racing the IJA bullit train. Suffering with Chinese pilots commanding US subs. Garbage Indian troops, that don't get jack for replacements.
The only real joy right now are the B-17's. They are the only units that seem to accomplish anything.

It was a Monza. Haven't looked under the tarp lately!

_____________________________

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 67

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 8:40:51 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

I voted no. But here is why. I don't think the act of upgrading should actually be what costs points. If you have a supply of aircraft that aree in a depot not being used and a unit flying older aircraft that is in dire need of an upgrade why should that cost anything?

Where the political points should be charged is when factories are converted from historical production levels. Changes in the aircraft industry are VERY political.

Perhaps one PP for evey factory point converted. If this is done though Japan might need a little boost in PP to account for the extra category in which they must be spent. I am an Jap Fanboy after all

Believe me I know something about the governement acquistions world. Just try telling Congress that an aircraft needs a different piece of gear than the one it was sold with as a package deal...
(FLY NAVY)

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 68

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 10:55:06 AM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

got to disagree here also
off the top of my head, the first that comes to mind is the 4th FG changeing to the P-51

also, there were units that would bring in one or two of the newer plane type, to be flown by all hands, while the stock pile was being built up for there change over

a number of GE units would change models as they came in, how many times do you see a JG that the Staffels are flying different planes

so I do not think a "large" exp drop is needed

(alot of times what we see in unit from the PTO and what not, when they were pulled out of the line for R@R and refit, would then be giving new plane types, for training and working up, but they would of been out of the line anyway)

The problem here is that in WitP the aircraft change would be done at front lines while, historically, it was almost always done in rear areas (with notable exceptions).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

Apollo 11, I respectfully disagree. You are probably thinking about modern aircraft where the changeover can easily take several months even for an experienced pilot (they have to learn all the new systems, mainly - their former aircraft will have been 1-2 generations earlier). With WWII aircraft, there wouldn�t be nearly that much of a difficulty. If you can believe Scott Crossfield�s autobiography, all he needed to switch from the Hellcat to the Corsair was a single familiarization flight. German fighter pilots switched frequently between types without a lot of adversarial effects.

BTW, I voted for no PP penalty for switching the upgrade path. If there is any penalty at all, it should be for re-equipping a unit, EVERYTIME. Re-equipment planes have to be produced, assigned, transported to the receiving unit etc.

It's not just modern jets that are sophisticated and require long transition.

How can anyone think that following changes (from current WitP v1.40 upgrade scheme for Allies) do not require long transition time:

P-39D -> P38G
B-18A -> B-17C
B-17E -> B-24J

Those aircraft are so different that no one can expect that same pilot (or crew) who flew older aircraft can jump into new one and fly with same skill and same efficiency in matter of days (and we have exactly this situation in WitP)...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

You guys must have forgot. When you upgrade, all the aircraft are in a not ready state (I'm at work and can't get the ture term). The time it takes to get the new aircraft into a ready state represents the pilots getting use to the new model. This was our answer to the experiance issue. I do not see this changing.

The days in WitP required for all new aircraft to repair when there is aircraft switch are just days and not weeks and months that would historically be accurate time wise for such change.

Can someone post real data about historical aircraft changes for Allied fighter and/or bomber groups?

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 siRkid)

Post #: 69

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 11:02:01 AM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

I voted no ... I don't see any sense in having any cost other than the current one where all of the a/c arrive damaged. People who don't like the new upgrades can just turn it off ... simple. Why do you guys always have to try to further complicate things?

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 70

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 11:20:13 AM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

Why do you guys always have to try to further complicate things?

So they can complain later abut rule xyz and how it makes things impossible

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 71

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 11:40:18 AM

Spooky

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

I voted no ... I don't see any sense in having any cost other than the current one where all of the a/c arrive damaged. People who don't like the new upgrades can just turn it off ... simple. Why do you guys always have to try to further complicate things?

I voted no and I agree with Doktorblood - if you do not like this feature then turn it off but please do not try to disable it with some PP cost

< Message edited by Spooky -- 1/6/2005 10:40:53 AM >

_____________________________

Visit Spooky's UV & WITP Fansite !

