Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: P-47 Production Gap

 
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 >> RE: P-47 Production Gap Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 3:41:17 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7112
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
This all makes little difference to me. I have been playing Viberpol in a campaign for three and a half actual years. He is pretty good at making Japanese aircraft. It is like he just craps them out after breakfast every morning. Yes, the Allies are stuck with historical production number while the JFB gets a pretty free hand. Over the course of our game I have bitched about. 1. The unfairness of early service ratings to the Allies. 2. The insane pace of production and research. 3. The damn 1 hex strike bonus for Japanese carrier aircraft. To many torpedo carrying bettys and just about a million other perceived insults to the Allies.

Yes the air situation does get a little desperate for the Allies and my pools have always been on the verge of empty for most of the game. But in the end, I was just bitching. My own personal experience is that I would rather be the Allied player in 1944 than the Japanese. He may still have more airplanes but I can beat his air force pretty much anywhere I choose. It is not a problem for me. If the Japanese player gets some advantages it has only made for a more balanced and fair game-that he will probably lose anyway.

We are just moving into 3/45 and the P47N comes on line. I have survived the P47 gap pretty nicely with corsairs, hellcats, P38s and the D Mustang. You just have to plan a little. Also, production of the British P47 has never stopped. It is just going to get better. Hang in there.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 31
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 3:53:18 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6957
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
It might have been nice to add that when I sent this to you I also did this for the Japanese aircraft. I broke them into better and worse types. About the same ratio actually.

What is really the issue? If I (or any other Japanese player) is producing less than the Japanese did historically, and the Corsair/P-47 gets 5:1 at worst? Maybe 10:1 at best.

Did you miss the part in my previous note about the fact you've only lost 280 P-47s for the game so far? In 8-9 months?

What would the Allies do with more planes that you're not doing now? You bomb with 4Es every day en masse in two theaters, sweep with 6-8 Corsairs/P-47s groups every day. You're up by what, 5,000 planes in total airframes lost?

I would think you'd be happy if I made even more airframes to add to your VP totals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

To be fair one shouldnīt count the total number of allied AC produced. In 44 the allies have to be on the offensive and only a few types can be used in that role. When I say "can be used" I base that on my own experience in in March 44.

To use Eriks list:

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

130 - Hellcats Outdated but still has its uses
78 - Corsair F4U-1A Fantastic!
32 - Spitfire VIII Potent on offensive but really shines on CAP
16 - Corsair II
50 - P-38J Good enough but will take losses
175 - P-47D25 Oustanding aircraft. Only runs for 4 months though
12 - Spitfire Vc Canīt be used offensively
20 - Spitfire VIII (Aussie)
12 - Mosquito FB Canīt be used offensively
4 - Hellcat NF
-----------------
529

55 - P-40N Canīt be used offensively
128 - Wildcat FM - 2 Canīt be used offensively
36 - Hurricane IIc Canīt be used offensively
30 - Kittyhawk IV (Aussie) Canīt be used offensively
12 - Kittyhawk IV (NZ) Canīt be used offensively
8 - P-40N (Chinese) Canīt be used offensively
4 P-39N2 Canīt be used offensively
6 - Beaufighter X Canīt be used offensively
---------------
279



If you sum that up you get 501 AC if you include the Hellcat. Personally Iīm a bit reluctant to use it offensively. Without the Hellcat and P47 (short run) you end up with 196 Fighters per month. When the P47 stops production in July you do get a small boost in P38s (from 50 to 80?) and the P51 starts producing 30 per month.

The Japanese player can choose what to produce and what not to. The allied player canīt. I just donīt think counting the total number of frames for the allies gives a fair picture. You need to look at whats actually coming. The P40/39/Kitties will have absolutely NO chance going up against Franks/Tojos/Georges/Jacks. No sane player will try to just as no sane Japanese player will use Oscars for sweeping against Spits.

My 2 ören...



_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 32
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 4:50:07 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4750
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

It might have been nice to add that when I sent this to you I also did this for the Japanese aircraft. I broke them into better and worse types. About the same ratio actually.

What is really the issue? If I (or any other Japanese player) is producing less than the Japanese did historically, and the Corsair/P-47 gets 5:1 at worst? Maybe 10:1 at best.

