Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japanese A/C R&D

 
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: Japanese A/C R&D Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 1:52:32 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16115
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I had NO IDEA this could be done. Damn...seriously...this is news to me.

I think it is a gross abuse of the system. Seems almost like my pathological hatred of 4EB being used for all sorts of amazing things that they didn't actually achieve IRL. This JFB will not do what is described above.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 31
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 7:43:45 AM   
obvert


Posts: 12732
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

Late war, someone fell off a ladder and dumped chocolate into someone else's peanut butter.


Love peanut butter cups.

quote:


Now is this unfair? No. Is it "fair" for the Allied player to wait to avoid a carrier battle in 1942 despite the fact they pursued them historically? Is it fair for the Allied player to use his submarines conservatively until the USN torpedoes become reliable? We know what happened. We learn from history. We apply that to the game. It is a two way street and the same omniscience that aids the Allied player aids the Japanese player, but in different ways.




In fact I argue the same idea, but with slightly more nuance. Both sides of the game don’t have the same opportunities with regard to airframes. This is one area where agreements have to be made.

quote:



Welcome to time travel. We are not simply replaying history here. We are starting on 12/7/1941 and re-fighting the war with knowledge of the mistakes both sides made. We make different decisions and those decisions have implications for what happens after them. Expecting the Japanese OOB to stay the same in the absence of historical results is folly. The Allied OOB is more set, not for balance, but because of the Europe first approach the Allies took meant the PTO's resources would be more limited. We cannot talk about how to increase Allied assets in the PTO without simulating the ETO. The game is about the PTO and assumes the ETO occurred as it did historically.


Firstly, I do not advocate playing the game historically but I do think in specific cases historical capabilities should be considered so that gameplay is not out of whack (nightbombing comes to mind).

Following your logic you are also leaving out half of the argument. Assuming the PTO is different and in fact more difficult for the Allies, the US in specific would most likely have thrown them a few bones. This is taken on by some mods where the Allies can buy more airframes.

quote:



I do not think this game is about balance. Balance implies that both players have an equal chance of winning. The Japanese do not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning against a competent opponent (Scenario 1).



Here you are flat out wrong. The Japanese have a good chance of winning the game. Some players forget the game includes a Victory Point assessment of who has won. Tokyo could be burned out, my fleet gone, T-34s sitting in Korea, but I could still win the game. It’s about the VPs in the end, and I play that way. Every point matters.

So the sweeps by a group of N1K5 in late 43, if possible to get them up that far, do matter to the winning and losing of the game, and therefore the Allied player should know a bit of what is possible. (They can also check the Japanese R & D anytime by looking at the in-game database. The date of arrival of an airframe will change as it moves forward with research!)

quote:


When I play a PBEM, I will play with house rules that are mutually agreed upon. If I adhere to those house rules, my opponent has nothing to complain about. If my opponent does not want me to research aircraft, he must suggest and get me to agree to a rule that states I do not modify aircraft research factories. If my opponent does not want me to skip aircraft in the research sequence, he must propose and get me to agree to a house rule on that.



This is the main goal of what I’m arguing, and it sounds like you’re doing that already, so need to belabour it all. Just agree with your opponent on how you both are going to play. The only reason to talk about this R & D issue is that most Allied players don’t understand the Japanese economic or Research side of the game. If they get it, they can negotiate a game they want to play, but this part has to be figured out in the beginning, obviously.

quote:



"You should know better than to do that" is a subjective statement that can only cause issues between players.


Is someone here saying that? I don’t see that in the posts.

quote:


It relies upon each player knowing the history and systems with equal levels of knowledge and then requires that they interpret the results the same way. If the game allows it and it is not a bug of some kind and it is not house ruled, then it is allowed. Honestly, I'm not interested in playing an opponent that starts a game without carefully considering the house rules they want in place. If you agree to a set of house rules, you should not get bent out of shape unless they are violated.



You may think that now. Have you ever played into 45? It’s a long game. Your knowledge, your ideas, and your opponent’s, change, evolve. You both see how things work together and you have to resolve issues along the way. This one though is something that has to be agreed in the beginning. So the Allied player has to know what is possible.

quote:


Having said all that, there are things that are permitted in the game system that I would not do. I will not put Jakes on subs, for instance. They were too big to operate off subs and were not designed to be stored in the small hangers the subs possessed. I know that and would not do it. As another example, I probably will not put the Grace on most carriers (wingspan would not fit in elevators of most carriers). However, if no house rule governs the tactic and I think the tactic was possible, I will do it. I'm not going to ask permission.