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 72

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 12:02:44 PM

WhoCares

Posts: 653
Joined: 7/6/2004
Status: offline

My vote for yes was based on the assumption that the traditional upgrade path for the airgroups was still intact, until the player starts to mess with moving them to different planes. And only airgroups are affected and there is no option to generally say all Nates upgrade to Tojos (maybe even incl. fabs).
If it was this way, it would make sense to pay for deviating from the 'traditional' path. However, if we are talking about paying for every upgrade (even if it was the 'traditional' one)....

Can someone please clarify what is really affected by the change?!

(in reply to Spooky)

Post #: 73

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 1:28:26 PM

BlackVoid

Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline

I voted no.

It is very hard to answer this poll without knowing how the feature is going to work.
I very much prefer the solution that has already been done by modders: allow dead-end 42 designs to be upgraded to more advanced models.

If the upgrade path change is expensive Japan will suffer not only the retooling cost of the factories but also the added PP or whatever cost. Allies do not have to worry about retooling.

If the upgrade path change is free or costs little then Japan still has to pay the retooling costs, while the allies can do whatever they want for free.

I see this as a no-win situation for Japan. But there is an even bigger problem.

With their insane production levels the allies can change all Wirraways to SBDs or F4Fs. P-39 and P-400s can upgrade to F4F then to Corsair or P-38. Hurricanes likewise can easily be changed to F4Fs. Did the allies really have the production levels that are in the game? Even after having the Corsair and F6-F, did they really continue producing all the obselete types in such large numbers? I think not.

I am at work so I cannot look up the allied replacement rates in the game, but IIRC the F4F-4 replacement rate is something like 120/month. Yearly that is 1440 planes, continuing until the end of the war. Just looking at a website:(http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4f_wildcat.html)

This lists F4F-4 production total as 1151 planes. In WITP during the war the allies get in excess of 4000 ac. In 42 allies need most of the F4F-4s to fill out F4F-4 squadrons, but after that they can upgrade all their obselete designs to the F4F-4 with a fantasy build capacity that lasts the entire war. This same situation is true for all the allied planes because all the replacements continue on whereas in real life production of old models was stopped. This gives the allies a surplus of AC that NEVER EXISTED.

Conclusion: if the allies are allowed to change around upgrade paths and production levels are not fixed, the game becomes seriously unbalanced and unrealistic.

(in reply to WhoCares)

Post #: 74

RE: What about EXP? - 1/6/2005 3:25:51 PM

kayjay

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: JS J4 Pentagon
Status: offline

My vote was 'no' based on the assumpton that upgrades would be be limited within type ie
ftr-> better ftr - but
this could get messy -
ftr-bmbr to ftr? (game does it now)
2E bmbr to 4E bomber?
TOG to ?
Cross nationality (for allied )
RAF units to B29 ?
etc

_____________________________

Kevin Kelley

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 75

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 3:55:34 PM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

I voted yes. There has to be the price for changing the history.

And I think allies should not have this option at all. Or at least PP penalty for Allies has to be enormous.

P.S. I'm in July 1943 playing allies against AI and have more than enough Lightnings, Hellcats and Corsairs to wipe the table by Jap air force.

I also voted yes for the penalty. But the food for thought is that the Japanese will see the benefit very early on with better planes and production that isn't challenged by losses, while the allies won't benefit much at all in the early days until they start to stockpile and roll over any IJN force. So I don't know if complete choice of paths is going to be helpful to playbalance. I think players just like to micromanage and get rid of their non performing equipment.

BTW if this equipment (AKA the Nate) was sooo bad, then why didn't the Japanese just change the squadrons to all zero's historically? Politics. So allowing any type of changes we are even more so pulling away from history. I agree that we should be allowed to go backwards to excess pool planes if we are short. There must be a stiff penalty to go outside the upgrade path, otherwise the change may create more problems with game balance.

(in reply to testarossa)

Post #: 76

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 4:06:44 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

But the food for thought is that the Japanese will see the benefit very early on with better planes and production that isn't challenged by losses, while the allies won't benefit much at all in the early days until they start to stockpile and roll over any IJN force.

Interesting slant that needs to be thought about when looking at what you just said ...

Japan would be paying pp costs during the early days when pp stockpiles are rare.

Allies would be paying pp costs after collecting them for a good year due to the fact that they really don't have anything worth spending pp on until 1943.

