Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/28/2011 9:17:46 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Welcome to the wonderful world of Japanese economics.


No wonder they lost the war


Re: 2. Upgrade the unit to a different type of plane - is this a cunning trick you old timers employ to try and rationalise production by cutting down the number of models researched/produced and free up factories for rushing other planes


Any info on the EDIT in my previous post or is that one for Damian as well? An example here is the K5Y1 Willow which has TBO_YTA of 3(1152) on a turn 1 Dec 7th start.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 121
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 12:49:20 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz
Therefore the TBO_YTA ia the number needed to make ALL of the due reinforcements up to full strength, and whats called 'Reinforcements' in tracker is just to reinforce exisitng untits to replace combat losses.
quote:


I don't know. Damian will have to answer that question.







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 122
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 12:54:57 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Welcome to the wonderful world of Japanese economics.


No wonder they lost the war


Re: 2. Upgrade the unit to a different type of plane - is this a cunning trick you old timers employ to try and rationalise production by cutting down the number of models researched/produced and free up factories for rushing other planes


Any info on the EDIT in my previous post or is that one for Damian as well? An example here is the K5Y1 Willow which has TBO_YTA of 3(1152) on a turn 1 Dec 7th start.







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 123
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 4:46:39 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Re: 2. Upgrade the unit to a different type of plane - is this a cunning trick you old timers employ to try and rationalise production by cutting down the number of models researched/produced and free up factories for rushing other planes

I don't know about that, but it could be a side effect. IJ decisions had a lot of political baggage associated with them, and they did not have a well defined decision tree. I have no baggage and my decision tree is pretty well established as is most players.

Example: Sally vs Helen. IRL the Sally was produced throughout the war. Most players convert to the Helen when the armored version is available. Players believe conserving experienced pilots to be important. It took a long time for the IJA to come to the same conclusion. I'm not saving any model production here, both get produced.

Example: Rushing planes. As compared to history, most players focus on a few models to research early. Experience (hindsight) has taught them that fighters are particularly important. Historically, the IJ was trying to field a LOT of new bombers and other types (I think 89 or so models!!!). Monday morning quarterback teaches you that better fighters are critical. Bombers less so. Others even less.

In the end it doesn't matter that much though because VOLUME matters even more.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 124
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 7:31:26 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Historically, the IJ was trying to field a LOT of new bombers and other types (I think 89 or so models!!!). Monday morning quarterback teaches you that better fighters are critical. Bombers less so. Others even less.

In the end it doesn't matter that much though because VOLUME matters even more.

Very true and why in the doc, I focus on fighter R&D. But 1 caveat would be 42-43 DB's and TB's which I think make a bit of difference in the mid-war period. LB is so weak in stock that I hardly ever research it unless I feel it necessary. Still for some of those that remember Nemo's Empires Ablaze for witp(not ae), LB had some teeth and I researched those


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 125
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 7:52:19 AM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz
Therefore the TBO_YTA ia the number needed to make ALL of the due reinforcements up to full strength, and whats called 'Reinforcements' in tracker is just to reinforce exisitng untits to replace combat losses.
quote:


I don't know. Damian will have to answer that question.








Still trying to get things clear in my own mind - my problem is that i can follow the math but often not the terminology used as i haven't played the game very much. So to make sure i understand things this is how i read what you have said.

TBA.YTA

Looking at TBA.YTA - lets assume there is only one group of airplane reinforcement i.e. due to arrive at a date in the future (a delayed group) e.g.

A group is due to arrive in the future with 2 planes but its max size is 27, therefore TBA.YTA = 25(27).

However if a second group of the same plane type arrives on a carrier then these planes are counted as freebies. So if its a full group of 36 then the combined TBA.YTA would be 25(63).

So from this we know we need to build 25 planes to fill our groups, though will need more to cover combat and ops losses.

We also know that in total we will have 63 planes of which we don't need to build 38. I'm not sure why we need these numbers though, other than the overall total of 63 is perhaps a guide to how many planes we might want to build to cover combat losses?

One other question on this - is it just carrier planes that are freebies?


REINFORCEMENTS

In your example above you have figures of 7(29).
The 7 means that from all the plane units on the map i have suffered 7 losses so i need 7 builds to cover replacements.

