Japanese A/C R&D

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Obvert and JohnIII:

Am I to understand that neither of you understood how to advance late-war airframes by advancing research 'up the chain' of an airframe series until now? I'm incredulous.

And if I'm mistaken in my understanding, what is it exactly that you didn't understand?

I understood how to research each airframe in turn up the line, but only about 15-18 months ago I learned that this wasn't necessary. I gather you know how to do this, but it wasn't "spoken" when I first started the game, and I'll bet a lot of Japanese players didn't want the Allies to really get wind of what was going on behind the curtain.

So if you put 6 x 30 into the Rufe and those are repaired by sometime in 3/42 and the Rufe moves forward, you can go up the line to put those repaired 6 x 30 into the A6M8 researching in 3/42!!!

So at 180 points per month or around 21.5 advance research months per year, if the A6M8 is due in 8/45, it could move forward to around 7/43 without even the engine bonus.

That's pretty early.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: scout1

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Anachro

What do you mean by "wire chart for A/C development?"
rustysi can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he refers to the following practice in Japanese research:

You can dramatically accelerate the arrival of some late models of some air frames very easily. Example:
a. Research the A6M2-N Rufe at 5 factories of size 30.
b. Build the Ha-33 production so that you are building 150-200 extra each month by March 42. (get the pool to 500)
c. As each Rufe research factory gets fully built, switch it to A6M8. You must convert the factory one step at a time: A6M2-N -> A6M5, A6M5 -> A6M5b, A6M5b -> A6M5c, A6M5c -> A6M8. Notice that upgrading along the aircraft's upgrade path does not cause the factory to be damaged and it stays FULLY REPAIRED.
d. Plan on flying the A6M8 starting in late 42 instead of . . . 8/45. Yes, this really works.
e. A similar plan works with the Ki-61Ia -> Ki-61 Ib -> Ki-61 Id -> Ki 61-II KAI -> Ki-100-Ia
f. Or Ki-44-Iia to Ki-44-Iic
g. Or Ki43-Iia -> Ki-43-IIIa or Ki-43-IV
h. Etc.

As for my opinion, I think in most cases it is appropriate. I am fine with the Ki-61 -> Ki-100 route. I am also fine with the A6M2-N to A6M8 route. I think both aircraft could have hit the skies way earlier than they did. I know less about the other aircraft and their various models. However, this method is limited by the fact that an aircraft cannot use this unless it is part of a series of models of a particular air frame. You can't take advantage of this to turn a Ki-44 into a Ki-84. You also can not use it to advance all models of an air frame. For example, researching the Ki-45 KAIa doesn't help you get a Ki-45 KAId faster (at least in stock).

Finally, advancing late war aircraft is expensive in HI (engines) and supply (factory repairs). Remember that advancing aircraft costs vital assets for the Japanese player - and none moreso than where the acceleration requires building and maintaining a pool of 500 engines in addition to factory repairs. Repairing 4 x 30 research factories costs 120k supply. That's roughly equivalent to the supply required to support 20 divisions (non-combat) for a year. (note: going from memory of Alfred's supply post that a division at rest consumes roughly 500 supply per month... I'm getting old and CRS is setting in though...)

I'm still learning here (with help ;>) .... I'm curious as to item "c" above. Once the RD factories are increased in size to 30 and complete their repairs to start gaining research points for the original targeted AC model, why do you change it to the next model in line ? Won't that basically stop the extra RD points for the first model to start with ? Or what am I missing here ?

You've already researched the first in line and the factories are repaired. So now you just need to change them "up the line" in order and you can immediately research the last in the line while skipping the time it takes to research the others.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

It's been a mainstay of my Japanese play for some time.

Getting The Ki-44-IIc in the Fall of 1942 and Ki-100-I from continuously upgraded Tony lines is hugely useful for air defense. I haven't gone all the way down the A6M8 path, I must confess, but it's tempting.

Like previous posters have said, there is a sizable cost associated with it in terms of allocation of research factories, engines and so forth.

In terms of gaminess, it's no more gamey than some of the issues that Obvert pointed out. It's also not some minor quirk in the game system or code, but a major feature. It's not realistic for the Allied player to say "Gee-I'm uncomfortable with the notion of Japanese R&D, so I'd just as soon you not use it." This sort of thing needs to be understood and discussed in advance of game setup-as others have suggested above.

The Tojo Iic doesn't work this way. It is a two airframe path, so this advantage cannot be used on it. You must actually spend a lot on factories to get it forward a lot. On the Tony it doesn't work as quickly since you still have to advance the Ki-61a before being able to start the Ki-100. It's still worth it though. On the George it does work but you still want the service 2 N1K2 so you research that as well as the N1K5 if you jump them forward.