Did you miss the part in my previous note about the fact you've only lost 280 P-47s for the game so far? In 8-9 months?

What would the Allies do with more planes that you're not doing now? You bomb with 4Es every day en masse in two theaters, sweep with 6-8 Corsairs/P-47s groups every day. You're up by what, 5,000 planes in total airframes lost?

I would think you'd be happy if I made even more airframes to add to your VP totals.



There is no issue? Iīm just pointing out that playing the allies even in 44-45 isnīt a cake walk as has been indicated by some. But its a really interesting discussion. Especially in Jim D Burns post I find a lot of good things.

I think the common opinion is that once the allies hit -44 they are unstoppable and its just a never ending steamroller that canīt be stopped. I just donīt find that to be true. The Japanese side has been given a lot of not so historical tools to balance that out. But I rarely see that mentioned. I was of the same belief until I got to -44 and I find myself nursing my pools even more then I did in 42.

Iīm not saying its a bad thing for the game but people tend to forget the fact that the Jap side isnīt shackled by history while the Allies are and this help even things out a bit!

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 33
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 4:51:38 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Jim - for what you wrote (in bold above) to be true also requires strictly historical actions day after by both players. The point being that even if the combat models were essentially perfect reproductions of real life results given the circumstances of each battle, the overall results would still be different because of different numbers of battles, and different circumstances of battles.


I'm not saying players need to or should mimic historical actions. I'm saying that a cushion should be built into the allied production pools due to realities of the games pro-Japan bias. On map combat ability should be based on what units are on map, not on trying to manage a too small production pool based on the intentional shutting down of allied production in 1944 as occurred during the actual war when it became apparent Japan was caving in.

Japan will always be far more effective in game then it was during the war and the notion that the allies would have shut down their production vs. such a difficult opponent is ludicrous. If in game Japan was as weak as it was historically in 1944, then I'd have no problem with the tiny late war production numbers we see, but they are never that weak that I've ever seen. The allies are constantly battling tiny pools all game due to Japan's over-effectiveness.

Jim

_____________________________



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 34
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 4:58:50 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
American losses alone (Army, Navy and Marines) against Japan amounted to approximately 18.5 thousands of aircraft (circusmtances of loss are irrelevant here, and AE is completely different from RL in his department anyway, with ops losses outside of combat being insignificant, so your "far too bloody" complaint can't possibly be valid, until both sides start to lose half of their production during training and routine patrols). I don't know how many British and other nations had lost.

I haven't read much AARs for more than a year, but I still can name a couple of finished games where total Allied losses for the war were only around 11-12 thousands of aircraft. In fact, that will be pretty much any of the numerous games where Allies won in 1944.


Loss numbers mean both participants, you can't just look at one side and say everything is fine. When I say historical loss numbers I mean historical ratios. The allies come nowhere near the comfortable 6-1 (probably closer to 10-1) or better ratio they enjoyed during the war in game. So Japan is always far more effective overall because they don't suffer the huge loss drain they historically faced.

Edit: Here are some actual loss numbers to look over: pdf

The F6F loss ratio is significant, read the text below table 2. It shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in air combat yet lost only 270 in air combat. That's a 19-1 kill ratio, something the allies can never hope to achieve in game. A huge part of the allied historical success in the war is due to the fact the F6F was so successful at defending allied shipping whenever it ventured into harm's way.

Of course the lack of historical performance for the F6F translates into far more shipping loss for the allies, something which cannot be accounted for in the games draconian production pool system, so the allies have to try and achieve the same level of counter-attack success with far fewer tools available to them as the war grinds on in game.


Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 2/28/2013 7:38:59 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 35
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 8:35:32 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6957
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Loss numbers mean both participants, you can't just look at one side and say everything is fine. When I say historical loss numbers I mean historical ratios. The allies come nowhere near the comfortable 6-1 (probably closer to 10-1) or better ratio they enjoyed during the war in game. So Japan is always far more effective overall because they don't suffer the huge loss drain they historically faced.

Edit: Here are some actual loss numbers to look over: pdf

The F6F loss ratio is significant, read the text below table 2. It shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in air combat yet lost only 270 in air combat. That's a 19-1 kill ratio, something the allies can never hope to achieve in game. A huge part of the allied historical success in the war is due to the fact the F6F was so successful at defending allied shipping whenever it ventured into harm's way.