Self-governing is useful, but your opponent may have different ideas about what you’re choosing to self-govern. :)

How do you feel about your Allied opponent using 40 single ship TFs of DDs in front of his Death Star before an engagement? Or 30 single PT boat TFs to guard an important forward airbase from bombardments so that your bombardment TF gets held up in all of those combats and decimated by DBs in the day air phase? How do you feel about Sending 250 4E on a night bombing of a port like Rabaul in 43 and sinking everything in the port (when in fact this was not even remotely possible in the war due to targeting and navigation issues at night)?

They may feel that your idea of what is possible is different than theirs, so it can be a negotiation throughout the game as you each discover what the other actually does. :)

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/15/2016 7:55:07 AM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 32
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 1:47:45 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6208
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
I agree a lot with Obvert. And in Johns mods he has done some work in letting the AFB have some access to better air frames, which I always admired in a JFB mod I knew you could accelerate frames, but like John I had no idea you could skip generations ( and I 'think' I understand the cost in doing so). It seems like there is give & take on this, but it still looks at first blush to be a little wrong. Then again, I am an AFB and have not played Japan to late war, so my views are personal, not from experience.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 33
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 6:09:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16115
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
No Lecivius--You are a GOOD player who looks around on both sides. I hold your commentary in high esteem whenever you give it.

Agree with your Post a BUNCH and I felt it was very important--due to the experience with Dan and I's game--to add Juan's off-board airframe purchase system.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 34
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 9:40:56 PM   
scout1


Posts: 2466
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey


quote:

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 ?



You've already researched the first in line and the factories are repaired. So now you just need to change them "up the line" in order and you can immediately research the last in the line while skipping the time it takes to research the others.



OK now I'm further confused .... let's use an example to see if I can achieve the "dah" moment here ....

Say the a/c update sequence is B to C to D to E ..... My current a/c is A.
I increase some number of RD factories to build to 30 (which seems to be a magic number) and set them all to B.
While they are repairing I am / am not ? accumulating any research points for B ?
Once they all finally are repaired, now I should "start" accumulating research pts to advance ?
If I change these immediately to E (for example), won't the advanced for B no longer continue ?
In this example, then am I not attempting to move E up so early that it could precede C & D ?

Me confused .......



(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 35
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 10:09:53 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12732
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Say the a/c update sequence is B to C to D to E ..... My current a/c is A.
I increase some number of RD factories to build to 30 (which seems to be a magic number) and set them all to B.
While they are repairing I am / am not ? accumulating any research points for B ?


Points only begin accruing when the factories are fully repaired. 30(0)

quote:


Once they all finally are repaired, now I should "start" accumulating research pts to advance ?
If I change these immediately to E (for example), won't the advanced for B no longer continue ?


If you change to C the research points will go to C, and B will no longer continue to research, but you can still make it on its normal arrival date.

If you change to C, then D, then E without a change of turn, your factories will stay repaired and will research E and all other models will only arrive at their normal date (unless researched by another factory).

quote:



In this example, then am I not attempting to move E up so early that it could precede C & D ?

Yes. If you have moved research up the line, you are in fact prioritising research of E. So E may arrive before C or D. Usually C is close enough that it will arrive before E due to the fact that E has to move so far forward, usually from mid-late 45.

quote:


Me confused .......



This is assuming we would be able to subvert the system of research, essentially. That model E doesn't need model C or D to be made to be researched itself.

It's like Chevy jumping from the 63 Corvette to the 68 without having to produce evolutionary versions between.

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/15/2016 10:11:47 PM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 36
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 10:38:24 PM   
scout1


Posts: 2466
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Say the a/c update sequence is B to C to D to E ..... My current a/c is A.
I increase some number of RD factories to build to 30 (which seems to be a magic number) and set them all to B.
While they are repairing I am / am not ? accumulating any research points for B ?


Points only begin accruing when the factories are fully repaired. 30(0)

quote:


Once they all finally are repaired, now I should "start" accumulating research pts to advance ?
If I change these immediately to E (for example), won't the advanced for B no longer continue ?


If you change to C the research points will go to C, and B will no longer continue to research, but you can still make it on its normal arrival date.