I think this is more of an issue than other things in game because the other side cannot do anything similar, and because of what you're arguing above. The "improvements" are often a complete redesign of parts of the plane, not just sliding a new engine into it.

The Japanese didn't know the inline liquid cooled engine for the Ki-61 would cause so much trouble and didn't think of the radial solution until they had airframes finished and no engine to slide into them. That did require some work! [:)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
InfiniteMonkey
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by InfiniteMonkey »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I understand your argument, but you *are* advancing the airframe too InfiniteMonkey. To your "beefed up and adjusted" I'll add to my "upgunned" and "reinforced engine housing" and probably "reinforced landing gear" and we have a substantially different airframe by my reckoning. Your opinion about the use of the term 'advancing' may vary from my own.
I am not creating one from scratch. I am modifying an existing one. I acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done, but doing it requires months of effort in game and considerable expenditure of assets (HI, Supply, manpower, etc.) to achieve. It's not like it comes without cost, time, and effort.

The design of the A6M took 2 years. From start (Horikoshi receives 12Si requirements 5 October 1937) to first accepted aircraft (Prototype 1 arrives Yokosuka Naval Airfield at 10am on 14 September 1939) was less than 2 years. During that process, the design changed to modify the engine from a Zuisei to the Sakae 12. Prototypes 1 and 2 were Zuisei, 3 and 4 were Sakae 12. Prototype 2 arrives on 25 September or 25 October (contradictory dates in source) and prototype 3 with a new engine arrives 28 December 1939. The gap caused by modifying the engine and building the prototype was 2-3 months. More work would have to be done in the case of the A6M8, but the range of time required goes from 2-3 months up to 2 years. How long do you think it would take?
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
In most of the examples you cite, it (upgrading the aircraft) wasn't as simple as merely stapling a different engine on the front of the existing airframe. Usually, there were substantial reinforcements or refurbishments that were required to existing airframe to accomodate a new, more powerful, heavier (almost always) engine. These may have included changes to landing gear, pilot seating position and / or canopy, reinforcement of the nose of the aircraft, moving fuel tanks around, etc.
And yet they were accomplished in relatively short periods of time. As far as weight of the engine, the stats I could find on the Sakae 12 were 1300 pounds, 45" diameter, 63" long. The Kinsei stats I found were 1202 pounds, 48" diameter, 64.8" long. Slightly lighter, slightly higher cross section, slightly longer. Using those stats, the engines are not too far off aside from power output. Again, work needs to be done, but when the air frame was designed from scratch in 2 years, how long do you think it would take once the decision was made to try the new engine? Ample evidence suggests that engine changes don't take 4 years to accomplish.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
I understand your argument, but you *are* advancing the airframe too InfiniteMonkey. To your "beefed up and adjusted" I'll add to my "upgunned" and "reinforced engine housing" and probably "reinforced landing gear" and we have a substantially different airframe by my reckoning. Your opinion about the use of the term 'advancing' may vary from my own.
I am not creating one from scratch. I am modifying an existing one. I acknowledge that there is a lot of work to be done, but doing it requires months of effort in game and considerable expenditure of assets (HI, Supply, manpower, etc.) to achieve. It's not like it comes without cost, time, and effort.

The design of the A6M took 2 years. From start (Horikoshi receives 12Si requirements 5 October 1937) to first accepted aircraft (Prototype 1 arrives Yokosuka Naval Airfield at 10am on 14 September 1939) was less than 2 years. During that process, the design changed to modify the engine from a Zuisei to the Sakae 12. Prototypes 1 and 2 were Zuisei, 3 and 4 were Sakae 12. Prototype 2 arrives on 25 September or 25 October (contradictory dates in source) and prototype 3 with a new engine arrives 28 December 1939. The gap caused by modifying the engine and building the prototype was 2-3 months. More work would have to be done in the case of the A6M8, but the range of time required goes from 2-3 months up to 2 years. How long do you think it would take?
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
In most of the examples you cite, it (upgrading the aircraft) wasn't as simple as merely stapling a different engine on the front of the existing airframe. Usually, there were substantial reinforcements or refurbishments that were required to existing airframe to accomodate a new, more powerful, heavier (almost always) engine. These may have included changes to landing gear, pilot seating position and / or canopy, reinforcement of the nose of the aircraft, moving fuel tanks around, etc.
And yet they were accomplished in relatively short periods of time. As far as weight of the engine, the stats I could find on the Sakae 12 were 1300 pounds, 45" diameter, 63" long. The Kinsei stats I found were 1202 pounds, 48" diameter, 64.8" long. Slightly lighter, slightly higher cross section, slightly longer. Using those stats, the engines are not too far off aside from power output. Again, work needs to be done, but when the air frame was designed from scratch in 2 years, how long do you think it would take once the decision was made to try the new engine? Ample evidence suggests that engine changes don't take 4 years to accomplish.