Of course the lack of historical performance for the F6F translates into far more shipping loss for the allies, something which cannot be accounted for in the games draconian production pool system, so the allies have to try and achieve the same level of counter-attack success with far fewer tools available to them as the war grinds on in game.


Jim



The Hellcat numbers are amazing.

I began playing the Japanese side to learn more about it, to try to understand the production system, and because I thought it would be a good challenge. It has been! These kinds of discussions are great, but we also have to remember that the large majority of games end before 44. These late game Allied numbers were against a politically divided, philosophically antiquated force that had been dealt several devastating blows before getting to 44, like Midway and the cumulative effects to the New Guinea and Solomons campaigns.

What if the war had gone the other way, and the KB had sunk 3 US CVs for no losses, invaded Midway, and retained the majority of their trained pilots and naval crews? What if the Japanese had taken Port Moresby, held Guadalcanal for another year without going through that debilitating drain on their resources and pilots and built a series of supported bases up the Solomons and across New Guinea? What if the IJA and IJN were not battling and inhibiting each other but were instead supporting each other's operations, streamlining production and sharing information? All of these numbers come from historical incident and particularity, not what happens in the game. That is what is interesting about playing it.

Should the Hellcat be stronger? Maybe. But maybe the ability of Japanese players to use R n D to field fighters months in advance should be slightly less pronounced or more costly. Some have said the pilot training evens the fields too much as well. I used to think this, but now in 44 I realize that elite US and British fighter units will have far better pilots than the Japanese and their advantage will continue as those kill ratios of the good fighters stay in the 5:1 territory.

The 4E though is the real deciding factor. Used well these weapons can disintegrate any isolated Japanese base and the units on it. Maybe the Allies don't win as they did in the war, but they have all of the tools to win in the game. It's about how they use them.

< Message edited by obvert -- 2/28/2013 8:55:42 PM >


_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 36
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 8:48:38 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14614
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

What if the war had gone the other way, and the KB had sunk 3 US CVs for no losses, invaded Midway, and retained the majority of their trained pilots and naval crews?


As far as the battle of Midway is concerned, the Japanese did retain the majority of their trained pilots and air crew. The ground crews on board the carriers suffered massive losses IIRC, and of course the naval crews themselves suffered heavy losses.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 37
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 8:55:48 PM   
henry1611

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As far as the battle of Midway is concerned, the Japanese did retain the majority of their trained pilots and air crew. The ground crews on board the carriers suffered massive losses IIRC, and of course the naval crews themselves suffered heavy losses.



Just read that page in Shattered Sword today. "The Midway carriers between them counted 721 aircraft technicians killed, or more than 40 percent of the total number embarked." 121 pilots and airman were killed during the battle.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 38
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 2/28/2013 9:58:03 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
What if the war had gone the other way, and the KB had sunk 3 US CVs for no losses, invaded Midway, and retained the majority of their trained pilots and naval crews? What if the Japanese had taken Port Moresby, held Guadalcanal for another year without going through that debilitating drain on their resources and pilots and built a series of supported bases up the Solomons and across New Guinea? What if the IJA and IJN were not battling and inhibiting each other but were instead supporting each other's operations, streamlining production and sharing information?



It wouldn't make any difference at all other than perhaps pushing the date of final collapse forward a bit. As the chart on page 4 of this PDF shows, Japan's peak airframe production numbers never even achieved the figures for just the US production from 1941. By 1944 US production so far outstripped all other countries combined that there was never any question about the outcome of the war. The only real question was how long it would take.

http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/neba/journal/v1n1p91.pdf

The chart also dramatically demonstrates the sharp decline in production output once production was intentionally curtailed. Had Japan been as difficult an opponent in reality as it is in game the steady increase to production numbers that you see occur through 1943 could have easily been maintained. And the fact the air war was won already in Europe, means a good 80% or more of mid 1944 and beyonds production could have gone to the Pacific had it been needed. But historically it wasn't needed, so players are prevented from having that tool/ability available to them in game.