If you change to C, then D, then E without a change of turn, your factories will stay repaired and will research E and all other models will only arrive at their normal date (unless researched by another factory).

quote:



In this example, then am I not attempting to move E up so early that it could precede C & D ?

Yes. If you have moved research up the line, you are in fact prioritising research of E. So E may arrive before C or D. Usually C is close enough that it will arrive before E due to the fact that E has to move so far forward, usually from mid-late 45.

quote:


Me confused .......



This is assuming we would be able to subvert the system of research, essentially. That model E doesn't need model C or D to be made to be researched itself.

It's like Chevy jumping from the 63 Corvette to the 68 without having to produce evolutionary versions between.



OK, making progress here ... allow my line of questioning to continue .....

It's been my experience of air units I intentionally opted not to upgrade (stay at A) in games and the normal progression of research got me to C. So technically A group could upgrade to C. However my production people screwed up and I no longer had any B version a/c available. So my A group would not upgrade directly to C.
So I needed to restart B production, merely to get to C. Or I'm doing something very wrong .....

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 37
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/15/2016 11:56:30 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 5655
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Wow, wasn't here yesterday, but this has taken off as I hoped. Didn't even realize that some AFB's were unaware that this could occur. At any rate I've thoroughly enjoyed the responses and debate. The early assumptions (first couple of posts) were on the mark as to what I was talking about, as has been the whole discussion.

As for why I wouldn't use the tactic myself. My feeling is that I believe the devs ('believe' being the key word here) gave the JFB's a method, along with the ability to train, to maintain some sort of 'air parity' with the Allies. Yes, the Allies could train also, and they did IRL too. Japan didn't, at least not to the levels that were required. In the game Japan can train as she likes, good. She can also bring her airframes along much quicker than IRL. OK, but to then skip to higher models at rate that could possibly outstrip the Allies' technical ability... Well there for me at least I must draw my line. I will research 'the line'. Heck I don't even like the ability to go from the Rufe to wherever it goes (I forget and don't have the chart available at the moment), and won't even use that.

So thanks to all, and I'm more than happy to shed a little light toward my AFB opponents who were unaware. As has been said above all is fair if discussed with your opponent beforehand.


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 38
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 12:08:40 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 5655
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

AFB's you all have to remember, an inexperienced or incompetent (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) Japanese player is just as or more than likely to completely kill his/her economy than they are to improve or maximise it. Every Japanese player has to take a second thought every time a factory is being built up "should I do this?" "what will this mean 6 months from now" etc.


Hehe, I agree with this and it has taken me many attempts to 'get it right' so to speak. Its one reason I've avoided PBEM so far. Didn't want to have to quit a game because I busted the economy, and trust me I've broken it. Over and over again. Some of that though was me seeing what was and what was not possible.

Hey, its all been fun and to me at least, part of the game. My current AI game is not quite working out the way I thought, but I might finally be on the right track. At least WRT the economy. I'm only in late Feb '42 so need to give it more time.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 39
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 4:57:58 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5498
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Wow, wasn't here yesterday, but this has taken off as I hoped. Didn't even realize that some AFB's were unaware that this could occur. At any rate I've thoroughly enjoyed the responses and debate. The early assumptions (first couple of posts) were on the mark as to what I was talking about, as has been the whole discussion.

As for why I wouldn't use the tactic myself. My feeling is that I believe the devs ('believe' being the key word here) gave the JFB's a method, along with the ability to train, to maintain some sort of 'air parity' with the Allies. Yes, the Allies could train also, and they did IRL too. Japan didn't, at least not to the levels that were required. In the game Japan can train as she likes, good. She can also bring her airframes along much quicker than IRL. OK, but to then skip to higher models at rate that could possibly outstrip the Allies' technical ability... Well there for me at least I must draw my line. I will research 'the line'. Heck I don't even like the ability to go from the Rufe to wherever it goes (I forget and don't have the chart available at the moment), and won't even use that.

So thanks to all, and I'm more than happy to shed a little light toward my AFB opponents who were unaware. As has been said above all is fair if discussed with your opponent beforehand.



Many a poster, most often a JFB, misrepresents the intentions of the devs in order to justify their actions which benefits them at the expense of their opponent and the clearly stated intentions of the devs.