So a pp charge is actually a japan only charge unless the us rate is more expensive to compensate for the fact that the USA will have tons of pp banked up by the time they need to start spending it.

(in reply to medicff)

Post #: 77

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 5:40:30 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

Allies would be paying pp costs after collecting them for a good year due to the fact that they really don't have anything worth spending pp on until 1943.

I disagree...

Saving LCU's and air units from the PI and DEI has always emptied my PP piggie bank throughout most of '42, not counting switching "west coast" arrivals to something else.
It's not until '43 that I start to accumalate PP points. I haven't played the Japanese side yet, but I assume that it's probably similar for that player.

Now, I assume that a P-40E squadron will automatically be "pathed" to upgrade to an P-40N type without further PP cost. Only changing it to P-47 or P-51 subtypes would cost ya. (In other words, leaving the "scenario scripted" paths alone, upgrades are still free in terms of PP.) Is my assumption correct?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 78

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 8:01:31 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Frag, are we staying in type with this upgrade path?

IJA - IJA
IJN - IJN
fighter to fighter
FB - FB
DB - DB

I do not like the idea really if it allows bombers to be changed to fighters. Or if and when I see P400 groups upgrading to Corsairs.

Because if the IJA fighter groups can be switched to Zero's, then the PP cost should be 300 pp points or so. After all the IJA basically hated the IJN and vice versa.

Same should be done for the Allies if they start issueing Corsairs to the Army.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 79

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 9:31:00 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

Hi Apollo
still got to disagree with parts of your thinking

P-38 vs P-39 totally different plane

sure, but how many trained P-38 pilots , wern't trained in the P-39 to start with ?, it was the basic fighter trainer back in the states ?

also following that line of thought, many tained pilots, even were trained to fly more advanced planes then the planes they flew once they joined a combat unit

and of course, there is the story from Hearthmann, when he got to the front with some other pilots, they were told where to go, to join there new unit, and oh by the way, we need some Ju-87's taken to the front, your pilots, fly them up there (of course, that didn't turn out too well :))

HARD_Sarge

_____________________________

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 80

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 9:40:04 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

But the food for thought is that the Japanese will see the benefit very early on with better planes and production that isn't challenged by losses, while the allies won't benefit much at all in the early days until they start to stockpile and roll over any IJN force.

Interesting slant that needs to be thought about when looking at what you just said ...

Japan would be paying pp costs during the early days when pp stockpiles are rare.

Allies would be paying pp costs after collecting them for a good year due to the fact that they really don't have anything worth spending pp on until 1943.

So a pp charge is actually a japan only charge unless the us rate is more expensive to compensate for the fact that the USA will have tons of pp banked up by the time they need to start spending it.

Hi, As Japan by March 42 I have several thousand PP stockpiled. I think the answer here is simple. Another "on/Off" toggle since so many players want to upgrade. I want to upgrade as well. My only concern is it is so easy to do. It does not cost anything extra. The Japanese are all ready changing factories (spending the supply) but currently it goes into R&D and A6M2. PP cost will not hurt the Japanese either. But it will make them have to decide just what they are going to do. Move units from Manchuria or upgrade the fighters?
So prehaps we need 2 toggles
Upgrade "on/off"
PP cost "On/off"

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 81

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 9:59:51 PM

BlackVoid

Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline

I cannot believe noone is concerned with the implacation of allies mega production.
Allies already overproduce historical production figures in some cases 4 times.

With this change they will be able to use all that surpluss 10000 or more AC (that was never produced historically).

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 82

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:01:51 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Mogami, you obviously save your PP points. I do not get above 500 PP points until around March 1942. But I am also spending them by changing HQ's around. And even then I spend them as fast as I get them. I could save more if I just made every unit Southern Army, but that hurts my brain concerning chain of command.

Manchuria units are basically off limits to me in most games, unless I change their HQ. All those engineer regiments sure look tasty at times.

I doubt you do very much industry changes either. I do a crap load of changes on turn 1. I know for a fact that supply will be in short supply until around March 42 when all changes from turn 1 are complete. It really gets dicey around Feb 42. That is my crunch time for supply.