Charts for any other war material or ship types would show similar growth and declines. So realistically the allies should never suffer from shortages in any type of war fighting equipment no matter what kind of losses they sustain in game. But the fact there is fixed pools and limited replacements means this game is simply an exercise in fantasy when it comes to war production for the two sides.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 2/28/2013 10:14:42 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 39
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/1/2013 5:43:32 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7112
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Well, I pretty much only play humans via email. My only real concern is that with any sort of Allied control over production there would just not be any JFBs around to fight with. If I were a Japanese player and if hellcats were getting a 16-1 advantage over my aircraft, I don't see myself sticking a three year campaign out.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 40
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/1/2013 8:07:13 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4750
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, I pretty much only play humans via email. My only real concern is that with any sort of Allied control over production there would just not be any JFBs around to fight with. If I were a Japanese player and if hellcats were getting a 16-1 advantage over my aircraft, I don't see myself sticking a three year campaign out.


+1

Very good point.

One thing to remember here is that with the on map training in AE perhaps the biggest disadvantage of the Japanese side was removed. Pilot quality.

With a historical pilot quality I could certainly see Hellcats getting a 16-1 advantage in the game. As it is now the Japanese side has been given a huge boon but nothing has been done to balance it. This could have big implication end game. Japan had to maintain a massive fighter production to keep up with losses during the later years (much like Germany). In game they are given the same capabilities in production since its "historical" but are blessed with a very unhistorical pilot training program given them almost the same ability to train pilots as the allies.

My point being that I donīt think talking about historical production and figures makes any sense. This game is far removed from the realities the Empire had to face. As I said before its probably good for the game. But I also believe that too few games have gone into to the later stages to really tell what the implications are.

Looking at my own game where I was completely outplayed in 42 and 43 I think the allies will struggle being stuck with historical numbers. Allied production figures went down because they had more or less already won in 44. With a Japan in this game that is far more competitive then the real life counterpart ever was I think the end game can go awry in some senses. I donīt think it will ever happen but perhaps it would make sense to put some kind of mechanics in place to stop the drop in allied production if certain conditions are met.

I think many players realize this. Just as Japan have to play a very strong 42 I think the allies need to play at least a good 42 and 43 to be able to make any significant headway in 44-45 or get stuck "grinding". This might be a part of why we see so few game going into 44-45.


< Message edited by JocMeister -- 3/1/2013 8:10:51 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 41
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/1/2013 10:58:31 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6957
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
The US industrial numbers could easily have continued, sure. There is little reason for them to slow in game based on different considerations of the outcomes in the early war. I'm just not sure how this could be different in game, and as crsutton points out, you need two to play a PBEM. I'm happy to stay on and get smothered by the Allied forces in 44-46, fighting with as much ingenuity and fortitude as I can muster to keep the game interesting, but many players are not.

We base much of our understanding and expectations for the game on what happened, and all I'm saying is that a few more Allied military defats in the early war would have produced different battles in the later stages. That has little to do with industrial outputs, but more to do with how those areas that were contested would have looked had the Japanese pulled out certain victories in early battles. The point being their fighting capability would have likely been better (if still flawed by certain philosophies and theories) than it was historically. That's all. Not that they would have won the war, but that it would have been a harder slog and more contested in certain areas where they had been able to fortify.

I can hardly contemplate how difficult my game would be had I never conquered Port Moresby, had I lost 4 CVs in 42, had I not been able to hold the lower Solomons in 42, and had I not taken Western OZ. In fact I'm experimenting a bit with that (not entirely intentionally) in my PBEM with Historiker, having lost 3 CVs on Dec 8-9. I don't have Port Moresby. I don't have CV dominance and therefore I'm very vulnerable in So Pac. I haven't taken territory in Western OZ. I can understand a bit more how difficult it would have been to defend these positions, even early, even without the division between services and logistical realities of the actual war.

One last thing I've been curious about for a while. What do the restricted air groups in the States, in the Home Islands, in Manchuria represent? Were those actually training units? Or were they active defensive units with trained pilots that just sat there all war doing little other than acting as a deterrent? In game both players use these to train pilots. This expands training to the level of industrial output. Pilots for both sides would have had very little time in the air before being thrown into battle. Sometimes 20 hours or less. One group was told to 'learn' how to fly the P-51 on the way to the target after switching out P-47s!! Crazy stuff.

