Matrix Games Forums

Ageod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!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 update
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 - 3/2/2013 3:05:21 PM   
alanschu

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
Probably because sticking Japan to history helps ensure the historical result?

I play PDU on, but I play against the AI, so that probably makes a huge difference.


Still, you're making it sound like Japan winning the war is a foregone conclusion at this rate.

< Message edited by alanschu -- 3/2/2013 3:06:42 PM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 61
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 3:26:42 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I've always played Scenario Two until my most recent game, Reluctant Admiral, which is my fourth PBEM match since AE came out.

I chose Scenario Two at the outset because I wanted Japan to have advantages to make the game more competitive.  I thought I understood the scope of the advtanges, but I didn't.  While Scenario Two coms with more divisions and better trained IJ pilots and a few more ships, what I didn't understand was that it was essentially impossible for the Allies to win the air war in a PDU On game.  It took me awhile to grasp that fact, but once I did I made adjustments.

It's fair to say that Scenario Two/PDU On is designed to give Japan advantages, but it isn't necessarily true that the Allied player asked for ALL of those advtanges. Sometimes, through ignorance, the Allied player gets more than he's asking for.

I would never play Scenario One with PDU off.  I've gotten accustomed to the adrenaline rush that is Scenario Two with PDU On.  And Miller taught me very well that the Japanese airforce in 1944 is a mighty force to be reckoned with.   (Yes, it's possible that I mismanaged the Allied airforce since I was a newb who eschewed pilot training, but I suspect if I took on Miller again, at this point, boht of us would have learned and I'd find that the Japanese air force in 1944 is a mighty force to be reckoned with). 

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 62
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 3:27:07 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1275
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
Just added a spreadsheet of allied air production from the basic campaign scenario. It is the war room in a newbie thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=713


< Message edited by Skyros -- 3/2/2013 3:29:04 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to alanschu)
Post #: 63
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 4:10:24 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4818
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

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....


Thank you but you are too kind! I´m really even at my best moment still a novice!

I did not know how crippling PDU OFF was for the Japanese side. I thought it might perhaps give a more interesting air war. As it is right now its total Japanese domination up to the P47 and after that the allies can dominate. Its never "in between". Never in the balance. Its just black or white sort of. I doubt for example the P40 was as atrociously bad as it is in game vs the Tojo. And I doubt the Tojo/Frank would have suffered as badly as it does with even pilots against Corsairs/P47s.

But I digress, that is an entirely different discussion!

I´m following fchartons game closely and its the only PBEM I know of that uses PDU OFF. Will be very interesting to see how it plays out! I know Joseph (SqzMyLemon) played his first game using PDU OFF and he wowed to never do it again! He was not happy by his inability to defend the airspace over Burma. Interesting enough Erik seems to be more or less in the same situation in our game with PDU ON. Food for though?


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 64
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 4:17:56 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: alanschu
Still, you're making it sound like Japan winning the war is a foregone conclusion at this rate.


The allies can't win if the Japanese airforce is too strong for one simple reason. They have finite resources when it comes to amphibious shipping. The tougher Japanese airforce means the allies lose way more stuff in game then they actually lost in the war. In the real war the US lost very few amphibious ships, so they cut back huge in ship building starting in 1943.

In game this is reflected with a fixed OOB that if broken ends any chance of ever mounting a large enough invasion force to take out interior targets in late 44 early 45. That's why I asked for a certain level of respawning ships for the allies up thread. If there were a certain minimum level of shipping available to allied players, then I would be all for the stronger late war Japan.

What we have now is a fixed OOB based on a force that historically lost very little shipping compared to what gets sunk in game, which means there is an Achilles heel built into the late war allied forces in game. In fact any of the critical OOB items that are severely limited/curtailed are something that can break a game if targeted due to the fact the allied economy has no way to respond if they do get targeted. Tankers come to mind here, if Japan hammers allied tankers in 42-43, chances of the allies launching large sustained offensives in 1944 become almost impossible as getting enough fuel out to where it's needed becomes very difficult.