This is an odd argument. You're using prewar stats to argue that in wartime the Japanese could easily move forward an airframe they could have used in the very late stages of the war but didn't quite finish, and make it available in mid-43. Because it's not that hard?

So why din't that actually happen in the war? Why did the Ki-100 only develop in 45? Why didn't all the other airframes advance as much as we can advance them if it doesn't take four years to accomplish?

The devs are making the game fun for us by allowing us some choice, to prioritise certain things over others, but also to make Japan more competitive for balance into 45. there have been games though where the Allies could not move forward or gain even local air superiority because 3rd gen fighters (and bombers) filed the skies in numbers the Allies can never match too early.

This game is about balance, and if you want to play it for years you have to achieve respect and understanding with your opponent. As long as they don't care what you do, go for it. But check with them if you plan to get a 45 plane in 43.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: obvert
That's pretty early.

Idn't it sweet? [:D][8D]
Image
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

What if they had done both sooner?

If allied air frames start getting knocked down in droves the diversion of P-47's would have probably stopped. There would have been other measures taken. Europe first would still have been in place but there would have been a reaction.

This is my one & only bugaboo about this game. I realize this is a game, not a sim. Japanese players get a bonus for the complexity of their side by massaging certain industrial aspects of the game. The allies, however, are locked into a game predicated on what happened at Midway, and then the mistakes made in the Solomon's campaign. Any competent Japanese player would avoid those mistakes. The fact that the Japanese have such a huge advantage early on, and then gets to keep an edge throughout the game, is a bit of a sore point. To bad for the allied player, and it's a game after all. But if the Japanese side gets to artificially slide this advantage even more, IMHO it does smack of "gamey" to me.

Am I missing something?

In my Mods we addressed this issue. Juan put together an off-map system to be able to 'buy out' additional aircraft if needed. It costs Political Points but I thought it helps to really aid the Allied player.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: scout1

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Anachro

What do you mean by "wire chart for A/C development?"
rustysi can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he refers to the following practice in Japanese research:

You can dramatically accelerate the arrival of some late models of some air frames very easily. Example:
a. Research the A6M2-N Rufe at 5 factories of size 30.
b. Build the Ha-33 production so that you are building 150-200 extra each month by March 42. (get the pool to 500)
c. As each Rufe research factory gets fully built, switch it to A6M8. You must convert the factory one step at a time: A6M2-N -> A6M5, A6M5 -> A6M5b, A6M5b -> A6M5c, A6M5c -> A6M8. Notice that upgrading along the aircraft's upgrade path does not cause the factory to be damaged and it stays FULLY REPAIRED.
d. Plan on flying the A6M8 starting in late 42 instead of . . . 8/45. Yes, this really works.
e. A similar plan works with the Ki-61Ia -> Ki-61 Ib -> Ki-61 Id -> Ki 61-II KAI -> Ki-100-Ia
f. Or Ki-44-Iia to Ki-44-Iic
g. Or Ki43-Iia -> Ki-43-IIIa or Ki-43-IV
h. Etc.

As for my opinion, I think in most cases it is appropriate. I am fine with the Ki-61 -> Ki-100 route. I am also fine with the A6M2-N to A6M8 route. I think both aircraft could have hit the skies way earlier than they did. I know less about the other aircraft and their various models. However, this method is limited by the fact that an aircraft cannot use this unless it is part of a series of models of a particular air frame. You can't take advantage of this to turn a Ki-44 into a Ki-84. You also can not use it to advance all models of an air frame. For example, researching the Ki-45 KAIa doesn't help you get a Ki-45 KAId faster (at least in stock).

Finally, advancing late war aircraft is expensive in HI (engines) and supply (factory repairs). Remember that advancing aircraft costs vital assets for the Japanese player - and none moreso than where the acceleration requires building and maintaining a pool of 500 engines in addition to factory repairs. Repairing 4 x 30 research factories costs 120k supply. That's roughly equivalent to the supply required to support 20 divisions (non-combat) for a year. (note: going from memory of Alfred's supply post that a division at rest consumes roughly 500 supply per month... I'm getting old and CRS is setting in though...)

