Japanese A/C R&D

[rustysi]

This has surfaced a bit lately and has me curious as to what the community thinks. Specifically whether or not the Japanese player should follow the wire chart for A/C development. Personally I do, and TBH would play no other way. I also play realistic R&D, which basically means no bouncing factories between production and R&D. I also play PDU on, but this is mainly to simplify things, as controlling the Japanese economy has me wrapped up enough.

So I would like to hear as many opinions as possible from both sides. Also I realize that as long as both players agree, you can play any way you choose.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to some interesting posts.

[Anachro]

What do you mean by "wire chart for A/C development?"

[rustysi]

Its just a chart that shows the progression of Japanese A/C progression. Its on the site somewhere although if the search feature is still not functioning I doubt I could find it.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

What do you mean by "wire chart for A/C development?"

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

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

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

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

[SheperdN7]

So is the problem "skipping" the line?

For example, researching A6M8 BEFORE any of the others in the Zero line.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

So is the problem "skipping" the line?

For example, researching A6M8 BEFORE any of the others in the Zero line.

Well, I am not the OP, but I think that is his concern/question.

And the A6M2 is already researched. In the case of an existing air frame like the A6M, you have to research the next in line (A6M2-N or A6M3a? in this case) before you can skip. You have to research the first in the line to the point that the factories are completely repaired before you can skip.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

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

Not quite.[:)]

At 100% TOE, on average a division will have about 500 AV. However, all the non contributing AV devices also consume supply. Therefore, at 100% TOE a division which sees no land/aerial combat, engages in no construction, doesn't move etc will consume about 1500 supply points in a month. Any activity (which includes taking replacements and upgrades) results in additional supply consumption.

Alfred

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

This has surfaced a bit lately and has me curious as to what the community thinks. Specifically whether or not the Japanese player should follow the wire chart for A/C development. Personally I do, and TBH would play no other way. I also play realistic R&D, which basically means no bouncing factories between production and R&D. I also play PDU on, but this is mainly to simplify things, as controlling the Japanese economy has me wrapped up enough.

So I would like to hear as many opinions as possible from both sides. Also I realize that as long as both players agree, you can play any way you choose.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to some interesting posts.

This is something I didn't even know was possible through my first three PBEMs and only learned of the process well into my current game, so I've not seen the real possibilities of the technique firsthand. I do know it works though. I have made a few switches in the mid-game to emphasise later airframe research.

Having this kind of issue on the table and discussing it along with resizing groups could be useful at the beginning of a PBEM. If I just recently picked it up I imagine there are many Allied only players that have no idea of the implications of this kind of R & D. I doubt any 45 airframe could be showing up in late 42, or even before mid-43, but that is still VERY early.

You could have an HR that no airframe can be used more than 12 months ahead, or 6 months, or whatever you and your opponent decide. This seems better than the anti-chain skipping HR. There are lots of things every Japanese player can do that the Japanese in the war could not.

How do you feel about researching each step with at least one x30 factory, but being free to add more to a later factory?

We know that in game the Ki-61 line is best used to get to the Ki-100. There are so many things about strategy, tactics, economy and other factors of playing Japan that we know through hindsight to be "better" than historical, (like army/navy cooperation and not searching out a CV battle without the full KB, coordinated air/sea ASW, etc) that this could be just another moment of hindsight. Why not?

Just as the Allied player chooses not to use FM-1 and FM-2 whenever possible, and very early on to form large airbases that can support masses of 4E not seen in the Pacific until late war, the Japanese make decisions based on knowledge of what works.

So where do we draw the line? [:)]

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: rustysi
This has surfaced a bit lately and has me curious as to what the community thinks. Specifically whether or not the Japanese player should follow the wire chart for A/C development.

IMO the only rational thought would be "discuss this pre-game and set mutually agreeable house rules if needed". Just like it is done with numerous other things where one side can get some advantage from the way the game is designed/played.

[John 3rd]

Think GetAssista is right. I fully did not understand the progression line (like obvert) until this campaign with Dan. It could seriously undermine the late-war game...

[Chickenboy]

Obvert and JohnIII:

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

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

[John 3rd]

Not so much advancing airframes (the magic 100 research number) but how to jump sooooooooo far ahead. Have to admit that I find it gamey...

[Chickenboy]

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

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

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

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

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Not so much advancing airframes (the magic 100 research number) but how to jump sooooooooo far ahead. Have to admit that I find it gamey...

In the cases where late war fighters arrive early war (A6M8/Ki-100-Ia), you aren't advancing an air frame. You are redesigning an early/mid-war air frame to replace the existing, problematic engine (low power/low reliability). The A6M is the air frame. The A6M2 vs A6M8 is not a new air frame (though the air frame was undoubtedly beefed up and adjusted in the 8). The Ki-100 was a Ki-61 with a different engine bolted on the front. With air frames sitting around for lack of engines, the engineers tried a different engine - and voila, the Ki-100 was born. What happens in both of these cases is akin to engine change of the A-36 to P-51, the B5N1 to B5N2, etc.

Changing engines was not trivial, but there are numerous examples of it occurring and it didn't take years to do it. In the A6M case, the engine change for the A6M8 was proposed in April 1942, but not implemented until 1945. What if they had done both sooner?

[Chickenboy]

I understand your argument, but you *are* advancing the airframe too InfiniteMonkey. To your "beefed up and adjusted" I'll add to my "upgunned" and "reinforced engine housing" and probably "reinforced landing gear" and we have a substantially different airframe by my reckoning. Your opinion about the use of the term 'advancing' may vary from my own.

In most of the examples you cite, it (upgrading the aircraft) wasn't as simple as merely stapling a different engine on the front of the existing airframe. Usually, there were substantial reinforcements or refurbishments that were required to existing airframe to accomodate a new, more powerful, heavier (almost always) engine. These may have included changes to landing gear, pilot seating position and / or canopy, reinforcement of the nose of the aircraft, moving fuel tanks around, etc.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

What if they had done both sooner?

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

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

Am I missing something?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Am I missing something?

Just that this has been the mechanism in place since WiTP:AE emerged. The Japanese player isn't getting to 'slide this advantage any more' than they were able to do so 6+ years ago. It isn't anything new.

The work around is to insist on "realistic R&D" ON and "PDU" OFF for any PBEM partners out there. That will ensure that the Japanese player is unable to manipulate the R&D and production systems the way it is described above.

Of course, this may limit your partner options somewhat, but the choice is yours.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

What if they had done both sooner?

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

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

Am I missing something?

Yes, the Japanese get the advantage of being able to optimize their aircraft production because of knowledge over many AARs about what to do and what to build. They still will have a supply issue in 1945.
The Allies also get advantage of foreknowledge and multi-game experience so they can avoid historic mistakes. It's all a wash in making an interesting game, if neither side gives up early.

[Lecivius]

I would hate to limit a JFB. I'm not THAT much of an AFB [:'(] And I knew you could accelerate production lines. I just had no idea it could be accelerated this much.

Live & learn I guess [:'(]

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Anachro

What do you mean by "wire chart for A/C development?"

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

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

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

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

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