However i am still confused as to what the (29) refers to. What is the "Total group need" of 29 and what is the "Reserve" of 22? Where do these figures come from?

K5Y1 Willow

I think you are saying that there are 1149 freebies?

many thanks



(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 126
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 8:06:46 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


Still trying to get things clear in my own mind - my problem is that i can follow the math but often not the terminology used as i haven't played the game very much. So to make sure i understand things this is how i read what you have said.

TBA.YTA

Looking at TBA.YTA - lets assume there is only one group of airplane reinforcement i.e. due to arrive at a date in the future (a delayed group) e.g.

A group is due to arrive in the future with 2 planes but its max size is 27, therefore TBA.YTA = 25(27).

That's correct.
quote:


However if a second group of the same plane type arrives on a carrier then these planes are counted as freebies. So if its a full group of 36 then the combined TBA.YTA would be 25(63).

Nope pretty sure I only count land based planes in the TBO.YTA (will confirm when home).
quote:


So from this we know we need to build 25 planes to fill our groups, though will need more to cover combat and ops losses.

True.
quote:


We also know that in total we will have 63 planes of which we don't need to build 38. I'm not sure why we need these numbers though, other than the overall total of 63 is perhaps a guide to how many planes we might want to build to cover combat losses?

I provide it because it is a guide; you can calculate freebies, helps with upgrade info, and late war for kamikaze etc.
quote:


One other question on this - is it just carrier planes that are freebies?

Mostly, but many land based groups come full too or mostly full
quote:



REINFORCEMENTS

In your example above you have figures of 7(29).
The 7 means that from all the plane units on the map i have suffered 7 losses so i need 7 builds to cover replacements.

However i am still confused as to what the (29) refers to. What is the "Total group need" of 29 and what is the "Reserve" of 22? Where do these figures come from?

GroupNeed = No of planes to make them all max planes. Reserve = total of all groups reserve planes. So, if you took all the reserves away, then added them to the groups that needed them, there would still be 7 needed to make them max.

** maybe I need to change this, but the info is a guide and the grp specifics are below.
quote:



K5Y1 Willow

I think you are saying that there are 1149 freebies?

many thanks

Yes -
No Probs.


< Message edited by n01487477 -- 11/29/2011 8:08:10 AM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 127
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 11:23:41 AM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


I don't know about that, but it could be a side effect. IJ decisions had a lot of political baggage associated with them, and they did not have a well defined decision tree. I have no baggage and my decision tree is pretty well established as is most players.

Example: Sally vs Helen. IRL the Sally was produced throughout the war. Most players convert to the Helen when the armored version is available. Players believe conserving experienced pilots to be important. It took a long time for the IJA to come to the same conclusion. I'm not saving any model production here, both get produced.

Example: Rushing planes. As compared to history, most players focus on a few models to research early. Experience (hindsight) has taught them that fighters are particularly important. Historically, the IJ was trying to field a LOT of new bombers and other types (I think 89 or so models!!!). Monday morning quarterback teaches you that better fighters are critical. Bombers less so. Others even less.

In the end it doesn't matter that much though because VOLUME matters even more.


Thanks Pax, interesting info. Will work on this when i start my first game.



(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 128
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 12:26:43 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

In the end it doesn't matter that much though because VOLUME matters even more.


Thanks Pax, interesting info. Will work on this when i start my first game.




Read Lobaron's excellent thread on Air Combat. Numbers in air combat play a HUGE factor. If you can get 2:1 on a sweep or higher, it hardly matters what your planes are. Pilot quality is also critical, both skill and exp.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 129
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 1:17:09 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
n01487477

I have had a go looking into where tracker gets it numbers to try and test my understanding. However there is one bit, TBO.YTA, that i can't figure out (assuming i extracted the correct data from the game). See pic below.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 130
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 1:26:24 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz
n01487477

I have had a go looking into where tracker gets it numbers to try and test my understanding. However there is one bit, TBO.YTA, that i can't figure out (assuming i extracted the correct data from the game). See pic below.


Time to start calling me Damian by now ;-)

Nice chart by the way!