So would it be a better game if we just disallowed dedicated training groups and went to using the pilots as they came; raw?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 42
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/1/2013 5:47:20 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Pilots for both sides would have had very little time in the air before being thrown into battle. Sometimes 20 hours or less. One group was told to 'learn' how to fly the P-51 on the way to the target after switching out P-47s!! Crazy stuff.

So would it be a better game if we just disallowed dedicated training groups and went to using the pilots as they came; raw?


US pilots received 200 hours of training before ever getting close to combat aircraft in a program that is arguably the best training program of the war used by any of the warring nations. 60 hours flying in Primary School, 70 hours flying in Basic School and then another 70 hours flying in Advanced School. The hands on part of the training you mention is probably something that occurred as part of their Transition Training, a period used to familiarize the 'qualified pilots' with the specifics of the airframes they would be flying.

http://scharch.org/Dick_Baer/_RFB%20AAF%20Training/AAF.htm

The US training program was one which churned out very highly trained pilots on an industrial level. The US never sent raw poorly trained pilots into battle the way Japan did.

Edit:
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
I'm happy to stay on and get smothered by the Allied forces in 44-46


No one is arguing to make it so the allies "smother" Japan in 1944+. But when Japan usually sits with thousands of extra planes and unlimited equipment in its pools late game and the allies are constantly fighting empty pools, something needs to be addressed.

There is no gameplay fun in having to constantly shuffle air groups around to give depleted units time to slowly draw replacement aircraft as they slowly trickle into the pools. It is micromanagement hell especially in the late war when allied turns become exponentially more complex to do.

The allies should at a minimum be given enough replacements so they don't have to do the air unit shuffle all the time after 1944. There is more than enough historical justification for it. I would also like to see some of the amphibious ships be given a respawn ability. Not all of them, just enough to guarantee that the allies can combat load a minimum of 6 divisions through to the end of the war.

Japan is tough enough in game that doing a 1946 invasion of Japan is probably not possible due to all the extra shipping losses the allies suffer in game. Historically the ship yards would have continued churning out hundreds of ships if losses were as high as we see in game, but the players are still stuck with an OOB that is based on the high survival rate of the actual war.


Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/1/2013 8:07:27 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 43
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 12:05:38 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2183
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saros

2500 is absurdly high. Although pilots are usually less of a problem because you are mostly fighting on the defensive over your own bases and you also lose a lot of planes on the ground when the heavies come visiting.



If you look at this thread, it appears that Capt Cliff has achieved production of 3003 a/c per month.

So it IS possible though it also appears he has trashed the Japanese economy doing so....



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Saros)
Post #: 44
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 1:01:57 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8394
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, I pretty much only play humans via email. My only real concern is that with any sort of Allied control over production there would just not be any JFBs around to fight with. If I were a Japanese player and if hellcats were getting a 16-1 advantage over my aircraft, I don't see myself sticking a three year campaign out.


The victory conditions and mechanism would need to be adjusted. But it could be done.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 45
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 1:04:41 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8394
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

One thing to remember here is that with the on map training in AE perhaps the biggest disadvantage of the Japanese side was removed. Pilot quality.



Pilot quality was bad because of a lack of avgas. In the game Japan does not rely on oil to the extent it did in real life. Most Japan-side oddities flow from that.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 46
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 1:10:12 AM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline
Just to add some juice to the discussion, on my last two turns (June 29 and 30 1944) two of my forward logistics ports were hit by massed Japanese raids. In the first one he hit Siberoet from Singapore with over 200 Franks Ki84r's swept my CAP of Spitfire VIII's and Wildcats away and opened the way for massed Jill's and Judy's to pound the shipping in the port. Luckily for me only 2 ships got hit as the rest were at sea. The raid came from Singapore where recon shows 485 fighters based. In the last turn Saumlaki got hit by 300 varied fighters followed up by massed Helen's, Frances and Nells. This time I was not so lucky and my shipping in the port got absolutely plastered including 20 odd bomb hits on two old BB's that were refuelling. Then to just top it off after all the CAP had been worn down, he hit a resupply convoy with 60 Oscars on kamikaze mission scoring about 30 hits. I haven't had the heart to look at the resultant carnage yet. The good news is my fighter production drops significantly tomorrow. 1944 is supposed to be easy?
Regards
Andrew

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 47
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 3:13:47 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1789
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
Wow! You lost some ships in '44 Are you running short on TRs? Do not have enough BB's running around that you need two old BB's so badly

I'm sorry as a JFB in 8/44 I have ZERO symphathy for your plight . '44+ for the Allies IS easy. Just because you got hit a few times is NOT going to change the outcome. I would bet that the bomb hits on the BBs did less than 50% damage.