Now breaking the tankers doesn't break the game the way breaking the amphibs does, but it does create a very a-historic reality for the allies. The allied ship building program could have easily adjusted in real life to deal with such possible issues, but in game players are stuck with fixed OOBs.

The only thing I can think of that would help mitigate the issue would be to have some level of minimum lift capacity set to respawn if sunk to keep enough of any critical shipping type available to keep a game going if critical losses are sustained.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/2/2013 4:19:55 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to alanschu)
Post #: 65
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 4:32:28 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7124
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

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?


Yes, the training issue was one of my biggest gripes as I struggled through 1942 and early 43. But now that I have another two years of game time under my belt, I can say that without it it would not have been a very good game. And, that is what I want in the end even if it means some sacrifice of historical accuracy. And, I don't think I would enjoy playing the stock scen 1 after playing the early war hell that is scen 2. Viberpol and I jumped into scen 2 when the game was virtually brand new and neither of use understood the ramifications. Initially I was shocked and cried like baby but in the end I learned to be a better player facing the challenges offered.

I have said this before, basically the Allied player can't lose in 1944 if he just does not lose his head in 1942. Simple as that. So, let our fellow JFBs have some fun while they can.

I will also say that Ark and I are now in our fourth year of playing this campaign. My only other campaign fizzled out in late 42. Even though the game is still totally fun in 1945, looking back I can say that the most fun for me as the Allied player was 1942. Every day was a crisis and every move took an incredible amount of thought. Seriously, I sometimes went to bed and lay away for hours thinking about this damn game...I think that a good JFB player would be looking at 1945 the same way I looked at 42 and have some fun trying to come up with a way to plug the dike.

Produce away you poor sons of Japan, I am coming for you...


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 66
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 4:37:50 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3124
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: online
Here's a good site for ship construction records:

http://www.usmm.org/index.html#anchor252856

A chart for total US shipping losses:

http://www.usmm.org/navylossww2.html

Chart at the top of this page shows the decline of US ship building program starting in 1943:

http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html#anchor1638580

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/2/2013 4:42:44 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 67
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 4:39:54 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7124
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aoffen

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


Yes, it happens, but are you having fun?


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to aoffen)
Post #: 68
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 5:19:37 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7124
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu
Still, you're making it sound like Japan winning the war is a foregone conclusion at this rate.


The allies can't win if the Japanese airforce is too strong for one simple reason. They have finite resources when it comes to amphibious shipping. The tougher Japanese airforce means the allies lose way more stuff in game then they actually lost in the war. In the real war the US lost very few amphibious ships, so they cut back huge in ship building starting in 1943.

In game this is reflected with a fixed OOB that if broken ends any chance of ever mounting a large enough invasion force to take out interior targets in late 44 early 45. That's why I asked for a certain level of respawning ships for the allies up thread. If there were a certain minimum level of shipping available to allied players, then I would be all for the stronger late war Japan.

What we have now is a fixed OOB based on a force that historically lost very little shipping compared to what gets sunk in game, which means there is an Achilles heel built into the late war allied forces in game. In fact any of the critical OOB items that are severely limited/curtailed are something that can break a game if targeted due to the fact the allied economy has no way to respond if they do get targeted. Tankers come to mind here, if Japan hammers allied tankers in 42-43, chances of the allies launching large sustained offensives in 1944 become almost impossible as getting enough fuel out to where it's needed becomes very difficult.

Now breaking the tankers doesn't break the game the way breaking the amphibs does, but it does create a very a-historic reality for the allies. The allied ship building program could have easily adjusted in real life to deal with such possible issues, but in game players are stuck with fixed OOBs.

The only thing I can think of that would help mitigate the issue would be to have some level of minimum lift capacity set to respawn if sunk to keep enough of any critical shipping type available to keep a game going if critical losses are sustained.