1. Yes re pilot training the devs were not of a view that the existing pilot training arrangements was necessary but in response to persistent JFB demands, the existant pilot training arrangements were instituted. The devs had no doubt that pilot training is of greater benefit to the Japanese player and results in the erosion of the historical advantage held by the Allies.

2. The entire Japanese aircraft building design was corrupted by

(a) allowing PDU ON, and

(b) allowing air units (both IJA or IJN) which never operated off aircraft carriers nor operated aircraft models/types which could even be flown off carriers, to be upsized to maximum carrier carrying size and operate non carrier capable aircraft

(c) the introduction post AE release of the 500 engine pool boost to R&D

Very early in the life of AE many AFBs complained that Japanese players would be able to field aircraft models years ahead of their historical deployment whilst they themselves were restricted to the exact historical Allied model deployment dates. The response from the devs, and in particular from jwilkerson (the overall AE project manager and thus top dev) was that the Japanese capacity to out produce Allied air production and deploy in 1942/43 late 1945 historical airframes was not considered to be a real problem because the Japanese player would still be constrained by their OOB.

Both PDU ON and impossible and inappropriate resizing, completely bypasses the restraint provided by the OOB.

With PDU OFF an air unit can only upgrade to the next scheduled model for that unit. No skipping from model A to model E is possible; each upgrade must occur sequentially. A Japanese player who therefore skipped R&D on aircraft models B, C, and D in order to make the late 1945 E model available in late 1942/43 and thus able to reequip his air units still flying his 1941 model A, would find this of no real benefit because his air pools lacked the necessary model B for the first upgrade to occur, let alone the subsequent sequential C and D upgrades.

Doubtless there will be some JFB who will try to muddy the issue by claiming that I am wrong because there would be no point in allowing R&D if the devs intended the above to be so. Such a JFB would be most wrong. Even with PDU OFF, Japan still benefits from R&D. Every Japanese aircraft model becomes available on its historical date even if zero R&D has been expended on it. There is therefore no impediment to producing the minimum airframes required for each sequential scheduled upgrade. It merely means that the ultimate model in the chain can only be fielded soon after the historical introduction (assuming no intermediate R&D had been undertaken) of the penultimate model in the chain. Plus the number of air units which historically could field the ultimate model would do so; none of this common PDU ON practice of having all air units flying the ultimate model.

Alfred

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 40
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 11:29:12 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Wow, wasn't here yesterday, but this has taken off as I hoped. Didn't even realize that some AFB's were unaware that this could occur. At any rate I've thoroughly enjoyed the responses and debate. The early assumptions (first couple of posts) were on the mark as to what I was talking about, as has been the whole discussion.

I've been an AFB since the day of first ship. I didn't know.

As for why I wouldn't use the tactic myself. My feeling is that I believe the devs ('believe' being the key word here) gave the JFB's a method, along with the ability to train, to maintain some sort of 'air parity' with the Allies.

They did. And in my broken-record fashion I'll point out again that the true historical constraint--lack of av gas--is not present in the game. Training is on meth in the game.

Yes, the Allies could train also, and they did IRL too. Japan didn't, at least not to the levels that were required.

Because they couldn't. Which is why they sent out kami pilots in late-war fighters who had mere hours of flight school and didn't know how to land.

In the game Japan can train as she likes, good. She can also bring her airframes along much quicker than IRL. OK, but to then skip to higher models at rate that could possibly outstrip the Allies' technical ability... Well there for me at least I must draw my line. I will research 'the line'. Heck I don't even like the ability to go from the Rufe to wherever it goes (I forget and don't have the chart available at the moment), and won't even use that.

I applaud your willingness to skip this abuse of the design.

So thanks to all, and I'm more than happy to shed a little light toward my AFB opponents who were unaware. As has been said above all is fair if discussed with your opponent beforehand.

I don't discuss and I don't use HRs. It's worked well for me so far. But if I saw this tactic employed, rather than play punching bag for real-time two years, I'd turtle up. I'd go to ground in Burma and let the JFB fly in empty skies. I'd wait for Essex-class, I'd save up Fletchers, I'd wait for 1943 infantry upgrades, and then I'd go balls-to-the-wall at the Kuriles and Hokkaido. Many JFBs don't know how vulnerable that route is for Japan. The game doesn't really model how hard it was to operate in the Arctic. Several AARs have demonstrated it, but not all players have read them. I'd either win by burning down the super-plane factories, or I'd lose and get out of the game. And I'd find a new opponent.