Just look at the 40th Ku T-2.
max size - (total+active+damaged+res) = -2
Max size = 6

Cheers

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 131
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 1:27:52 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz
n01487477

I have had a go looking into where tracker gets it numbers to try and test my understanding. However there is one bit, TBO.YTA, that i can't figure out (assuming i extracted the correct data from the game). See pic below.


Time to start calling me Damian by now ;-)

Nice chart by the way!

Just look at the 40th Ku T-2.
max size - (total+active+damaged+res) = -2
Max size = 6

Cheers
[edit]shoho is a CV grp - I don't count them in TBO.



< Message edited by n01487477 -- 11/29/2011 1:28:37 PM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 132
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 2:16:05 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz
n01487477

I have had a go looking into where tracker gets it numbers to try and test my understanding. However there is one bit, TBO.YTA, that i can't figure out (assuming i extracted the correct data from the game). See pic below.


Time to start calling me Damian by now ;-)

Nice chart by the way!

Just look at the 40th Ku T-2.
max size - (total+active+damaged+res) = -2
Max size = 6

Cheers
[edit]shoho is a CV grp - I don't count them in TBO.




Hi Damian

I had figured where the tracker figures came from, didn't realise about CV groups not being included.

So to sum up the various points you have made about TBO.YTA over several posts the noob friendly definition seems to be something like:

TBO.YTA
   The first figure is the future build you need to make in order to fill out delayed
   airgroups (i.e. future reinforcement airgroups) to their full size once they arrive,
   i.e. by letting the new unit take replacements.

   The figure in brackets represents the future maximum airgroup size of all delayed 
   airgroups.  i.e. total number of aircraft if all units were at full strength

   HOWEVER neither figure includes:
     * upgrades (e.g. if you upgrade another model to the one in question)
     * airgroups that you may upgrade after arrival (e.g. if an airgroup arrives of 
       size 2 with a maximum size of 9 that would be 7 less you would have to build
     * airgroups that arrive on a CV


Its a slow process but i think i'm gradually getting there

Many thanks



(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 133
RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc - 11/29/2011 2:21:14 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz
Hi Damian

I had figured where the tracker figures came from, didn't realise about CV groups not being included.

So to sum up the various points you have made about TBO.YTA over several posts the noob friendly definition seems to be something like:

TBO.YTA
   The first figure is the future build you need to make in order to fill out delayed
   airgroups (i.e. future reinforcement airgroups) to their full size once they arrive,
   i.e. by letting the new unit take replacements.

   The figure in brackets represents the future maximum airgroup size of all delayed 
   airgroups.  i.e. total number of aircraft if all units were at full strength

   HOWEVER neither figure includes:
     * upgrades (e.g. if you upgrade another model to the one in question)
     * airgroups that you may upgrade after arrival (e.g. if an airgroup arrives of 
       size 2 with a maximum size of 9 that would be 7 less you would have to build
     * airgroups that arrive on a CV


Its a slow process but i think i'm gradually getting there

Many thanks

Seems right, 1.9 will have the column for upgrades and a Rec build ... which will help even more I hope - but more learning to come

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 134
R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/29/2011 9:01:07 PM   
icepharmy

 

Posts: 264
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline
Do engines advance separately from airframes? I understand that 1 R&D advance needs 1 R&D engine of the right type.

In RA3 for example both the Judy and its engine the Aichi 60 appear at 42/10 with no research allocated. But lets say for example I want to advance both by a month.
Would that mean I need 100 R&D airframes plus 100 Aichi engines AND an additional 100 Aichi engines for the engine to move forward at the same rate as the airframe?

Another example (and more important in this case) is the Nakajima Ha-45. Lets say I want to move the george from 43/5 to 43/3. That would mean that I would have to move the engine forward from 43/9 to 43/3. Would that mean I have to build enough Ha45 engines to get 200 engines just for the george advancement, plus X amount of engines to match R&D airframes for Franks,Frances,Peggys and 600 PLUS Ha-45 on top of those requirements?

If this is the way it works, then I would probably also need even more then the above numbers of extra engines, as die rolls mean not every 100 will produce a 1 month advance

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 135
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 6:53:13 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: icepharmy

Do engines advance separately from airframes? I understand that 1 R&D advance needs 1 R&D engine of the right type.