Jim


Sorry Jim,

I just have to totally disagree with you. You are correct in that the limitations on the Allies are a-historical and requires some planning and caution. However, given players of equal ability, the Allied player can and should win.

I have said it before. Some would call it my mantra. If the Allied player does not lose his head in 1942, there is no way he can lose the game. Simple as that. In scen 2 a good Japanese player can add a good 8 or 9 new carriers, gets a ton of supply and fuel at the start, gets a flood of extra DDs, three or four excellent extra divisions, a head start on production, and can build a crap load of planes and train the pilots to use them. Does not matter to me. I am pretty confident I can take the Allies vs any player and give them a good run.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 69
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:13:16 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

If the Allied player does not lose his head in 1942


Translation: Sir Robin lets enough stuff survive to help you win the game.

But how many games do we see allied players try and do an early Guadalcanal type attack that goes horribly wrong? Saying allied players should sit on their hands for two years is not an acceptable solution to me, sure it works, but from the allied perspective its boring. I would much prefer a game that gives the allies enough assets that he can afford to be adventurous and not risk losing the war due to some disastrous outcomes.

Allowing a certain level of shipping to respawn to guarantee a minimum lift capacity on map doesn't change anything in game. All it does is guarantee that after 3-4 years real time invested in your game, you don't run into an issue that breaks your game because of a few adventurous moves that go badly for you.

We all know it's smart gameplay to conserve force until later in game because of the limited OOB. But it's not based on historical reality and makes the first two years rather mundane and predictable.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 3/2/2013 6:14:11 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 70
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:31:33 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14640
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Jim,

While I haven't looked at each link or read the entirety of each post you've made on this, my sense is (and was even before this thread) that what you are saying is technically true. But the game would be very different if what you suggest were done. In my view that would (should) require the buy-in of the player-base in addition to, of course, the game developers, Matrix, and Grigsby. Maybe for a 'next major go around' that could happen, but I really don't see it being either practical or popular here and now. I would not be in favor of adding that stuff now.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 71
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:32:08 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5680
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


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


Jim,

Play anyway you want. But you will struggle to find an opponent. We already know the outcome and very few will be interested to spend 4 years of their lives in that endeavor. However, that doesn't mean you won't find a match and I wish you the best.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 72
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:40:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8424
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

If the Allied player does not lose his head in 1942


Translation: Sir Robin lets enough stuff survive to help you win the game.

But how many games do we see allied players try and do an early Guadalcanal type attack that goes horribly wrong? Saying allied players should sit on their hands for two years is not an acceptable solution to me, sure it works, but from the allied perspective its boring. I would much prefer a game that gives the allies enough assets that he can afford to be adventurous and not risk losing the war due to some disastrous outcomes.

Allowing a certain level of shipping to respawn to guarantee a minimum lift capacity on map doesn't change anything in game. All it does is guarantee that after 3-4 years real time invested in your game, you don't run into an issue that breaks your game because of a few adventurous moves that go badly for you.

We all know it's smart gameplay to conserve force until later in game because of the limited OOB. But it's not based on historical reality and makes the first two years rather mundane and predictable.

Jim



Jim, reading with respect and interest what you have to say, but what's your experience with the game? You were around in the forum briefly when it launched in 2009, but I haven't seen you since. How many AI games have you played to completion? How many PBEM? Is this all theory to you, or do you have experience?

Taking just the one thing you said about tankers hamstringing the Allies I don't think you've played much. Tankers are nice, but unnecessary to carry a GC to Japan's doorstep. There are literally thousands of Liberty and Victory ship xAKs which can haul fuel in the millions of points. They don't do it as efficiently as tankers, but they work. I've done it.

So how about some background? Because there are lots of AARs in the archives now which disprove your core assertion that PDU ON is a back-breaker for the Allies which make the game unwinnable. Or that a Sir Robin is needed to survive.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/2/2013 6:47:12 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 73
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 6:46:00 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5680
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

However, given players of equal ability, the Allied player can and should win.