_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 41
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 12:04:49 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1163
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On. The premise of my view is that a game based on stock scenario 1, played without utilizing the R&D system and with PDU=Off, and by two players who adhered to the same strategic approaches as the original combatants would, more often than not, replicate what happened historically. (That is quite an accomplishment so hats off to the developers!) But from the point of view of a JFB, getting repeatedly plowed under by the weight of Allied arms starting in mid-1943 would become old pretty fast. That's not a good recipe for the success of a commercial product.

As a remedy to this, the developers included the Japanese R&D system, PDU=On, as well as the ability to accelerate the construction of Japanese shipping. Taking advantage of these options lets the Japanese player maintain parity with the Allies longer than mid-1943, albeit at a pretty hefty HI cost. Therefore utilizing these options must be made judiciously to avoid a premature collapse of the Japanese economy. In my opinion, this flexibility makes the game more interesting for a JFB and therefore enhances the viability of the game as a commercial product. And for AFBs, the same flexibility in the Japanese production system will encourage a ample supply of opponents to eventually pound into dust with your wealth of LCU firepower, LSTs, P-47s, P-51s, B-24s, and B-29s. You just may have to wait a bit longer than occurred historically.

Of course, a JFB's intension to utilize these features of the game must be made clear to potential opponents at the outset to insure everybody is on the same page. But if a like-minded AFB can be found, utilizing these features of the Japanese production system makes the game more enjoyable. It's all about the fun factor. It's as simple as that.


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 42
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 1:07:40 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4773
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
Rediscovering old gems(some would say exploits) in the game is forum fodder for plenty of debate ... The econ101 doc written (and found in my signature) in 2013 pointed this "feature" out back then. Although I must admit I was somewhat coy about it's use ;-)

[edit] Numdydar in his Primer.pdf was much more revealing though ... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3329605

I have to agree with pws1225 on this matter - losing must be fun.


< Message edited by n01487477 -- 12/16/2016 1:29:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 43
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 2:53:41 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24824
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

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.


I hesitate to quote myself from a previous post in this thread, but will permit it this time.

A PBEM game constitutes a contract of sorts. In order for there to be a contract, there has to be a meeting of the minds. Disclosure of expectations for satisfaction of the contract, terms of satisfaction, etc. are part and parcel what makes a contract.

Assumptions of what the other partner 'knows' when they enter into the contract are usually ill-advised. "Hey landlord-you should have known that my job was temporary and that I might not be able to make my rent."

So are expectations that the other party alter the terms of the contract if one discovers new information after the fact. "Wow. Most places around here are renting for *less* than this place is. We shouldn't have to pay so much for rent."

Now that AFBs have been put on notice (about something that should have been well-known for many years), they can really hold potential partners' feet to the fire and demand PDU off and Realistic R&D off in their games. The 'opponents wanted' thread should be populated with many of these requests. Nearly all will go unfilled.

The reality is that no Japanese player wants to go through a boring slog of a beatdown without entertaining the possibility of victory. Or at least novelty on the way to ignominious defeat. PDU and R&D settings are one of several ways in which Japanese players derive interest in this game as designed.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 44
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 4:28:28 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On.



No one is calling for not using the R&D system. No one is calling for all PDU OFF games. No one is calling for Realistic R&D OFF to be required; in my own game ahistorical R&D is ON and PDU is also ON.

Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 45
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 4:51:35 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.

It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 46
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 4:57:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.

It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him


Obvert listed some "options" the Allies have to frustrate Japan. I'd like your opinion on those.

I've outlined my response if this tactic were used in a PBEM game with me. I'd add that I would contact anyone responding to the JFB's next opponent ad and make sure they knew who they were contemplating playing against.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 47
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 5:54:03 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.

It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him

Obvert listed some "options" the Allies have to frustrate Japan. I'd like your opinion on those.

I've outlined my response if this tactic were used in a PBEM game with me. I'd add that I would contact anyone responding to the JFB's next opponent ad and make sure they knew who they were contemplating playing against.