I could even be convinced to allow the PP cost to be the same as for changing a HQ of the air unit. So a Zero daitai will cost roughly 125 pp points to change HQ and another 125 pp points to upgrade outside of it's next programed upgrade. A6M2 to A6M3 ahould be free, but to jump from A6M2 - A6M5 should cost the pp points.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 83

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:04:32 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

I cannot believe noone is concerned with the implacation of allies mega production.
Allies already overproduce historical production figures in some cases 4 times.

With this change they will be able to use all that surpluss 10000 or more AC (that was never produced historically).

I do not worry about it if the upgrade paths will be restricted. USA to USA, USMC - USMC, USN - USN, IJA - IJA, IJN - IJN.

I do not want to see IJA units flying the Zero or see USA units flying the Corsair.

< Message edited by 2ndACR -- 1/6/2005 2:04:57 PM >

(in reply to BlackVoid)

Post #: 84

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:08:46 PM

Jaws_slith

Posts: 615
Joined: 1/11/2002
Status: offline

Basically I think the Japs are better off at the start of the war (otherwise they probably didn�t start him at all

)as the Allies at this moment. But the upgrade gives them an extra advantage at the start ( They can make more zero's, adjust the factory and have more PP as Mogami wrote). Man is this amusing

. I thought that the allied factory was also adjustable but that seems not the case.

Question: is it hard to make the Allied factory adjustable? If the answer is no I think here is an opening to balance the game. If yes I agree with Mogami.

_____________________________

Good Hunting

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 85

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:11:34 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

I would say leave the Allied industry just as it is. They get all that stuff for free anyway.

I got to work real hard to get my toys to play with.

(in reply to Jaws_slith)

Post #: 86

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:22:37 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

A6M2 to A6M3 ahould be free, but to jump from A6M2 - A6M5 should cost the pp points.

The A6M5 is *in* the upgrade path for the A6M2 ... why on earth should it cost anything?

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 87

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:27:00 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

It is isn't it. DOH.

I am still waiting on an answer to my above question. Are these upgrade changes restricted to the above standards or are we going to see Betty groups being changed to Zero's and Oscar groups being changed to Zero's?

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 88

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/6/2005 10:42:17 PM

Mr.Frag

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

quote:

Are these upgrade changes restricted to the above standards or are we going to see Betty groups being changed to Zero's and Oscar groups being changed to Zero's?

Consider the paths to be normal. You can't turn a recon plane into a heavy bomber or a fighter. You can't turn a Nate into a Zeke etc. The are no fantasy paths ... things stay pretty much the same. What you'll see is japan will have less Nates with more Oscar I groups early in the war and probably more heavy bombers (not that you can really call a Sally a heavy bomber).

The biggest change I see right now is with Japan's air lift capacity. Expect more air ops with the replacement of all the useless transports with larger/longer ranged units.

The next biggest change is with the good ole Alf consolidation. It's got pretty good range compared to other sea planes which will probably give Japan some better sighting abilities in the naval war. This of course is countered by the fact that the USN tends to never sink when hit due to their great damage control and Japan's lack of real bombs

The next biggest change will be in the consolidation of the Sally vs all the other bombers. This will shift a bit of workload off the Nell/Betty world allowing you to save some naval pilots.

Then finally ... fighters ... you'll have more Oscar I groups. Now, before you get up in arms, you really need to look at what an Oscar I is.

Later on, when the Oscar II comes into play, you'll see a bigger difference here, but then again, at the same time, Allied production will gobble them up as they are not anything special either.

The naval side is pretty much unchanged as all the naval paths are pretty normal anyways.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 89

RE: Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Poli... - 1/7/2005 12:21:52 AM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Consider the paths to be normal. You can't turn a recon plane into a heavy bomber or a fighter. You can't turn a Nate into a Zeke etc. The are no fantasy paths ... things stay pretty much the same. What you'll see is japan will have less Nates with more Oscar I groups early in the war and probably more heavy bombers (not that you can really call a Sally a heavy bomber).

I am leaning in favor of choosing with these restrictions and some sort of penalty to make players pick between benefits. How do you see the allied side paths? The good initial planes are rare to start with if no F4F for army. Until the good choices role in Corsair, P-38 etc then it doesn't usually matter as much. Although I don't know if I will ever get that far in a game....