+1

And pretty much what we see in the AAR's.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 74
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 7:07:16 PM   
alanschu

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: alanschu
Still, you're making it sound like Japan winning the war is a foregone conclusion at this rate.


The allies can't win if the Japanese airforce is too strong for one simple reason. They have finite resources when it comes to amphibious shipping. The tougher Japanese airforce means the allies lose way more stuff in game then they actually lost in the war. In the real war the US lost very few amphibious ships, so they cut back huge in ship building starting in 1943.

In game this is reflected with a fixed OOB that if broken ends any chance of ever mounting a large enough invasion force to take out interior targets in late 44 early 45. That's why I asked for a certain level of respawning ships for the allies up thread. If there were a certain minimum level of shipping available to allied players, then I would be all for the stronger late war Japan.

What we have now is a fixed OOB based on a force that historically lost very little shipping compared to what gets sunk in game, which means there is an Achilles heel built into the late war allied forces in game. In fact any of the critical OOB items that are severely limited/curtailed are something that can break a game if targeted due to the fact the allied economy has no way to respond if they do get targeted. Tankers come to mind here, if Japan hammers allied tankers in 42-43, chances of the allies launching large sustained offensives in 1944 become almost impossible as getting enough fuel out to where it's needed becomes very difficult.

Now breaking the tankers doesn't break the game the way breaking the amphibs does, but it does create a very a-historic reality for the allies. The allied ship building program could have easily adjusted in real life to deal with such possible issues, but in game players are stuck with fixed OOBs.

The only thing I can think of that would help mitigate the issue would be to have some level of minimum lift capacity set to respawn if sunk to keep enough of any critical shipping type available to keep a game going if critical losses are sustained.

Jim



And you feel the same way even with Scen #1?

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 75
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 7:43:05 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9770
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I have only one problem with game balance:  the dramatic touches.  When the Japanese player takes Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc., he gets the highly irritating (to me) announcement by Tokyo Rose.  On the other hand, when I take Rangoon, Mandalay, Soerabaja, Balikpapan, Rabaul, etc its quiet.  I think this disparity needs to be addressed.  Even a small touch would be nice.  How about when a base holds out longer than historical - say Singapore, Manila or Wake Island - the Japanese commander commits seppuku and is removed from the game?

(in reply to alanschu)
Post #: 76
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 8:29:28 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7124
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

If the Allied player does not lose his head in 1942


Translation: Sir Robin lets enough stuff survive to help you win the game.

But how many games do we see allied players try and do an early Guadalcanal type attack that goes horribly wrong? Saying allied players should sit on their hands for two years is not an acceptable solution to me, sure it works, but from the allied perspective its boring. I would much prefer a game that gives the allies enough assets that he can afford to be adventurous and not risk losing the war due to some disastrous outcomes.

Allowing a certain level of shipping to respawn to guarantee a minimum lift capacity on map doesn't change anything in game. All it does is guarantee that after 3-4 years real time invested in your game, you don't run into an issue that breaks your game because of a few adventurous moves that go badly for you.

We all know it's smart gameplay to conserve force until later in game because of the limited OOB. But it's not based on historical reality and makes the first two years rather mundane and predictable.

Jim



Now I am just a bit offended by your assumptions about my play. If you have been on this forum for a while you would know my style. My post count is exclusive to WITP and AE. If anything I tend to offer up too much of my vast knowledge. Ark is no fool and he managed to take most all of China, and Northern OZ all the way to Daily Waters before I was able to stem the tide. I fought for every inch along the way and punished him for his mistakes as he did to me. And, he by no ways was bound by me to follow any sort of historical path when on the attack. I have lost 25,000 aircraft to his 35,000 and had a lot of cold sweat moments in our game. I won't try to convince you any further but can say that it has been a great ride. I have been war gaming for close to five decades and this was the best thing ever.

I wish that there was a purely historical scenario that ends in 4/43 which would put greater restriction on both the Allies and Japan but there is not.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 77
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/2/2013 10:45:13 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 1796
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

'44+ for the Allies IS easy.