Umm, there is a difference between challenge and intentional griefing, no? The former is agreed on beforehand, the latter is not. My very first post in this thread stated the need for discussion, because R&D is a strategical choice, part of the long-term planning. You can't seriously say "hey, you doing this with R&D? please don't" somewhere in 44, like you can in response to some cheeky tactics.
Also I'm curious of why would you want to interfere in someone elses choices of partners. Grownups surely are capable of discussing relevant stuff themselves. Assuming that JFBs would take advantage of unsuspecting uninformed Allies is a bit too much?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 48
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 6:27:09 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 6208
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Assuming that JFBs would take advantage of unsuspecting uninformed Allies is a bit too much?


Considering that in my first PBEM, I got my butt placed on a platter, an apple in my mouth, with all the trimmings, in the first year? Yeah, I can see that

Seriously, from all the comments here (including some people with time in game) many did not know, or at least understand, this vastly accelerated possibility. It's something to consider now that it is more widely known and understood.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 49
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 6:36:05 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.

It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him

Obvert listed some "options" the Allies have to frustrate Japan. I'd like your opinion on those.

I've outlined my response if this tactic were used in a PBEM game with me. I'd add that I would contact anyone responding to the JFB's next opponent ad and make sure they knew who they were contemplating playing against.

Umm, there is a difference between challenge and intentional griefing, no? The former is agreed on beforehand, the latter is not. My very first post in this thread stated the need for discussion, because R&D is a strategical choice, part of the long-term planning. You can't seriously say "hey, you doing this with R&D? please don't" somewhere in 44, like you can in response to some cheeky tactics.
Also I'm curious of why would you want to interfere in someone elses choices of partners. Grownups surely are capable of discussing relevant stuff themselves. Assuming that JFBs would take advantage of unsuspecting uninformed Allies is a bit too much?


I can say confidently I have read every Opponents Wanted ad in the past 4-5 years. I have never, not once, seen an ad say "I plan to use the R&D system to promote summer 1945 airframes into mid-1942." I think you're being a bit too cute.

As I said--hell, as John III, a major modder said--I had no idea this level of acceleration was possible in the R&D system. How can you "discuss" something you don't know exists?

I would add information in a PM. I have been PMed by Allied players in the past asking me what I know, or what I think from forum posts, about a potential opponent. I have answered in every case that I can recall. AFBs do talk to each other.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 50
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 6:42:31 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 848
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?

Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.

It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 51
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 7:10:25 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1825
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I would add information in a PM. I have been PMed by Allied players in the past asking me what I know, or what I think from forum posts, about a potential opponent. I have answered in every case that I can recall. AFBs do talk to each other.

Oh, responding to requests is quite OK. I got the impression from your earlier post that you intend to "warn" the guys w/o them requesting you (this I see as not quite OK). Sorry for misunderstanding

I'm sure many JFBs are just as buffled about the fact that this R&D quirk is new information to somebody. Many AARs discuss the skipping, there were many discussions on this forum and I took part in some, this possibility is explained in the well-known economy primer. There are considerable costs involved both in resources and in inability to use interim airframes. I'd prefer you not misrepresent it as a magic "plan to use the R&D system to promote summer 1945 airframes into mid-1942", because it is not. In Stock 1 10 factories with engine bonus all the way will get you Oscar-IV, the best chain acceleration available out there, only in Feb-43

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 52
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 7:27:43 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1163
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On.



No one is calling for not using the R&D system. No one is calling for all PDU OFF games. No one is calling for Realistic R&D OFF to be required; in my own game ahistorical R&D is ON and PDU is also ON.

Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.


I respectfully disagree. I see getting the '45 fighters in mid-'43 as a logical consequence of utilizing a system built into the game by the developers. Besides, all these fighters give a JFB is a rough parity with the mid-'43 allied fighters, not air superiority. If you take a look at the stats of the A6M8, the poster child of utilizing the R&D system, you will see that it is about on a par with the early Hellcat, both of which can come on line in mid-43. It's not a war-winner by any stretch of the imagination but it does help Japan stay competitive for a while longer.

Another aspect of the debate on R&D system (as well as the ability to accelerate ship production) has to do with the decision a JFB must make between building up his military vs building up his economy. At the outset of every game, a JFB must decide how he is going to handle this balance and design his strategy around it. He can decide to forego the A/C R&D and ship acceleration and hoard the saved HI for the late game siege of the Home Islands, or he can expend the HI to build up his military through the R&D and ship acceleration capabilities gambling that a better equipped military can hold the Allies at bay.

