Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I voted yes. Probably the exp loss would be better, but i do think that you must pay something for switching.
I do also agree with those who think that this new feature should not be allowed to allies. Their Airwarfare situation is already good enough. It's just Japan that has problems with nates and oscars in the first months of war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I play Allies all the time, and I love my P-39s. Put a group or two of P-39s in with a group or 2 of P-40s, and the P-40s handle the fighters while the P-39s blow the Betties all to hell with their 37mm cannon.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,


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: 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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff


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.

A frequent type of complaint. Will this be a change that might enable the Japanese (god forbid!) to delay defeat until November, 1945?

Game balance! To you Allied fanboys out there - you start the game with very precise information about Japanese Forces, intentions, capabilities, reinforcements that the Allies just didnīt have in RL. This gives the game a severe ahistorical slant right from Day One. Or do you make your game choices based entirely on intelligence, war plans, staff thinking, supply situation, and political decisions that the Allies actually had at that point of time historically?

quote:

That's true, but the same applies to the Japanese side, doesn't it ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

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.

True. Changing equipment should exact a price. However, if you really want realism, then every single piece of equipment delivered to a unit should cost, and that includes all upgrades, "historical" as well as player-selected ones, and all replacements . Even if you regard aircraft that are produced anyway as "free of charge", it would cost resources to get them to the units, resources that even on the Allied side would always have to be obtained in competition with other users. The universe is structured against there ever being a sufficient supply of the things you really need.

And now to another peeve of mine in regard to the grognard faction. They seem to regard equipment changes as they happened in history as sacrosanct. But face it - equipment changes happened based on where a particular unit was operating, what task it had, what the military situation was, what its chain of supply was etc. So how is it historical when, say, at the end of 1942, a Jap fighter unit that historically operated in New Guinea at the time but in the game is sitting on the Home Islands, were to be re-equipped with Tonys, while a different unit in Wewak would be forced to keep its Oscar Iīs, because in RL this particular unit had been in some backwater area. Thatīs ahistorical writ large!

All I ask of a game of the WitP kind is that it lets me do all that could have been done in RL and that it produces a plausible outcome, even if it never hasppened like this in actual history. Thatīs why we are playing these games after all: to see if we can do better than the historical leaders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

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.

True. Changing equipment should exact a price. However, if you really want realism, then every single piece of equipment delivered to a unit should cost, and that includes all upgrades, "historical" as well as player-selected ones, and all replacements . Even if you regard aircraft that are produced anyway as "free of charge", it would cost resources to get them to the units, resources that even on the Allied side would always have to be obtained in competition with other users. The universe is structured against there ever being a sufficient supply of the things you really need.

And now to another peeve of mine in regard to the grognard faction. They seem to regard equipment changes as they happened in history as sacrosanct. But face it - equipment changes happened based on where a particular unit was operating, what task it had, what the military situation was, what its chain of supply was etc. So how is it historical when, say, at the end of 1942, a Jap fighter unit that historically operated in New Guinea at the time but in the game is sitting on the Home Islands, were to be re-equipped with Tonys, while a different unit in Wewak would be forced to keep its Oscar Iīs, because in RL this particular unit had been in some backwater area. Thatīs ahistorical writ large!

All I ask of a game of the WitP kind is that it lets me do all that could have been done in RL and that it produces a plausible outcome, even if it never hasppened like this in actual history. Thatīs why we are playing these games after all: to see if we can do better than the historical leaders.

You say you want to alter history. You say allied allied fanboys complain about allowing the IJN to completely concentrate on the best of the best. At what point is this game about any history. Do you take what forces you had historically and then just modify the strategy and tactics? Or do you take the production capacity and alter the way it was set and the strategy and tactics? Or do you take the production ability and alter the way you could make war materials, alter the way capacity is set, and alter the strategy and tactics?

The allies cannot change their production and make it any more effiecient (not that they need to), but they also cannot change which units were produced or research and development time frame either.

My point is at what point is their some history to model the game after. Why not just make it two sides with equal forces starting on opposite sides of the map

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff
My point is at what point is their some history to model the game after. Why not just make it two sides with equal forces starting on opposite sides of the map

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

That's true, but the same applies to the Japanese side, doesn't it?

Always the problem with "history" games...

quote:

Do you think Tom Phillips would have operated Force Z against the landings in Kuantan without air cover if he had known the IJNAF could effectively attack his ships with planes based in Saigon?

quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff


You say you want to alter history. You say allied allied fanboys complain about allowing the IJN to completely concentrate on the best of the best. At what point is this game about any history. Do you take what forces you had historically and then just modify the strategy and tactics? Or do you take the production capacity and alter the way it was set and the strategy and tactics? Or do you take the production ability and alter the way you could make war materials, alter the way capacity is set, and alter the strategy and tactics?

quote:


The allies cannot change their production and make it any more effiecient (not that they need to), but they also cannot change which units were produced or research and development time frame either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

quote:

Do you think Tom Phillips would have operated Force Z against the landings in Kuantan without air cover if he had known the IJNAF could effectively attack his ships with planes based in Saigon?

Yes. He was promised RAF fighter support that never showed up. (They were busy with their own problems...)

Just nitpicking the one comment.

quote:



However, if the nonhistorical anti-Japanese slant is so severe, why does AAR after AAR show the Japanese far exceeding their historical gains, and in less time? All of the Allied players there can't be such boobs...

It seems as if the "slant is in the eye of the beholder".

quote:

The Allies donīt need to, they get deluged with all the goodies they would ever want

quote:

Japan was not much of a capitalist country, either; if necessary, the Tenno could have asked, as a personal favor, that Mitsubishi switch to building Franks and they would have jumped to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
Sounds like fun. (Warning - this statement is intended to be ironic)

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!

quote:

No problem. But he pressed on regardless when the fighter cover didnīt materialise, right?

quote:

Has any of the Japanese players yet won the game? I mean, occupied and subdued all of India, Australia, China, and the USA?
Besides, this might point more to a problem in the game mechanics

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

That's your opinion. As an Allied player, I can tell you that I don't have enough long ranged stuff anytime I feel like it, at least up to the end of '43. All those A20/B26 units with a max range of 6 are still outranged by what the Japanese start with. P40/P47/F4U still have very short legs (max of 4). If I can take longer ranged stuff, you betcha I will.

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

If there was one el-supremo in charge, (like the player) than these inner poilitics could have been avoided by all of the nations of the time. Please don't try to use historical precedent to argue for unhistorical abilities. It doesn't pass the smell test. If you argue for the ability to control every facet of the game because, by god, you are the el-supremo, and you want to do things different the real life, than fine. That holds more water with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
If you had your choice, wouldn't you change out those Boomerangs for even P40B's?

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!

quote:

I’ve played both Japan and US, and found that playing Japan is much more stressful affair. If you make mistake as allies nothing bad really happens except loss of PP. As Japan every decision is like walking through the minefield, every mistake is almost fatal. In my first game against AI I overreacted on factory upgrades and ended up without supplies in Feb 1942. Decided to attack PH 3 times and lost many experienced pilots (took me some time to recover) so KB wasn’t that formidable in DEI, and it took much more time to concur it. Every move has consequences, so while fighting in Malaysia, I had to plan which units will land on which base in DEI month before actual operation. And so on.