If you REALLY want to see what carnage looks like switch sides for a few turns then see how things feel for the Allies lol.

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 48
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 5:02:16 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8394
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Wow! You lost some ships in '44 Are you running short on TRs? Do not have enough BB's running around that you need two old BB's so badly

I'm sorry as a JFB in 8/44 I have ZERO symphathy for your plight . '44+ for the Allies IS easy. Just because you got hit a few times is NOT going to change the outcome. I would bet that the bomb hits on the BBs did less than 50% damage.

If you REALLY want to see what carnage looks like switch sides for a few turns then see how things feel for the Allies lol.


I keep suggesting that perhaps crawling north through the DEI with inter-locking air bases might play into Game-Japan's strengths, but folks keep doing it. The wide Pacific wastes beckon. It's all carriers, and the USN has 'em.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 49
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 5:30:26 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5658
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Just a note, but most of this discussion relates to PDU ON and Scen 2.  Both of which are "fantasy" mods to help the IJ player.  So, you can't complain about game balance unless you are talking about Scen 1 and PDU OFF as that is the historical "fact".

If Scen1 and PDU OFF, the IJ Player builds 2000 fighters/month, bully for him.  2000 Nates.  Whoop-di-doo.  Even with PDU ON, building +1000 fighter/month is prolly NOT a good thing for IJ until '45  Witness the above AAR where the player goes to 3000/month and has so completely torched his economy in early '43 that he will take several months to correct it.  Time, that an astute allied player won't give him.

So, yes, with Scen 2 and PDU ON, you have a bit more of a dicey game until '45.  Once VE day happens, the floodgates open.  Why do you play?  Simple, so that you have an IJ opponent.  Very few games are played in Scen 1 with PDU OFF ... not saying there aren't any, but the vast majority are PDU ON and most are Scen 2.  The sole purpose being to extend the game for the IJ into '44 ....

So, most everything stated above I would agree with.  Scen 2 and PDU ON does favor the IJ player, as it is supposed to.  Just don't go calling the game BORKED and out of balance. 

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 50
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:00:32 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4750
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

'44+ for the Allies IS easy.


This comment just ticks me off. Iīm playing early 44 and it is far from "easy". But I donīt think anything will come from trying to tell you why. You have already decided that playing the allies in 44 is a breeze. Regardless of what happened in 42-43 the allies in 44 is easy. Right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Just a note, but most of this discussion relates to PDU ON and Scen 2.  Both of which are "fantasy" mods to help the IJ player.  So, you can't complain about game balance unless you are talking about Scen 1 and PDU OFF as that is the historical "fact".

If Scen1 and PDU OFF, the IJ Player builds 2000 fighters/month, bully for him.  2000 Nates.  Whoop-di-doo.  Even with PDU ON, building +1000 fighter/month is prolly NOT a good thing for IJ until '45  Witness the above AAR where the player goes to 3000/month and has so completely torched his economy in early '43 that he will take several months to correct it.  Time, that an astute allied player won't give him.

So, yes, with Scen 2 and PDU ON, you have a bit more of a dicey game until '45.  Once VE day happens, the floodgates open.  Why do you play?  Simple, so that you have an IJ opponent.  Very few games are played in Scen 1 with PDU OFF ... not saying there aren't any, but the vast majority are PDU ON and most are Scen 2.  The sole purpose being to extend the game for the IJ into '44 ....

So, most everything stated above I would agree with.  Scen 2 and PDU ON does favor the IJ player, as it is supposed to.  Just don't go calling the game BORKED and out of balance. 


Good point. But Iīm actually not so sure PDU ON is a Japanese bias. In early game it sure is. But in 44-45 I think it can become something negative for the Japanese side. Never played with PDU OFF so Iīm just speculating of course. But once allied production REALLY takes off everything is going to be P47/P51/Corsair/4Es.

