Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


wga -> Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/9/2012 11:37:21 PM)

Is there a preference for when playing a human opponent?
I guess if it is off one cna degrade plane types if pool has lots of older types and limited newer types?
Does one keep P26 adn B18 air groups? Upgrade, disband, withdraw?




LoBaron -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 6:45:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wga
Is there a preference for when playing a human opponent?


Usually PDU on for PBEM. It is easier for the Japanese player, as he can develop his own plane upgrade strategy
and does not need to keep those planes on the production line that are required by his squadronsī upgrade paths.

Things get a lot more complicated with PDU off.

I always wanted to play a PDU off game once, simply because of historical accuracy, but this lies in the far future - and I would
probably need to play the Japanese side...

quote:

I guess if it is off one cna degrade plane types if pool has lots of older types and limited newer types?


Besides other advantages, yes.

quote:

Does one keep P26 adn B18 air groups? Upgrade, disband, withdraw?


Depends, see your question above. When modern airframes are rare older types can be used for training groups, ASW and NavS,
recon, backwater CAP,....basically everything low threat.




Puhis -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 7:00:02 AM)

I like playing PDU off. It does mean that Japan have to produce more plane models, and not just the best ones. Also player have to rotate squadrons. For example some Army fighter squadrons that fly IIa Oscars don't get any upgrades until Frank. No problem, I can use them for training, and bring former training squadrons that get better models to front line. PDU off does give more realistic feel.

PDU off is not as big disadvantage for Japan than some players might think.




LoBaron -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 7:28:00 AM)

Cīmon Puhis, I donīt know how intense your PBEMs are, but I guarantee you that PDU off practically removes any chance of the Japanese
player to meet the Allied airforce on at least roughly equal terms beyond Spring ī43 when the US production lines switch up a gear. And it
reduces the superiority before ī43.

It is a simple numbers game. Decided by how many late generation fighters both sides can get into the air at once on all relevant frontlines,
and what quality the bombers are. Also you are forced to use valuable HI for producing types you neither want nor can effectively fight with.

I agree on historical accuracy, and as I said, I want to play such a PBEM as well some time in the future, but it is a _HUGE_ disadvantage for the Japanese.




Puhis -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 7:37:47 AM)

I've actually played PBEM games with PDU off, so I know what I'm talking about.




LoBaron -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 7:58:42 AM)

If you did, I am even more amazed that you don't see that it produces a whole lot of more problems and drawbacks for Japan than for the Allies.
Wasting the research/factories alone is enough. The Allies are limited by their production of modern types, the japanese by their research.

Whatever, maybe our definition of 'disadvantage' differs. [;)]




Puhis -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 12:25:30 PM)

Of course it's a disadvantage, but IMO it's not _HUGE_ disadvantage.




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 9:10:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Cīmon Puhis, I donīt know how intense your PBEMs are, but I guarantee you that PDU off practically removes any chance of the Japanese
player to meet the Allied airforce on at least roughly equal terms beyond Spring ī43 when the US production lines switch up a gear. And it
reduces the superiority before ī43.

BUT THAT WAS THE TRUTH OF THE SITUATION HISTORICALLY. JUST AS THE FAILURES OF THE MK XIV TORPEDO FOR THE AMERICANS WERE. SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE THE JAPANESE PDU "ON", THEN WHY NOT GIVE THE US "WORKING TORPEDOES"?

I agree on historical accuracy, and as I said, I want to play such a PBEM as well some time in the future, but it is a _HUGE_ disadvantage for the Japanese.





LoBaron -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 9:29:20 PM)

The discussion simply was about whether it is a disadvantage for the Japanese to play PDU off or not, or as far as Puhis is concerned
how big a disadvantage it is. I donīt give a ratsī ass on whether you think its fair or not or can be traded for working US torps.

What the hell are you smoking mike? [:D][:D][:D]




Erkki -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 9:33:38 PM)

PDU off is pretty silly imho. There were reasons as to why different planes were manufactured and used - but to force every air unit to an upgrade path is just stupid. Real squadrons swapped from a type to another and back depending on need - nobody set their "upgrade path" pre war and forced the war economy build a plane because squadron X could only fly that particular type! If there should be an incentive to build and use the planes that arent the best, it should come from within the game, not because its forced. Japan already pays resources, HI and especially supplies(ie. HI capacity and oil and resources it can bring to home islands) to every factory repair and expansion. Japan can build to pools, draw as replacements and repair many, many planes at the cost of expanding and fully repairing just 1 factory and engine factory that together build a single engine plane a day. Hindsight and lack of HQ politics and infighting benefits both sides, if slightly different ways.

edit: on topic: yeah PDU OFF is a more or benefit to the Allies. It means Japan has to use Ki-43 as its main Army fighter till some point in 1943 and R&Ding completely new planes isnt as useful. At least.




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/10/2012 10:10:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

PDU off is not as big disadvantage for Japan than some players might think.