I'm still learning here (with help ;>) .... I'm curious as to item "c" above. Once the RD factories are increased in size to 30 and complete their repairs to start gaining research points for the original targeted AC model, why do you change it to the next model in line ? Won't that basically stop the extra RD points for the first model to start with ? Or what am I missing here ?

Obvert's response is correct.

You are also correct in that research factories that are switched for later war models will not accrue research points for the next model in line if it is summarily bypassed. So, with this example, once the Rufe research has been fully repaired, if you leapt forward to the A6M8 immediately with ALL research factories, you would not accrue research points towards interim models (in this example, A6M2-N, A6M5, A6M5b, etc.)

It would probably be injudicious to use all such research factories solely towards the final model in this case. I don't want to be using only A6M2s or independently (different lineage) researched A6M3a until replaced with A6M8s in 1943.

Most plans for this will have some of these aircraft factories 'peeling off' towards some of the better, earlier interim models as they are 'uncovered'.

For example, have 10x30 A6M2-N advance as above to A6M5 research. Then have 4x30 factories researching A6M5 while the other 6x30 continue to the end goal of A6M8. Both planes should be sped along nicely. The A6M5 modestly (but better than waiting until mid 1943) and the A6M8 greatly.
Image
InfiniteMonkey
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by InfiniteMonkey »

ORIGINAL: obvert
This is an odd argument. You're using prewar stats to argue that in wartime the Japanese could easily move forward an airframe they could have used in the very late stages of the war but didn't quite finish, and make it available in mid-43. Because it's not that hard?

So why din't that actually happen in the war? Why did the Ki-100 only develop in 45? Why didn't all the other airframes advance as much as we can advance them if it doesn't take four years to accomplish?
Doing X takes Y days.
Doing Z takes W days.
You can do either Y or W.

If you start X on 12/7/41 and do not do Z, you will complete X on 12/7/41 + Y days.
If you start X on 12/7/44 because you spent W days on Z, you will complete X on 12/7/1944 + Y days.

Simply put, they placed those other A6M models at a higher priority than the re-engine/rearm/add armor. They did not pursue the option until much later than they could have pursued it.

Late war, someone fell off a ladder and dumped chocolate into someone else's peanut butter. The Ki-100 was a "lucky break" they could have stumbled upon sooner - and frankly should have thought of sooner. The oddest thing about the Ki-61 is that with all the examples of planes that improved by using different engines in them, they doggedly pursued the problematic engine. It wasn't until numerous air frames without engines got married to excess engines that the Ki-100 was born. The actual time to modify the aircraft to use the other engine was short. It wasn't much of a "research effort". It was, "Hey, we've got all these air frames and no engines. What if we try this other engine in one of our air frames and see what we get?"

Now is this unfair? No. Is it "fair" for the Allied player to wait to avoid a carrier battle in 1942 despite the fact they pursued them historically? Is it fair for the Allied player to use his submarines conservatively until the USN torpedoes become reliable? We know what happened. We learn from history. We apply that to the game. It is a two way street and the same omniscience that aids the Allied player aids the Japanese player, but in different ways.
ORIGINAL: obvert
The devs are making the game fun for us by allowing us some choice, to prioritise certain things over others, but also to make Japan more competitive for balance into 45. there have been games though where the Allies could not move forward or gain even local air superiority because 3rd gen fighters (and bombers) filed the skies in numbers the Allies can never match too early.
Welcome to time travel. We are not simply replaying history here. We are starting on 12/7/1941 and re-fighting the war with knowledge of the mistakes both sides made. We make different decisions and those decisions have implications for what happens after them. Expecting the Japanese OOB to stay the same in the absence of historical results is folly. The Allied OOB is more set, not for balance, but because of the Europe first approach the Allies took meant the PTO's resources would be more limited. We cannot talk about how to increase Allied assets in the PTO without simulating the ETO. The game is about the PTO and assumes the ETO occurred as it did historically.
ORIGINAL: obvert
This game is about balance, and if you want to play it for years you have to achieve respect and understanding with your opponent. As long as they don't care what you do, go for it. But check with them if you plan to get a 45 plane in 43.
I do not think this game is about balance. Balance implies that both players have an equal chance of winning. The Japanese do not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning against a competent opponent (Scenario 1). When I play a PBEM, I will play with house rules that are mutually agreed upon. If I adhere to those house rules, my opponent has nothing to complain about. If my opponent does not want me to research aircraft, he must suggest and get me to agree to a rule that states I do not modify aircraft research factories. If my opponent does not want me to skip aircraft in the research sequence, he must propose and get me to agree to a house rule on that.