On a more general note. Iīm not saying having a more balanced game is something wrong. Iīm just getting irritated at people thinking playing the allies are such an easy task just because you are getting into the later stages of the game. How "easy" or "hard" it is is decided in 42 and 43. If the allies have a disastrous 42 and 43 of course 44 is going to be a struggle. But some people seems to believe that once you hit 44 the floodgates open and you get 25 CVs and 50 divisions per month.



(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 51
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:26:36 AM   
aoffen

 

Posts: 365
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: Brisvegas, Australia
Status: offline
Here here. Well said sir.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 52
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:39:19 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7941
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I had missed that this was an Ironman scenario. The Ironman scenarios were designed to give the Allied player vs the AI a more challenging game. It can be played PBEM, but probably only if the Japanese player is a lot less skilled than the Allied one. A skilled Japanese player is probably going to be competitive well into 1944 if not all the way to the end of the war.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 53
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 11:25:59 AM   
alanschu

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
Eh.... If people are playing an an ahistorical campaign slotted to be biased towards the Japanese....

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 54
Game Balance - 3/2/2013 11:44:27 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5658
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

On a more general note. Iīm not saying having a more balanced game is something wrong. Iīm just getting irritated at people thinking playing the allies are such an easy task just because you are getting into the later stages of the game.

In Scen 1 with PDU OFF, the allies are fairly easy.

In Scen 2 with PDU ON, the game balance is shifted to the IJ and this increases the difficulty of the allied player significantly. No Question from my perspective. Are the allies still favored to win? Heck yes! Is it a cake walk? Heck no, ergo my comments about the balance shift.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
How "easy" or "hard" it is is decided in 42 and 43. If the allies have a disastrous 42 and 43 of course 44 is going to be a struggle. But some people seems to believe that once you hit 44 the floodgates open and you get 25 CVs and 50 divisions per month.

Absolutey agree with you. Hence, this is why the balance shifts work as well as they do. PDU ON favors IJ very much during her offensive period, and allows it to be extended. Scen 2 give the IJ a bigger economy to allow for a couple of minor errors. The combination will generally keep the game going well into '45 .... Scen 1 PDU OFF games tend to be over in '44 .... +12 months of game time ... a big deal.

The end result is that most IJ players will only play PDU ON and Scen 2 because they have a reasonable chance to hold out until '46. They can make a couple of minor "oops" in '42 or '43 and not have it kill them. PDU OFF and Scen 1 requires the IJ player to be almost perfect to survive. I am in awe of all IJ players playing PDU OFF and Scen 1 and taking the game into '45 and beyond. Incredibly difficult to do.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/2/2013 12:09:55 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 55
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 11:59:04 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5658
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Good point. But Iīm actually not so sure PDU ON is a Japanese bias. In early game it sure is. But in 44-45 I think it can become something negative for the Japanese side.

From the IJ perspective, PDU ON is a huge thing. I've played a couple of game with PDU ON, and will never play another. You are stuck with 1941 ac in too many air groups into '45. Not just a couple of air groups, but a significant percentage. Worse, it is your unresticted groups that are hurt the most. Most of the permanently restricted HI groups can upgrade freely. This constrains your use of air groups terribly ... you almost have to play historically because your air groups won't allow you to mount any ahistorical offensives unless you think you can do so with Nates and Ida's.

From the allied perspective, it is also an advantage. But most of the allied air groups are only one gen behind in upgrades (stuck in P40K's instead of P47's) which isn't nice ... but a P40K against a Nate is a fight the allied player should take every day. I undertand that late game PDU ON allows the allies to better use all of their P47/P51's .... but for the IJ it allows them to face those TRex's with planes other than Nate/A6M's which is what PDU OFF forces upon you.

So my opinion is that overall, it is a bigger advantage to the IJ player. Just my opinion though ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 56
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 1:33:25 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4750
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Good point. But Iīm actually not so sure PDU ON is a Japanese bias. In early game it sure is. But in 44-45 I think it can become something negative for the Japanese side.

From the IJ perspective, PDU ON is a huge thing. I've played a couple of game with PDU ON, and will never play another. You are stuck with 1941 ac in too many air groups into '45. Not just a couple of air groups, but a significant percentage. Worse, it is your unresticted groups that are hurt the most. Most of the permanently restricted HI groups can upgrade freely. This constrains your use of air groups terribly ... you almost have to play historically because your air groups won't allow you to mount any ahistorical offensives unless you think you can do so with Nates and Ida's.