I honestly can't comment on late game affects of PDU off, but I know that I'm outclassed and in trouble by late 42 and early 43. In scenario 1, you have a total of 85 Ki-44 Tojo IIa's for the entire Pacific. The bulk of your fighters remain Ki-27 Nate's, A6M3a Zero's and Ki-43 IIa Oscar's. Faced against P-38's, Hurricanes, P-40K's and the Allied heavy bomber arsenal you simply can't put up the numbers to contest the air. Rotate Oscar's out of the line and use them for training? With what? Nate's?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Cīmon Puhis, I donīt know how intense your PBEMs are, but I guarantee you that PDU off practically removes any chance of the Japanese
player to meet the Allied airforce on at least roughly equal terms beyond Spring ī43 when the US production lines switch up a gear. And it
reduces the superiority before ī43.

It is a simple numbers game. Decided by how many late generation fighters both sides can get into the air at once on all relevant frontlines,
and what quality the bombers are. Also you are forced to use valuable HI for producing types you neither want nor can effectively fight with.

I agree on historical accuracy, and as I said, I want to play such a PBEM as well some time in the future, but it is a _HUGE_ disadvantage for the Japanese.


Having played PDU off until March of 43 in a scenario 1 game as Japan, I have to agree with LoBaron. Maybe the late game when the Frank's are available and a large number of Japanese air units can convert to them the numbers are there. Otherwise, you'll never be able to mass enough better fighters to put a dent in the Allied air juggernaut. As LoBaron says, it's a numbers game and PDU off ensures the Japanese still have to rely on masses of inferior aircraft, because the better planes are too limited in number to make a difference. For the Allies, who cares, most of their aircraft during late 42 and 43 already outclass the best Japan can throw at them, and in greater numbers. I'll take 250 P-40K's supported by Hurricanes and P-38's over 85 Tojo's any day.

That's my experience in the PDU off game I played. Others may have a different experience, but a good Allied player that masses his airpower will overwhelm whatever Japan can throw at them in PDU off simply because the numbers of better airframes just aren't there for Japan.

Another thing about PDF off which I think a lot of players forget, is the inflexibility. You CAN'T downgrade air units to older models, you can only upgrade moving forward. For Japan, this means unless you choose to not upgrade certain units to newer models, there is ZERO point in producing stockpiles of 1942 aircraft and some early 43 models. You'll either willingly choose to play the game with inferior aircraft or never be able to utilize the pools if you decide to upgrade.

Some like PDU off and I'll give them their due. I personally hate it and will never play another game with PDU off. It really comes down to personal preference and what you want out of the game. You want historic, play PDU off. You want to customize your air units to suit your play style, PDU on is the way to go.

Just my personal opinion based on my experience playing PDU off.




ChadS -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/11/2012 5:56:44 PM)

As the dumb guy (and new guy) in the room, I'm needing a level-set of what we're talking about. This is regarding whether or not players should be able to set the future upgrade path of their air units, correct? So, instead of following the current "script," that a particular P-40 unit will switch to p-38s, I'd have the ability to determine that they change to F4Us or something like that? (I'm assuming there are some limitations that I'm not catching on to just yet.)

It makes sense that the air units evolved in a particular manner because of the situation as it was. With playing a simulation of the war, where one is not required to follow the same strategies, it makes sense to me that air units should be able to upgrade to meet the new needs of the mission at hand.

Currently, I'm PDU off, because I wouldn't otherwise know what the hell I would want to do, or what makes good sense. But, in the future, I'd think that will change.

Chad S




Lokasenna -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/11/2012 6:04:39 PM)

The answer to your questions, basically, is yes.

However, I believe you can only give an army unit army planes - no upgrade to F6F from P-40, for example. You could, however, upgrade from P-40 to P-38 (though there may be a PP cost to it for going from 1E to 2E).

PDU on is far more useful to the Japanese player than the Allied player.




Kull -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/11/2012 6:40:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wga

Is there a preference for when playing a human opponent?
I guess if it is off one cna degrade plane types if pool has lots of older types and limited newer types?
Does one keep P26 adn B18 air groups? Upgrade, disband, withdraw?


Emphasis added since I'm not responding to that particular question. With respect to "versus the AI", however, the human player has so many advantages that it hardly seems sporting to include "PDU on". All my Allied games have been PDU-off, and I look forward to playing that way as Japan. Figuring out how to deal with the historical upgrade restrictions (and deviations into questionable model types) is just part of the fun.




Commander Stormwolf -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/11/2012 7:46:45 PM)


PDU is obvious, on always


also need player defined unit sizes

did the commanders say "oh.. we have 20 emilies and 20 pilots but the unit size is 2.. so we'll keep 18 in the pool for no reason"

or did they say.. "we have 20 emilies and 20 pilots.. so the unit size is 20"


units are just numbers on a page. only planes / pilots / avsupport are real objects




mike scholl 1 -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/12/2012 2:41:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The discussion simply was about whether it is a disadvantage for the Japanese to play PDU off or not, or as far as Puhis is concerned
how big a disadvantage it is. I donīt give a ratsī ass on whether you think its fair or not or can be traded for working US torps.