This comment just ticks me off. I´m playing early 44 and it is far from "easy". But I don´t 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 I´m 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 I´m 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. I´m not saying having a more balanced game is something wrong. I´m 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.



Ok I may have overstated 'easy' for the Allies in '44+ but compared to Japan's situation is is easy. It soulds like you have never played Japan so you do not have the knowledge of how fragile the line Japan has to walk in order to be successful. My Allied opponate is likely to win by the end of '44 in Scen 2 with PDU On likely due to some errors on my part (like not having enough troops in Sumtra because I thought he would not go ther lol).

He is also completely bypassing the PI and as Bullwinkle stated above as a good strategy, just heading up in CenPac . It is amazing how effective that is turning out to be. The Allies have the CVs to spare and can easily pound any island they want to take into dust. It will definately be interesting to see how this will play out in my game.


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 78
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 12:00:47 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5680
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
I wish that there was a purely historical scenario that ends in 4/43 which would put greater restriction on both the Allies and Japan but there is not.

That would be a fun scenario. GUA scenario is one of my favorites for pretty much this reason.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 79
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 12:13:53 AM   
Jim D Burns


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
just heading up in CenPac . It is amazing how effective that is turning out to be.



You're probably facing the typical allied Sir Robin strategy in game where they wait and only become active late game when they are virtually unstoppable. With so much power saved up they become a death star. Had a lot of fighting occurred during late 42 early 43 however, you're game would probably not feel so overwhelming right now.

Historically the Allies made these landings in 42 and 43:

Guadalcanal 1942
Goodenough Island 1942
Russell Island 1943
Woodlark Island 1943
Kiriwima Islands 1943
Rendova 1943
Nassau Bay 1943
New Georgia 1943
Vella Lavella 1943
Lae 1943
Nadzae 1943
Finschhafen 1943
Kolombangara 1943
Treasury Island 1943
Choiseul 1943
Bouganville 1943
Gilbet Island 1943
Arawe 1943
Cape Gloucester 1943

In game if an allied opponent attempted to be that active that early he would probably be wiped from the map and people would call it bad play. Even if he managed to pull a few of the landings off, he'd lose so many amphibious ships it would set his main counter-attack back by a year or more due to amphibious losses, so most Allied players opt to sit on their hands and wait. The ones who do try to be adventurous usually get hammered and end up focusing on a land campaign in Burma because they lost too many ships too early with no way to make up for the shortfall given the historical OOB limits.

If the allies had historical ship building capabilities backing them up, I bet players would be a lot more inclined to be active in the early years and Japan would have many more opportunities to hurt them before they became too powerful. At a minimum it would make for a much more interesting game with many more possible CV clashes then we see in the early years now.

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 80
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 1:41:22 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8424
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
just heading up in CenPac . It is amazing how effective that is turning out to be.



You're probably facing the typical allied Sir Robin strategy in game where they wait and only become active late game when they are virtually unstoppable. With so much power saved up they become a death star. Had a lot of fighting occurred during late 42 early 43 however, you're game would probably not feel so overwhelming right now.

Historically the Allies made these landings in 42 and 43:

Guadalcanal 1942
Goodenough Island 1942
Russell Island 1943
Woodlark Island 1943
Kiriwima Islands 1943
Rendova 1943
Nassau Bay 1943
New Georgia 1943
Vella Lavella 1943
Lae 1943
Nadzae 1943
Finschhafen 1943
Kolombangara 1943
Treasury Island 1943
Choiseul 1943
Bouganville 1943
Gilbet Island 1943
Arawe 1943
Cape Gloucester 1943

In game if an allied opponent attempted to be that active that early he would probably be wiped from the map and people would call it bad play. Even if he managed to pull a few of the landings off, he'd lose so many amphibious ships it would set his main counter-attack back by a year or more due to amphibious losses, so most Allied players opt to sit on their hands and wait. The ones who do try to be adventurous usually get hammered and end up focusing on a land campaign in Burma because they lost too many ships too early with no way to make up for the shortfall given the historical OOB limits.