Separately, and that's right
quote:


In RA3 for example both the Judy and its engine the Aichi 60 appear at 42/10 with no research allocated. But lets say for example I want to advance both by a month.
Would that mean I need 100 R&D airframes plus 100 Aichi engines AND an additional 100 Aichi engines for the engine to move forward at the same rate as the airframe?

You need 100 points, not 100 engine factories (or airframes) to advance. I don't know about RA3, but I would say that R&D for engines and airframes seem to work at the same rate;So say you are getting 30(0) = 30 points/mth frames, you'll need the same for engines 30(0).
*1* Individual airframe factories are pretty much limited to 30 points per month. [Edit] Both frames and engines are inefficient over 30 R&D

quote:


Another example (and more important in this case) is the Nakajima Ha-45. Lets say I want to move the george from 43/5 to 43/3. That would mean that I would have to move the engine forward from 43/9 to 43/3. Would that mean I have to build enough Ha45 engines to get 200 engines just for the george advancement, plus X amount of engines to match R&D airframes for Franks,Frances,Peggys and 600 PLUS Ha-45 on top of those requirements?

If this is the way it works, then I would probably also need even more then the above numbers of extra engines, as die rolls mean not every 100 will produce a 1 month advance

Once again you are confusing factories with points. Points are accumulative, factories are per month. You just need to work on the same rate of advance.

So say you get all the George factories repaired by 11/42, giving you 4 months to produce 200 points for the 2 months advance. You'd need 200/4 = 50 points/mth = 30(0) + 20(0)

Whereas the engine factory can be 50(0) IIRC see *1* above. I will double check this with a test later to ease my mind.
[edit]Tested and I was incorrect, you'd need a 30(0) and a 20(0) engine factories too.
Cheers

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 11/30/2011 10:42:49 AM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to icepharmy)
Post #: 136
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 11:31:46 AM   
icepharmy

 

Posts: 264
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

quote:


So say you get all the George factories repaired by 11/42, giving you 4 months to produce 200 points for the 2 months advance. You'd need 200/4 = 50 points/mth = 30(0) + 20(0)

Whereas the engine factory can be 50(0) IIRC see *1* above. I will double check this with a test later to ease my mind.
[edit]Tested and I was incorrect, you'd need a 30(0) and a 20(0) engine factories too.
Cheers

quote:

Whereas the engine factory can be 50(0) IIRC see *1* above. I will double check this with a test later to ease my mind.
[edit]Tested and I was incorrect, you'd need a 30(0) and a 20(0) engine factories too.
Cheers



Ah thanks for the exhaustive answer and even testing it . Just one simple clarification: Since R&D engine factories repair 1 point per turn regardless of how far the date is, and produce engines/points even when not fully repaired(like regular airframe factories), then until your R&D airframe factories are fully repaired, the engines produced in your already working engine factories will all go into the advancement date cumulative for the engine only. To get 1 point towards airframe advancement you need 1 engine/1 airframe produced in the same turn.


(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 137
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 12:00:39 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: icepharmy


quote:


So say you get all the George factories repaired by 11/42, giving you 4 months to produce 200 points for the 2 months advance. You'd need 200/4 = 50 points/mth = 30(0) + 20(0)

Whereas the engine factory can be 50(0) IIRC see *1* above. I will double check this with a test later to ease my mind.
[edit]Tested and I was incorrect, you'd need a 30(0) and a 20(0) engine factories too.
Cheers

quote:

Whereas the engine factory can be 50(0) IIRC see *1* above. I will double check this with a test later to ease my mind.
[edit]Tested and I was incorrect, you'd need a 30(0) and a 20(0) engine factories too.
Cheers



Ah thanks for the exhaustive answer and even testing it . Just one simple clarification: Since R&D engine factories repair 1 point per turn regardless of how far the date is,

True
quote:


and produce engines/points even when not fully repaired(like regular airframe factories)

False
quote:

, then until your R&D airframe factories are fully repaired, the engines produced in your already working engine factories will all go into the advancement date cumulative for the engine only.