"You should know better than to do that" is a subjective statement that can only cause issues between players. It relies upon each player knowing the history and systems with equal levels of knowledge and then requires that they interpret the results the same way. If the game allows it and it is not a bug of some kind and it is not house ruled, then it is allowed. Honestly, I'm not interested in playing an opponent that starts a game without carefully considering the house rules they want in place. If you agree to a set of house rules, you should not get bent out of shape unless they are violated.

Having said all that, there are things that are permitted in the game system that I would not do. I will not put Jakes on subs, for instance. They were too big to operate off subs and were not designed to be stored in the small hangers the subs possessed. I know that and would not do it. As another example, I probably will not put the Grace on most carriers (wingspan would not fit in elevators of most carriers). However, if no house rule governs the tactic and I think the tactic was possible, I will do it. I'm not going to ask permission.
User avatar
SheperdN7
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by SheperdN7 »

AFB's you all have to remember, an inexperienced or incompetent (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) Japanese player is just as or more than likely to completely kill his/her economy than they are to improve or maximise it. Every Japanese player has to take a second thought every time a factory is being built up "should I do this?" "what will this mean 6 months from now" etc.
Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by John 3rd »

I had NO IDEA this could be done. Damn...seriously...this is news to me.

I think it is a gross abuse of the system. Seems almost like my pathological hatred of 4EB being used for all sorts of amazing things that they didn't actually achieve IRL. This JFB will not do what is described above.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

Late war, someone fell off a ladder and dumped chocolate into someone else's peanut butter.

Love peanut butter cups.
Now is this unfair? No. Is it "fair" for the Allied player to wait to avoid a carrier battle in 1942 despite the fact they pursued them historically? Is it fair for the Allied player to use his submarines conservatively until the USN torpedoes become reliable? We know what happened. We learn from history. We apply that to the game. It is a two way street and the same omniscience that aids the Allied player aids the Japanese player, but in different ways.


In fact I argue the same idea, but with slightly more nuance. Both sides of the game don’t have the same opportunities with regard to airframes. This is one area where agreements have to be made.

Welcome to time travel. We are not simply replaying history here. We are starting on 12/7/1941 and re-fighting the war with knowledge of the mistakes both sides made. We make different decisions and those decisions have implications for what happens after them. Expecting the Japanese OOB to stay the same in the absence of historical results is folly. The Allied OOB is more set, not for balance, but because of the Europe first approach the Allies took meant the PTO's resources would be more limited. We cannot talk about how to increase Allied assets in the PTO without simulating the ETO. The game is about the PTO and assumes the ETO occurred as it did historically.

Firstly, I do not advocate playing the game historically but I do think in specific cases historical capabilities should be considered so that gameplay is not out of whack (nightbombing comes to mind).

Following your logic you are also leaving out half of the argument. Assuming the PTO is different and in fact more difficult for the Allies, the US in specific would most likely have thrown them a few bones. This is taken on by some mods where the Allies can buy more airframes.

I do not think this game is about balance. Balance implies that both players have an equal chance of winning. The Japanese do not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning against a competent opponent (Scenario 1).

Here you are flat out wrong. The Japanese have a good chance of winning the game. Some players forget the game includes a Victory Point assessment of who has won. Tokyo could be burned out, my fleet gone, T-34s sitting in Korea, but I could still win the game. It’s about the VPs in the end, and I play that way. Every point matters.

So the sweeps by a group of N1K5 in late 43, if possible to get them up that far, do matter to the winning and losing of the game, and therefore the Allied player should know a bit of what is possible. (They can also check the Japanese R & D anytime by looking at the in-game database. The date of arrival of an airframe will change as it moves forward with research!)
When I play a PBEM, I will play with house rules that are mutually agreed upon. If I adhere to those house rules, my opponent has nothing to complain about. If my opponent does not want me to research aircraft, he must suggest and get me to agree to a rule that states I do not modify aircraft research factories. If my opponent does not want me to skip aircraft in the research sequence, he must propose and get me to agree to a house rule on that.

This is the main goal of what I’m arguing, and it sounds like you’re doing that already, so need to belabour it all. Just agree with your opponent on how you both are going to play. The only reason to talk about this R & D issue is that most Allied players don’t understand the Japanese economic or Research side of the game. If they get it, they can negotiate a game they want to play, but this part has to be figured out in the beginning, obviously.

"You should know better than to do that" is a subjective statement that can only cause issues between players.

Is someone here saying that? I don’t see that in the posts.
It relies upon each player knowing the history and systems with equal levels of knowledge and then requires that they interpret the results the same way. If the game allows it and it is not a bug of some kind and it is not house ruled, then it is allowed. Honestly, I'm not interested in playing an opponent that starts a game without carefully considering the house rules they want in place. If you agree to a set of house rules, you should not get bent out of shape unless they are violated.