If the allies had historical ship building capabilities backing them up, I bet players would be a lot more inclined to be active in the early years and Japan would have many more opportunities to hurt them before they became too powerful. At a minimum it would make for a much more interesting game with many more possible CV clashes then we see in the early years now.

Jim



This post shows me you have not read any AARs and have been pretty much absent for four years. Do some research on how the game is actually played now, not in 2009, and get back to us.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 81
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 1:48:59 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1275
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
Jim you need to find a new opponent. In my current campaign, at 4/44, I have fought tooth an nail as the allies. I lost all of my at start carriers and constantly fought back, especially when he tried to take Pearl. Its been more like a Rocky fight. I can't sit still and watch the Empire expand, where's the fun in that.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 82
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 5:58:21 AM   
alanschu

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

In game if an allied opponent attempted to be that active that early he would probably be wiped from the map and people would call it bad play. Even if he managed to pull a few of the landings off, he'd lose so many amphibious ships it would set his main counter-attack back by a year or more due to amphibious losses, so most Allied players opt to sit on their hands and wait. The ones who do try to be adventurous usually get hammered and end up focusing on a land campaign in Burma because they lost too many ships too early with no way to make up for the shortfall given the historical OOB limits.


The situation you describe doesn't seem to be the case at all....

(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 83
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 10:08:56 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4539
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Historically the Allies made these landings in 42 and 43:

Guadalcanal 1942
Goodenough Island 1942
Russell Island 1943
Woodlark Island 1943
Kiriwima Islands 1943
Rendova 1943
Nassau Bay 1943
New Georgia 1943
Vella Lavella 1943
Lae 1943
Nadzae 1943
Finschhafen 1943
Kolombangara 1943
Treasury Island 1943
Choiseul 1943
Bouganville 1943
Gilbet Island 1943
Arawe 1943
Cape Gloucester 1943

In game if an allied opponent attempted to be that active that early he would probably be wiped from the map and people would call it bad play. Even if he managed to pull a few of the landings off, he'd lose so many amphibious ships it would set his main counter-attack back by a year or more due to amphibious losses, so most Allied players opt to sit on their hands and wait. The ones who do try to be adventurous usually get hammered and end up focusing on a land campaign in Burma because they lost too many ships too early with no way to make up for the shortfall given the historical OOB limits.


This discussion is as boring as it is old, and the above has been proven incorrect by hundreds of grand-campaigns played since game release.

Like the Moose said, go and read some AAR´s and compare the situation to the scenario chosen. You will be unable to find a scen 1 AAR where the Japanese player
is not struggling to hold the historical timeline in ´43/´44. Your historical list of amphib invasion is met or surpassed in 90% of the scen 1 AARs easily.

Complaining about the Allies being unable to achieve strategic goals as they did historical, in a game of scen 2 with PDU on, is making no sense at all.
Scen 2, and PDU on, is a SciFi scenario. If you dislike SciFi don´t play it.


Just to recap what the scenario selection is and what ramifications the selection has on the game:

Scen1 PDU off:
This is the historical scenario. And it is the only historical scenario. The Japanese still get a bit more flexibility than they had in the real war (with all their
traditions and internal bickering), but even so, as both sides benefit from 20/20 hinsight, when players are equally matched the Japanese player will
unable to survive to historical VJ day with a very high probability.

Scen1 PDU on:
Same as above from a setup perspective, but both sides get to chose their own upgrade paths and so concentrate quality airframes in a way that was
impossible in WWII.

BOTH sides.
As Allied player you are allowed to upgrade units to P-47s that really were flying second rate airframes until wars´ end, you can spam 4eng heavy bomber
units that in the real war wer stuck with tactical bombers, and you can simply change every squadrons airframe on demand. The Allies massively benefit from that!
The only reason why the bosst slightly favors the Japanese side is because for Allies the production numbers remain the same, and the Japanese can vary
them and shift them to their personal preferences.