Huh? Sorry I don't get it...
quote:

To get 1 point towards airframe advancement you need 1 engine/1 airframe produced in the same turn.

R&D is not linked between the two, they are separate entities.

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to icepharmy)
Post #: 138
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 6:09:42 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
Hi

In the document there is a section on Air Production with some suggestions as to what to turn off or increase.  Trying to get my head around whats best to do (PDU on).

For the A6M5 Zero you change it to the A6M3 Zero which is fair enough as with the other factory you have 2 x 30 R&D.  Is the thinking here that you will just change the factories over to the new models on their standard arrival dates and that it is more important to have the A6M3 early than the A6M5?

I see the A6M5c has armour (though at the expense of other stats) - does this armour make this plane a lot better than the standad A6M5.  If not i can see why that would be another reason not to rush the A6M5.

Also - is it worth rushing the Sen Baku (which is the upgrade to the A6M2) as it upgrades to the A6M5b and i'm assuming there will be a large number of the old A6M2 still around? 


thanks



(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 139
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 6:45:17 PM   
icepharmy

 

Posts: 264
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477


quote:

ORIGINAL: icepharmy


quote:




Huh? Sorry I don't get it...
quote:

To get 1 point towards airframe advancement you need 1 engine/1 airframe produced in the same turn.

R&D is not linked between the two, they are separate entities.


Sorry, used to play a lot of Bombing the Reich, where an A/C or R&D A/C only got produced/ researched when 1 each of assembly/engine/parts was produced . The word airframe made me think assembly, when I should just think aircraft.

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 140
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 7:12:59 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Hi

In the document there is a section on Air Production with some suggestions as to what to turn off or increase.  Trying to get my head around whats best to do (PDU on).

For the A6M5 Zero you change it to the A6M3 Zero which is fair enough as with the other factory you have 2 x 30 R&D.  Is the thinking here that you will just change the factories over to the new models on their standard arrival dates and that it is more important to have the A6M3 early than the A6M5?

I see the A6M5c has armour (though at the expense of other stats) - does this armour make this plane a lot better than the standad A6M5.  If not i can see why that would be another reason not to rush the A6M5.

Also - is it worth rushing the Sen Baku (which is the upgrade to the A6M2) as it upgrades to the A6M5b and i'm assuming there will be a large number of the old A6M2 still around? 


thanks

EDIT - Why increase the Ki44-iia Tojo, there are no new airgroups and nothing upgrades to it as far as i can see - what am i missing here? Or is it that whilst nothing is on the upgrade path you can convert other planes (the Oscar?) to it?






< Message edited by sanderz -- 11/30/2011 7:13:30 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 141
RE: R&D advance airframe(w engine) and plus engines? - 11/30/2011 7:22:50 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

EDIT - Why increase the Ki44-iia Tojo, there are no new airgroups and nothing upgrades to it as far as i can see - what am i missing here? Or is it that whilst nothing is on the upgrade path you can convert other planes (the Oscar?) to it?


With PDU On, almost all (all?) of the IJA fighter groups can upgrade to the Tojo.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 142
Econ 101 - Draft 2 - 12/1/2011 1:29:47 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Hi

In the document there is a section on Air Production with some suggestions as to what to turn off or increase.  Trying to get my head around whats best to do (PDU on).

Remember this doc so far is focused on PDU ON, Realistic ON. I'll do off later.
quote:


For the A6M5 Zero you change it to the A6M3 Zero which is fair enough as with the other factory you have 2 x 30 R&D.  Is the thinking here that you will just change the factories over to the new models on their standard arrival dates and that it is more important to have the A6M3 early than the A6M5?

No, my thinking is that once the M3 R&D factories are fully repaired, I'll move them up the line ASAP.
quote:


I see the A6M5c has armour (though at the expense of other stats) - does this armour make this plane a lot better than the standard A6M5.  If not i can see why that would be another reason not to rush the A6M5.