You may think that now. Have you ever played into 45? It’s a long game. Your knowledge, your ideas, and your opponent’s, change, evolve. You both see how things work together and you have to resolve issues along the way. This one though is something that has to be agreed in the beginning. So the Allied player has to know what is possible.
Having said all that, there are things that are permitted in the game system that I would not do. I will not put Jakes on subs, for instance. They were too big to operate off subs and were not designed to be stored in the small hangers the subs possessed. I know that and would not do it. As another example, I probably will not put the Grace on most carriers (wingspan would not fit in elevators of most carriers). However, if no house rule governs the tactic and I think the tactic was possible, I will do it. I'm not going to ask permission.

Self-governing is useful, but your opponent may have different ideas about what you’re choosing to self-govern. :)

How do you feel about your Allied opponent using 40 single ship TFs of DDs in front of his Death Star before an engagement? Or 30 single PT boat TFs to guard an important forward airbase from bombardments so that your bombardment TF gets held up in all of those combats and decimated by DBs in the day air phase? How do you feel about Sending 250 4E on a night bombing of a port like Rabaul in 43 and sinking everything in the port (when in fact this was not even remotely possible in the war due to targeting and navigation issues at night)?

They may feel that your idea of what is possible is different than theirs, so it can be a negotiation throughout the game as you each discover what the other actually does. :)
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by Lecivius »

I agree a lot with Obvert. And in Johns mods he has done some work in letting the AFB have some access to better air frames, which I always admired in a JFB mod [;)] I knew you could accelerate frames, but like John I had no idea you could skip generations ( and I 'think' I understand the cost in doing so). It seems like there is give & take on this, but it still looks at first blush to be a little wrong. Then again, I am an AFB and have not played Japan to late war, so my views are personal, not from experience.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by John 3rd »

No Lecivius--You are a GOOD player who looks around on both sides. I hold your commentary in high esteem whenever you give it.

Agree with your Post a BUNCH and I felt it was very important--due to the experience with Dan and I's game--to add Juan's off-board airframe purchase system.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
scout1
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: South Bend, In

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by scout1 »

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: scout1

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey



rustysi can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he refers to the following practice in Japanese research:

You can dramatically accelerate the arrival of some late models of some air frames very easily. Example:
a. Research the A6M2-N Rufe at 5 factories of size 30.
b. Build the Ha-33 production so that you are building 150-200 extra each month by March 42. (get the pool to 500)
c. As each Rufe research factory gets fully built, switch it to A6M8. You must convert the factory one step at a time: A6M2-N -> A6M5, A6M5 -> A6M5b, A6M5b -> A6M5c, A6M5c -> A6M8. Notice that upgrading along the aircraft's upgrade path does not cause the factory to be damaged and it stays FULLY REPAIRED.
d. Plan on flying the A6M8 starting in late 42 instead of . . . 8/45. Yes, this really works.
e. A similar plan works with the Ki-61Ia -> Ki-61 Ib -> Ki-61 Id -> Ki 61-II KAI -> Ki-100-Ia
f. Or Ki-44-Iia to Ki-44-Iic
g. Or Ki43-Iia -> Ki-43-IIIa or Ki-43-IV
h. Etc.

As for my opinion, I think in most cases it is appropriate. I am fine with the Ki-61 -> Ki-100 route. I am also fine with the A6M2-N to A6M8 route. I think both aircraft could have hit the skies way earlier than they did. I know less about the other aircraft and their various models. However, this method is limited by the fact that an aircraft cannot use this unless it is part of a series of models of a particular air frame. You can't take advantage of this to turn a Ki-44 into a Ki-84. You also can not use it to advance all models of an air frame. For example, researching the Ki-45 KAIa doesn't help you get a Ki-45 KAId faster (at least in stock).

Finally, advancing late war aircraft is expensive in HI (engines) and supply (factory repairs). Remember that advancing aircraft costs vital assets for the Japanese player - and none moreso than where the acceleration requires building and maintaining a pool of 500 engines in addition to factory repairs. Repairing 4 x 30 research factories costs 120k supply. That's roughly equivalent to the supply required to support 20 divisions (non-combat) for a year. (note: going from memory of Alfred's supply post that a division at rest consumes roughly 500 supply per month... I'm getting old and CRS is setting in though...)

I'm still learning here (with help ;>) .... I'm curious as to item "c" above. Once the RD factories are increased in size to 30 and complete their repairs to start gaining research points for the original targeted AC model, why do you change it to the next model in line ? Won't that basically stop the extra RD points for the first model to start with ? Or what am I missing here ?