Even so the Japanese player will struggle to hold VJ day against a decent Allied player, and will be unable to maintain tactical air superiority if the Allied player
choses to deny it.


Scen 2 PDU on (never seen combined with PDU off...):

Hello, welcome to the world of "what if". The Japanese get a unit and production boost. This makes the game entirely different, but not always by favouring Japan.
With the higher production and unit count comes a higher demand for ressources. A Japanese plaer who fails to provide those will break down even faster than
in scen 1. Only a good Japanese player will adapt his play to the new demands and postpone defeat further than usually possible in scen 1. Rader for example is a
very experienced Japanese player with the skill required to reach that goal.

To sum it up: All beyond Scen 1 is SciFi. Scen 2, Ironman and all its derivates are ahistorical. Using a list of bases captured in WWII and comparing to such a scenario
does not prove anything you´d like to prove, and does not point out anything beyond that those scenarios boost the Japanese capabilies, which is kinda unsurprising,
even when only reading the official scenario description.


Furthermore, I don´t understand how a discussion about a production gap leads to a game balance discussion. It is unrelated.

Noone ever said that an Allied player is not required to think ahead in, and balance, his use of airframes. The Japanese player does that all the time, its one of the basic needs
to extend his survival.
Noone forces the Allied player to empty his pools and force all airframes into battle (and then start the usual whining when the pools run dry), just because they are there.
Using airframes in more units than they were used historical is a feature of PDU on, and this feature has to be used with thought.

You can build up a safe pool to overcome a production gap or low production numbers, you can simply downgrade to older airframes when your pool runs dry, you can balance
the ammount of attrition you expose your different airframes to depending on your reserves and your future planned attrition, and so on.


Gentlemen thats not a balance issue, and nothing of all this is weakening the Allied player. Its pure and simple planning ahead. A standard behavour needed to successfully play WitP.

PS: I do not want to leave the impression of adressing Q-Ball with this post. He is a great Japanese player (one of the best from what I have seen), and he adapts to the
new limitiations posed by the Allied setup - which obviousely raises some questions - and he does so extremely well.

But if you get the impression that I have difficulties to take the ensueing discussion about game balance serious, well your impression is correct.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 84
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 11:41:11 AM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 950
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Scen 2 PDU on (never seen combined with PDU off...):


I play that one with PDU off. To me, one of the reason why one would play Scen 2 (vs Scen 1) is that hindsight doesn't cut both ways. Both sides do know it is all about fuel, and oil, and the DEI, but if Japan somehow fails to take the oilfields in due time, and good shape, with the low reserves of Scen1, the challenge becomes close to impossible, as early as February or March 42.

This means a staunch DEI defence is the logical way to go in scenario 1, which in turn means you need to land a division in Palembang in December, which then means...

The larger at start oil and fuel reserves in scenario 2 offsets this to some extent, and makes failure (or less than total victory) in the DEI an acceptable proposition.

This said, my next game as Japan will be scen 1 PDU Off...

Francois

< Message edited by fcharton -- 3/3/2013 12:41:09 PM >

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 85
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 1:24:11 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4539
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Good point for a scen 2 campaign, and really interested to see how scen 2 PDU Off plays out.

FWIIW, I hope it is clear that I am not critizising scen 2 in any way. It has its valid place in the scenario library. Personally I favour variations of the scen 1 theme because
I like my games as close to the real war as possible (close to real war capabilities at dec 7th that is), and like to measure my performance comparing to history, but this
is just a matter of taste. I was demonstrating the logical error people make they are using scen 2 situations in an attempt to point out percieved lack of historical accuracy.

quote:

This said, my next game as Japan will be scen 1 PDU Off...


Like it rough, eh?
Good luck there Francois!