A large part of the enjoyment of playing the Japanese side is the challenge of designing a strategy that balances these two competing demands for resources in such a way to enhance your chance of a more favorable outcome. Stated more simply, for me at least, the war comes down to placing a bet on the proper allocation of resources then playing the game to its conclusion to see if your gamble will pay off. This is very similar to the kind of gamble that other Japanese players make when they expend huge quantities of supplies trying to take India, Australia, or even the west coast to achieve auto-victory.

I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Moose, but I hope that I have explained why I find the use of the R&D system and other aspects game so central to the enjoyment of the game for the Japanese player. It is the side every riverboat gambler would want to play, even if the odds are still stacked against him.

It's a hell of a game, wouldn't you say?


Just my two cents.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 53
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 7:36:15 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12732
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?

Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.

It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.


No. Even Damian above mentioned he "was coy" about its use. Japanese players and Allied players don't always read each other's AARs. Most Allied players wouldn't know half of what Mike Solli was talking about and wouldn't care much about the other half.

Japanese players were NOT talking about this "feature" openly for years. I've been here and have been reading!

We were all talking about research, yes, and about which airframes, yes, but this is why I only learned this probably a year ago?

_____________________________


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

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 54
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 7:57:21 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24824
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225
I respectfully disagree. I see getting the '45 fighters in mid-'43 as a logical consequence of utilizing a system built into the game by the developers. Besides, all these fighters give a JFB is a rough parity with the mid-'43 allied fighters, not air superiority. If you take a look at the stats of the A6M8, the poster child of utilizing the R&D system, you will see that it is about on a par with the early Hellcat, both of which can come on line in mid-43. It's not a war-winner by any stretch of the imagination but it does help Japan stay competitive for a while longer.

Another aspect of the debate on R&D system (as well as the ability to accelerate ship production) has to do with the decision a JFB must make between building up his military vs building up his economy. At the outset of every game, a JFB must decide how he is going to handle this balance and design his strategy around it. He can decide to forego the A/C R&D and ship acceleration and hoard the saved HI for the late game siege of the Home Islands, or he can expend the HI to build up his military through the R&D and ship acceleration capabilities gambling that a better equipped military can hold the Allies at bay.

A large part of the enjoyment of playing the Japanese side is the challenge of designing a strategy that balances these two competing demands for resources in such a way to enhance your chance of a more favorable outcome. Stated more simply, for me at least, the war comes down to placing a bet on the proper allocation of resources then playing the game to its conclusion to see if your gamble will pay off. This is very similar to the kind of gamble that other Japanese players make when they expend huge quantities of supplies trying to take India, Australia, or even the west coast to achieve auto-victory.

I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Moose, but I hope that I have explained why I find the use of the R&D system and other aspects game so central to the enjoyment of the game for the Japanese player. It is the side every riverboat gambler would want to play, even if the odds are still stacked against him.

It's a hell of a game, wouldn't you say?

Just my two cents.



Nicely stated.


_____________________________


(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 55
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 7:59:50 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24824
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?

Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.

It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.


No. Even Damian above mentioned he "was coy" about its use. Japanese players and Allied players don't always read each other's AARs. Most Allied players wouldn't know half of what Mike Solli was talking about and wouldn't care much about the other half.

Japanese players were NOT talking about this "feature" openly for years. I've been here and have been reading!

We were all talking about research, yes, and about which airframes, yes, but this is why I only learned this probably a year ago?


To be fair, I detailed my reservations about using this system to the nth degree to my last two PBEM partners before we started our games. Their response was 'knock yourself out', which was gratifying.

_____________________________


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 56
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 8:00:43 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 848
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?

Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.

It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.


No. Even Damian above mentioned he "was coy" about its use. Japanese players and Allied players don't always read each other's AARs. Most Allied players wouldn't know half of what Mike Solli was talking about and wouldn't care much about the other half.

Japanese players were NOT talking about this "feature" openly for years. I've been here and have been reading!

We were all talking about research, yes, and about which airframes, yes, but this is why I only learned this probably a year ago?


i guess it depends on how much you look into it, Damians guide came out in 2011 which was when i first started trying to learn the Jap side of things and found it very useful, as did many others

e.g. Mac Linehan posted

> R&D - after weeks of forum study, your guide and remarks finished the job. For example, while I knew that the next airframe in line (A6M2 > A6M3) could be accelerated, I did not grasp the concept that the A6M3 could be changed to the A6M3a (carrier capable) and thus be skipped entirely. Yes, very basic (but important!) stuff, your chart gave a clear visual of how to do it.