You've already researched the first in line and the factories are repaired. So now you just need to change them "up the line" in order and you can immediately research the last in the line while skipping the time it takes to research the others.


OK now I'm further confused .... let's use an example to see if I can achieve the "dah" moment here ....

Say the a/c update sequence is B to C to D to E ..... My current a/c is A.
I increase some number of RD factories to build to 30 (which seems to be a magic number) and set them all to B.
While they are repairing I am / am not ? accumulating any research points for B ?
Once they all finally are repaired, now I should "start" accumulating research pts to advance ?
If I change these immediately to E (for example), won't the advanced for B no longer continue ?
In this example, then am I not attempting to move E up so early that it could precede C & D ?

Me confused .......[8|]


User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: scout1

Say the a/c update sequence is B to C to D to E ..... My current a/c is A.
I increase some number of RD factories to build to 30 (which seems to be a magic number) and set them all to B.
While they are repairing I am / am not ? accumulating any research points for B ?

Points only begin accruing when the factories are fully repaired. 30(0)
Once they all finally are repaired, now I should "start" accumulating research pts to advance ?
If I change these immediately to E (for example), won't the advanced for B no longer continue ?

If you change to C the research points will go to C, and B will no longer continue to research, but you can still make it on its normal arrival date.

If you change to C, then D, then E without a change of turn, your factories will stay repaired and will research E and all other models will only arrive at their normal date (unless researched by another factory).

In this example, then am I not attempting to move E up so early that it could precede C & D ?
Yes. If you have moved research up the line, you are in fact prioritising research of E. So E may arrive before C or D. Usually C is close enough that it will arrive before E due to the fact that E has to move so far forward, usually from mid-late 45.
Me confused .......[8|]

This is assuming we would be able to subvert the system of research, essentially. That model E doesn't need model C or D to be made to be researched itself.

It's like Chevy jumping from the 63 Corvette to the 68 without having to produce evolutionary versions between. [:)]
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
scout1
Posts: 3065
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: South Bend, In

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by scout1 »

ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: scout1

Say the a/c update sequence is B to C to D to E ..... My current a/c is A.
I increase some number of RD factories to build to 30 (which seems to be a magic number) and set them all to B.
While they are repairing I am / am not ? accumulating any research points for B ?

Points only begin accruing when the factories are fully repaired. 30(0)
Once they all finally are repaired, now I should "start" accumulating research pts to advance ?
If I change these immediately to E (for example), won't the advanced for B no longer continue ?

If you change to C the research points will go to C, and B will no longer continue to research, but you can still make it on its normal arrival date.

If you change to C, then D, then E without a change of turn, your factories will stay repaired and will research E and all other models will only arrive at their normal date (unless researched by another factory).

In this example, then am I not attempting to move E up so early that it could precede C & D ?
Yes. If you have moved research up the line, you are in fact prioritising research of E. So E may arrive before C or D. Usually C is close enough that it will arrive before E due to the fact that E has to move so far forward, usually from mid-late 45.
Me confused .......[8|]

This is assuming we would be able to subvert the system of research, essentially. That model E doesn't need model C or D to be made to be researched itself.

It's like Chevy jumping from the 63 Corvette to the 68 without having to produce evolutionary versions between. [:)]


OK, making progress here ... allow my line of questioning to continue .....

It's been my experience of air units I intentionally opted not to upgrade (stay at A) in games and the normal progression of research got me to C. So technically A group could upgrade to C. However my production people screwed up and I no longer had any B version a/c available. So my A group would not upgrade directly to C.
So I needed to restart B production, merely to get to C. Or I'm doing something very wrong .....
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by rustysi »

Wow, wasn't here yesterday, but this has taken off as I hoped. Didn't even realize that some AFB's were unaware that this could occur. At any rate I've thoroughly enjoyed the responses and debate. The early assumptions (first couple of posts) were on the mark as to what I was talking about, as has been the whole discussion.

As for why I wouldn't use the tactic myself. My feeling is that I believe the devs ('believe' being the key word here) gave the JFB's a method, along with the ability to train, to maintain some sort of 'air parity' with the Allies. Yes, the Allies could train also, and they did IRL too. Japan didn't, at least not to the levels that were required. In the game Japan can train as she likes, good. She can also bring her airframes along much quicker than IRL. OK, but to then skip to higher models at rate that could possibly outstrip the Allies' technical ability... Well there for me at least I must draw my line. I will research 'the line'. Heck I don't even like the ability to go from the Rufe to wherever it goes (I forget and don't have the chart available at the moment), and won't even use that.