What the hell are you smoking mike? [:D][:D][:D]


I'm simply saying that in the real life historical sense, "PDU on" is as big a steaming pile of nonsense as "working US Mk XIV torpedoes". [8|]




LoBaron -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/12/2012 6:55:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChadS

As the dumb guy (and new guy) in the room, I'm needing a level-set of what we're talking about. This is regarding whether or not players should be able to set the future upgrade path of their air units, correct? So, instead of following the current "script," that a particular P-40 unit will switch to p-38s, I'd have the ability to determine that they change to F4Us or something like that? (I'm assuming there are some limitations that I'm not catching on to just yet.)

It makes sense that the air units evolved in a particular manner because of the situation as it was. With playing a simulation of the war, where one is not required to follow the same strategies, it makes sense to me that air units should be able to upgrade to meet the new needs of the mission at hand.

Currently, I'm PDU off, because I wouldn't otherwise know what the hell I would want to do, or what makes good sense. But, in the future, I'd think that will change.

Chad S


Like Lokasenna said, it enables the player to control the upgrade paths to a certain degree.

There are two limitations to the PDU ON upgrade paths:

The hard limitations concern interservice use (no IJN planes for IJA planes, no Army planes for USN/USMC units and vice versa) and squadon mission type
(you cannot equip a USMC "fighter" unit with PBYs, or Venturas - except if it is preset by the historical upgrade path).
The soft limitations concern plane upgrades deviating in engine count AND the given upgrade path (e.g. going unscheduled from Marauders to Liberators),
and the so called "import" planes, not considered primary plane types by the service (e.g. you can upgrade a USMC unit to Hellcats, but they are native USN
types). Soft limits mean that you spend a certain ammount of PPs to be allowed to perform this upgrade.




jmalter -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/12/2012 8:16:37 AM)

i like the flexibility of PDU=ON, it's tempered by the PP cost of buying a plane upgrade. i've got some Indian Air Force sqns, flying Wapitis, that are trained up enough to go to the front, but there's no way i can spare the PPs that it would cost. similarly, bunches of USMC sqns are combat-ready, but i choose not to buy decent a/c for them, 'cos i'm saving PP to buy a high-$ LCU out of its restricted HQ.




aphrochine -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/18/2012 10:30:09 PM)

PDU Off severly limits the early allies. The main reason is how few airframes of 4Es you have in '42 and early '43. With PDU On, it's easy to consolidate those airframes into frontline units and begin 4E bombing in localized operations by mid-42. Without PDU Off, it's far more difficult to accomplish this. Sure, the JFB doesnt have endless waves of Tojos to throw at the allied 4Es, but there are far fewer 4Es as they are spread all over the Pacific USAAF in 2s and 3s with 12-15 pilots sharing flight/training time.




PaxMondo -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/19/2012 12:04:06 AM)

PDU = On is fun for me.  PDU = OFF is not fun.  That simple.  Couldn't care less about any argument one way or the other.  If the game isn't fun, I won't take time to play.  I think it falls that way for most players; they play to have fun.

To the OP's question, thats the answer.  Whatever the two player agree to is what it is.  If they can't agree, then they look for new opponents.  Simple.  Better?  Worse?  Moot popints.  All cow dung.  What is fun is the answer.




SuluSea -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/19/2012 1:07:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

PDU = On is fun for me.  PDU = OFF is not fun.  That simple.  Couldn't care less about any argument one way or the other.  If the game isn't fun, I won't take time to play.  I think it falls that way for most players; they play to have fun.

To the OP's question, thats the answer.  Whatever the two player agree to is what it is.  If they can't agree, then they look for new opponents.  Simple.  Better?  Worse?  Moot popints.  All cow dung.  What is fun is the answer.


This to the tenth power!







Gräfin Zeppelin -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/19/2012 2:15:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

PDU = On is fun for me.  PDU = OFF is not fun.  That simple.  Couldn't care less about any argument one way or the other.  If the game isn't fun, I won't take time to play.  I think it falls that way for most players; they play to have fun.

To the OP's question, thats the answer.  Whatever the two player agree to is what it is.  If they can't agree, then they look for new opponents.  Simple.  Better?  Worse?  Moot popints.  All cow dung.  What is fun is the answer.

+1




Dan Nichols -> RE: Pros and Cons of Player Defined A/C upgrades (10/19/2012 2:18:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

PDU = On is fun for me.  PDU = OFF is not fun.  That simple.  Couldn't care less about any argument one way or the other.  If the game isn't fun, I won't take time to play.  I think it falls that way for most players; they play to have fun.

To the OP's question, thats the answer.  Whatever the two player agree to is what it is.  If they can't agree, then they look for new opponents.  Simple.  Better?  Worse?  Moot popints.  All cow dung.  What is fun is the answer.


Totally agree with you, fun is what is wanted. I would never play a game with PDU off, no matter which side I was playing.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02