So maybe Damian wasn't as coy as he thought :)

However it is clearly something that isn't obvious from just playing the game.

I just saw it as just getting to know how the system worked and it has always been a normal part of the game to me (though i don't play PBEM)


(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 57
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 8:25:09 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2746
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
That's pretty early.


Isn't it Gamey?


Fixed that line for you.

Something that is possible under the game mechanics that was not plausible in real life is by definition.......



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

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

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 58
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 8:30:38 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On.



No one is calling for not using the R&D system. No one is calling for all PDU OFF games. No one is calling for Realistic R&D OFF to be required; in my own game ahistorical R&D is ON and PDU is also ON.

Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.


I respectfully disagree. I see getting the '45 fighters in mid-'43 as a logical consequence of utilizing a system built into the game by the developers. Besides, all these fighters give a JFB is a rough parity with the mid-'43 allied fighters, not air superiority. If you take a look at the stats of the A6M8, the poster child of utilizing the R&D system, you will see that it is about on a par with the early Hellcat, both of which can come on line in mid-43. It's not a war-winner by any stretch of the imagination but it does help Japan stay competitive for a while longer.

Another aspect of the debate on R&D system (as well as the ability to accelerate ship production) has to do with the decision a JFB must make between building up his military vs building up his economy. At the outset of every game, a JFB must decide how he is going to handle this balance and design his strategy around it. He can decide to forego the A/C R&D and ship acceleration and hoard the saved HI for the late game siege of the Home Islands, or he can expend the HI to build up his military through the R&D and ship acceleration capabilities gambling that a better equipped military can hold the Allies at bay.

A large part of the enjoyment of playing the Japanese side is the challenge of designing a strategy that balances these two competing demands for resources in such a way to enhance your chance of a more favorable outcome. Stated more simply, for me at least, the war comes down to placing a bet on the proper allocation of resources then playing the game to its conclusion to see if your gamble will pay off. This is very similar to the kind of gamble that other Japanese players make when they expend huge quantities of supplies trying to take India, Australia, or even the west coast to achieve auto-victory.

I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Moose, but I hope that I have explained why I find the use of the R&D system and other aspects game so central to the enjoyment of the game for the Japanese player. It is the side every riverboat gambler would want to play, even if the odds are still stacked against him.

It's a hell of a game, wouldn't you say?


Just my two cents.



As I said, my game with Lokasenna has Realistic R&D OFF. I understand airframes can be accelerated. I understand there are costs. The issue is degree. The gymnastics required to get two full years of gain--and up-thread people ARE talking about mid-1942--is not something I believe the developers contemplated when they put this feature in the game.

No, you won't change my mind on this.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 59
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 8:37:11 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2989
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
One point that I think has been missed is the much reduced chance of getting a research advance with airframes greater than 2 years from the current game date. The 500 engines do help, but then you are tying up engines that could be used versus being sitting in a warehouse. Just because you can get 30 R&D factories repaired pretty quick by using the first model does not mean when you switch them to a 1944/45 model you will be getting them in 42/43.

As stated before everything you do as Japan needs to be looked at in the light of HI costs. Which is why using the Helen series is always a tough choice. Since it the only airframe that uses that specific engine.

The issue is that 90% of these games do not last past '43. So JFB's never have to pay the 'cost' of accelerating planes like this. I've played into '45 as Japan in PBM and I can tell you that you will regret not paying attention to HI costs from day one if you go past '43. Pilot training alone will have a huge impact on HI expense since you cannot turn it off. I had to turn almost all production off just to make up the HI deficit from the pilot training hit in '44.

If you know you are going to stop in '43 you can do all these 'fun' things with HI, accelerate ships, build lots of factories, etc. But doing that in any game that goes the distance, will have a major debt due later on. The piper Will be paid

After playing several games as Japan, I have no sympathy for AFB's complaining about this. Sorry Moose . let us have our fun, please. You will crush us in the end. But this means that JFB's need to agree to last until at least the start of '45 so the AFBs can have some fun too If I can play to the bitter end, then you can too.

In my last PBEM game, my Allied opponent actually quit in early '45 . He said he knew he had won and did not want me to have to keep getting hammered every turn as it was bothering him just to see the Victory screen lol.

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 12/16/2016 8:39:08 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Japanese A/C R&D Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.164