So thanks to all, and I'm more than happy to shed a little light toward my AFB opponents who were unaware. As has been said above all is fair if discussed with your opponent beforehand.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

AFB's you all have to remember, an inexperienced or incompetent (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) Japanese player is just as or more than likely to completely kill his/her economy than they are to improve or maximise it. Every Japanese player has to take a second thought every time a factory is being built up "should I do this?" "what will this mean 6 months from now" etc.

Hehe, I agree with this and it has taken me many attempts to 'get it right' so to speak. Its one reason I've avoided PBEM so far. Didn't want to have to quit a game because I busted the economy, and trust me I've broken it.[:'(] Over and over again.[:D] Some of that though was me seeing what was and what was not possible.

Hey, its all been fun and to me at least, part of the game. My current AI game is not quite working out the way I thought, but I might finally be on the right track. At least WRT the economy. I'm only in late Feb '42 so need to give it more time.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Wow, wasn't here yesterday, but this has taken off as I hoped. Didn't even realize that some AFB's were unaware that this could occur. At any rate I've thoroughly enjoyed the responses and debate. The early assumptions (first couple of posts) were on the mark as to what I was talking about, as has been the whole discussion.

As for why I wouldn't use the tactic myself. My feeling is that I believe the devs ('believe' being the key word here) gave the JFB's a method, along with the ability to train, to maintain some sort of 'air parity' with the Allies. Yes, the Allies could train also, and they did IRL too. Japan didn't, at least not to the levels that were required. In the game Japan can train as she likes, good. She can also bring her airframes along much quicker than IRL. OK, but to then skip to higher models at rate that could possibly outstrip the Allies' technical ability... Well there for me at least I must draw my line. I will research 'the line'. Heck I don't even like the ability to go from the Rufe to wherever it goes (I forget and don't have the chart available at the moment), and won't even use that.

So thanks to all, and I'm more than happy to shed a little light toward my AFB opponents who were unaware. As has been said above all is fair if discussed with your opponent beforehand.

Many a poster, most often a JFB, misrepresents the intentions of the devs in order to justify their actions which benefits them at the expense of their opponent and the clearly stated intentions of the devs.

1. Yes re pilot training the devs were not of a view that the existing pilot training arrangements was necessary but in response to persistent JFB demands, the existant pilot training arrangements were instituted. The devs had no doubt that pilot training is of greater benefit to the Japanese player and results in the erosion of the historical advantage held by the Allies.

2. The entire Japanese aircraft building design was corrupted by

(a) allowing PDU ON, and

(b) allowing air units (both IJA or IJN) which never operated off aircraft carriers nor operated aircraft models/types which could even be flown off carriers, to be upsized to maximum carrier carrying size and operate non carrier capable aircraft

(c) the introduction post AE release of the 500 engine pool boost to R&D

Very early in the life of AE many AFBs complained that Japanese players would be able to field aircraft models years ahead of their historical deployment whilst they themselves were restricted to the exact historical Allied model deployment dates. The response from the devs, and in particular from jwilkerson (the overall AE project manager and thus top dev) was that the Japanese capacity to out produce Allied air production and deploy in 1942/43 late 1945 historical airframes was not considered to be a real problem because the Japanese player would still be constrained by their OOB.

Both PDU ON and impossible and inappropriate resizing, completely bypasses the restraint provided by the OOB.

With PDU OFF an air unit can only upgrade to the next scheduled model for that unit. No skipping from model A to model E is possible; each upgrade must occur sequentially. A Japanese player who therefore skipped R&D on aircraft models B, C, and D in order to make the late 1945 E model available in late 1942/43 and thus able to reequip his air units still flying his 1941 model A, would find this of no real benefit because his air pools lacked the necessary model B for the first upgrade to occur, let alone the subsequent sequential C and D upgrades.

Doubtless there will be some JFB who will try to muddy the issue by claiming that I am wrong because there would be no point in allowing R&D if the devs intended the above to be so. Such a JFB would be most wrong. Even with PDU OFF, Japan still benefits from R&D. Every Japanese aircraft model becomes available on its historical date even if zero R&D has been expended on it. There is therefore no impediment to producing the minimum airframes required for each sequential scheduled upgrade. It merely means that the ultimate model in the chain can only be fielded soon after the historical introduction (assuming no intermediate R&D had been undertaken) of the penultimate model in the chain. Plus the number of air units which historically could field the ultimate model would do so; none of this common PDU ON practice of having all air units flying the ultimate model.

Alfred
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”