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 86
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 3:17:09 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5537
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
This thread certainly went in a different direction! No problem though, play balance is always something that comes up

For the record, I don't think the Allies have a problem with the P-47 dropping off production. I just wondered if that was WAD, because IRL, the P-47 didn't go out of production. Maybe they just stopped sending them to the Pacific for awhile. 175 is a very high monthly production number, seems like a lower number but for longer period would make more sense....but maybe that's historical.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 87
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 6:13:52 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4539
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

IRL, the P-47 didn't go out of production. Maybe they just stopped sending them to the Pacific for awhile. 175 is a very high monthly production number, seems like a lower number but for longer period would make more sense....but maybe that's historical.


The D25 "production line" - which in truth is just the number of P47D-25s delivered to the Pacific and does not match the total production - ends suspiciousely close to D-day...
I doubt this is a coincidence, but to be completely sure you would need to ask a dev.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 88
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 6:21:45 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
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.

The Allies did not enjoy this ratio during the war. I'd say that overall aircraft losses during the war are around 2:1 in the Allies' favor. According to known losses data from Guadalcanal campaign to the air campaign over Rabaul, for most of 1942 and 1943 losses usually were around 1.1-1.2:1 in the Allies' favor.

I won't go into dissecting various number-juggling of the various degrees of bias, used to posit whatever ratios the author feels like seeing, but I'll point out that your source
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D BurnsEdit: Here are some actual loss numbers to look over: pdf


a)Admits to using claims as its source of Japanese losses. Which alone merits dividing figures of said losses in two.

b)Puts USN+USMC own losses at the sizeable figure of 8592 aircraft (with merely 53 of them in Atlantic).

To this we must add at least 10409 Army aircraft
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t100.htm
to get my above-mentioned figure of approximately 18.5k aircraft expended to defeat Japan (actually I appoximated the numbers wrong - it is 19k). I'm exluding the second line, because I'm not counting trainer aicraft for the Japanese.

As with the exception of trainer aircraft, Japan had only about 54 thousands of combat and support airctaft (transports, seaplanes, etc) to prosecute the war
http://archive.org/stream/japaneseaircraft00unit#page/n11/mode/1up
and a significant number of these aircraft remained intact by VJ-Day, and other Allied nations lost planes in the war against Japan too, it's pretty hard to imagine an overall loss ratio for the war over 2:1. And it primarily became skewed this much in the Allies' favor when Japanese forces were already routed and losing overwhelmingly - the Okinawa campaign was more costly for Japan in terms of aircraft than all of the fighting in Solomons.

In case you try to argue, that operational losses should not count - no, when comparing overall aircraft attrition they really should. Doubly so, because operational losses out of combat are insignificant in AE compared to RL. Which is almost certainly done deliberately to faciliate more intense air war, but which makes any comparisons of combat losses only or of ops losses only invalid - we must compare overall aicraft expenditure in bulk.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/3/2013 6:22:01 PM >


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 89
RE: P-47 Production Gap - 3/3/2013 6:57:08 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2101
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I've always taken the point of view that the larger power, the allies, have ample resources to conduct game victory in every historical and published mod I have driven. IMHO, this is the preeminent Pacific War simulation, and the fixed allied air schedules are more than sufficient to attain victory terms, even if there are bumps in said air schedule. In those rare cases where the empire is still alive at the end of regulation, it is a consequence of excellent empire administration and management. I salute all players who have acheived such difficult outcomes, for they are remarkable achievements. If I had to rough scale difficulty on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the hardest for players with at least a couple games under-foot, allied player victory difficulty rates about 2, and empire about 9. The hardest mods I have had the chance to drive might take it to 3,8 - but no more.

The beauty of this system allows players to mod such things quite easily so that if this crocks your can you can change it, and this forum allows us to understand how we fit in the player paradigm. My 2 cents is that adding is unecessary, but that is just me. we all can achieve that elusive game nirvana, but it isnt the same place for all of us.

Good hunting admirals!

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 90
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

0.147