From the allied perspective, it is also an advantage. But most of the allied air groups are only one gen behind in upgrades (stuck in P40K's instead of P47's) which isn't nice ... but a P40K against a Nate is a fight the allied player should take every day. I undertand that late game PDU ON allows the allies to better use all of their P47/P51's .... but for the IJ it allows them to face those TRex's with planes other than Nate/A6M's which is what PDU OFF forces upon you.

So my opinion is that overall, it is a bigger advantage to the IJ player. Just my opinion though ....


Interesting to get your input on PDU OFF as I understand you are one of the more knowledgeable Japanese players out there!

As I wrote I was just speculating. I have absolutely no clue on what the Jap upgrade path look like. Iīve just seen that many of the allied squadrons are stuck with P40s for long periods of time. I was imagining how hard it would be to go on the offensive having to rely mostly on P40s. But I didnīt know the Japanese were stuck with Nates for much of the game. Even the craptastic P40 can deal with Nates.

I would still like to try a PDU OFF game sometime though. Iīm not too happy with the air model in the game and I think playing with PDU OFF would give a more enjoyable air war. But by the sounds of the Jap player will really have to be a masochist to try it!?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 57
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 1:49:26 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5658
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

As I wrote I was just speculating. I have absolutely no clue on what the Jap upgrade path look like. Iīve just seen that many of the allied squadrons are stuck with P40s for long periods of time. I was imagining how hard it would be to go on the offensive having to rely mostly on P40s. But I didnīt know the Japanese were stuck with Nates for much of the game. Even the craptastic P40 can deal with Nates.

Yes, many of the air groups that start in China/Manchuria are stuck as a Nate for a LONG time. Ditto for the bomber groups ... they can't upgrade from an Ida/Sonia until late. As you note, a P40 against a Nate is an allied win.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
I would still like to try a PDU OFF game sometime though. Iīm not too happy with the air model in the game and I think playing with PDU OFF would give a more enjoyable air war. But by the sounds of the Jap player will really have to be a masochist to try it!?

Well, they would certainly have to set the bar pretty low to keep their sanity. Against a player of your skill, in a PDU OFF game I would count myself a winner if can hold the DEI for '43 and am still in the Game in Mar 45 ... literally. I won't be able to mount much in the way of offensives beyond the DEI and China, so your offensive push will start much closer. My KB will be about the same as in a PDU ON game, but my LBA is going to be a lot weaker. My standard "best" aircraft into '44 will be Oscar and Sally. I will have a lot of supply.

All in all, not a fun situation for the IJ player. He has to convert to defense in mid-42 because he can't support any offense. His defensive perimeter needs to be smaller as his aviation "punch" is much mitigated. Ida/Sonia/Lilly/Sally isn't nearly as good as Helen. Nate/Oscar isn't Tojo/Frank.

Its a much different game. The allies rarely get to use any of their cool toys as the game never gets there....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 58
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 2:35:32 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
PDU on is in my view simply a cheat for Japan and really breaks the game bad. While the allied player may see some benefits in swapping a few air groups over to planes they normally can't use, Japan gets to focus all its industry on gen1 fighters and only gen1 fighters. So the tiny late war allied fixed fighter pools that might produce 150-250 gen1 fighters are now forced to try and contend with 1000-1500 gen1 fighters Japan can focus its production on. It really does make trying to counter-attack and keep enough ships alive to win the war pretty much impossible.

Allied players should never play with PDU on unless Japan is restricted from switching over historical airframe production in its factories, otherwise it breaks the game. If the allies were allowed to quadruple or better gen1 fighter production then sure it would be good to use, but they can't so it's just a cheat for Japan pure and simple.

Jim

_____________________________



(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 59
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 2:52:22 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
You are stuck with 1941 ac in too many air groups into '45. Not just a couple of air groups, but a significant percentage.


PDU on or off, the allies are stuck using 41 airframes to wars end because of the tiny fixed fighter pools. So why is it so imperative Japan not be stuck with history too?

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: P-47 Production Gap Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

0.117