Haven't done enough test comparisons, but by that stage armour or none, there's carnage. I set up to rush the M5 or M5b(with slightly better weapons). But honestly, all of them are pretty av. compared to what you'll be facing. The A7M2 is good - but way too far away and not on an upgrade path.
quote:


Also - is it worth rushing the Sen Baku (which is the upgrade to the A6M2) as it upgrades to the A6M5b and i'm assuming there will be a large number of the old A6M2 still around? 

thanks

I wrote this:
quote:

There is no damage or cost associated with moving a fully repaired R&D facility to the next upgrade option as defined by the editor. The advantage with non-realistic is that fully repaired production plants can be moved along this path at no cost too.
Which is why building the A6M2, and then switching it to the Baku and then the M5b is a good option for non-realistic(straight away), but can’t be achieved with realistic R&D.

So what I'm saying is don't research the Baku, playing Realistic Off - build a few more M2 factories, when fully repaired, switch them to the Baku and in the same turn, to the M5b and voila - you're researching that! Can get it a year early if wanted.

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 12/1/2011 1:57:54 AM >


_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 143
RE: Econ 101 - Draft 2 - 12/1/2011 6:32:12 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
Another question on the document.

"So turn everything off, except those that are currently building and then we’ll (you’ll) determine what you want. The purple and blue graphic will tell you that turning off all those merchants give you a HI windfall."


By turning off "everything except those building" i assume you mean just the "Queued" ships. But if i do this none of the figures at the top of the screen change. I can't see how i am saving any HI.

However, if i accelerate these queued ships then the "calculated points" does change, it increases by 1 x Durability.

Also, where in Tracker is the "Ship delay and HI graph"?

What am I missing here?

Many thanks

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 144
RE: Econ 101 - Draft 2 - 12/2/2011 2:29:59 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Another question on the document.

"So turn everything off, except those that are currently building and then we’ll (you’ll) determine what you want. The purple and blue graphic will tell you that turning off all those merchants give you a HI windfall."


By turning off "everything except those building" i assume you mean just the "Queued" ships. But if i do this none of the figures at the top of the screen change. I can't see how i am saving any HI.

Ok - well future HI with queued and Blue print ships. Under the beta you can turn off or stop any ship now. Actually having thought about it more; from the standpoint of what I'd do (which is more micro-managing) - I'd leave everything as is and as they are about to go into build mode - turn them off.

The reason for this is that once you stop or halt queued or blue print ships they no longer get the free date movement closer to build. Queued(Stop) and Blue print(stop) work differently too and I should outline that.

Still some of those Merchants - I'm never going to want or use.
quote:


However, if i accelerate these queued ships then the "calculated points" does change, it increases by 1 x Durability.

HI cost increases * 1 Durability; Time reduces by 2 days instead of 1 per turn.

quote:


Also, where in Tracker is the "Ship delay and HI graph"?

What am I missing here?

Many thanks

Optimum on the Ship Production screen. My version is 1.9 though.

Cheers

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 145
RE: JEcon 101 setup pre-final Doc - 12/3/2011 11:02:26 PM   
jon_r

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 8/27/2011
Status: offline
Having trouble getting the saved games at the top of the thread to load. Running 1.04.1106i. When I load the files WPAE5 or WPAE6m I get a File Failed to Load Error. No problems opening the very helpful .pdf also offered through dropbox. Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Jon

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 146
RE: JEcon 101 setup pre-final Doc - 12/3/2011 11:12:04 PM   
jon_r

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 8/27/2011
Status: offline
Please disregard above post -- had neglected to load newest beta ... works like a charm now.

Thanks,

Jon

(in reply to jon_r)
Post #: 147
RE: JEcon 101 setup pre-final Doc - 12/11/2011 1:27:30 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
Have a week off this week so I'm looking to finalise.

Anything else requested?

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to jon_r)
Post #: 148
RE: JEcon 101 setup pre-final Doc - 12/17/2011 2:12:35 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1299
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Damien -

All of your comments and answers above are exact and easily understood. I really appreciate your willingness to take the time and make the effort to clarify a very complex aspect of the game.

Thank You, Sir!

I can but quake at the feet of the Master...

Cricket Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 149
RE: JEcon 101 setup pre-final Doc - 12/30/2011 11:27:16 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4719
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
Any other suggestions ? 

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> RE: Japan Econ 101 setup Draft Doc Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156