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 - 12/16/2016 8:38:53 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1163
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
@The Moose - Jeez, if I told you what I could do with the ship acceleration system, I think your antlers might catch fire!

May each of us find like-minded opponents for many years to come.

Regards, Paul

< Message edited by pws1225 -- 12/16/2016 8:40:33 PM >

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 61
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 11:06:57 PM   
obvert


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


More damaging is the George, or the Ki-100. Still, the better mid-war A6M5c model can be crucial to 43 CV battles, and this lets you get that earlier and build big pools sooner.

My point above is not just about superiority, but VPs. If the VP scale is set up based on balance is it still balanced with these research ultra-accelerations?

quote:



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.



Ok. So it's easy to say this to an AFB who doesn't know the production or RnD system.

If you do this you can get the N1K5 faster for the same investment you'd usually use. You're starting it's research earlier, so it comes sooner but costs the same. Right?

So not actually the investment you have to consider as deeply regarding the economy.

quote:



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 favourable 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.


But in this case you bet less to get the same payout. Or bet the same and get a bigger payout.

quote:


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.



I've used this push in my current game, but only from the mid-game on. It will get some 45 fighters to me faster. I wanted to see how much faster and if that really felt right. We'll see, but this whole trade-off argument you're using doesn't work if you push the timeframe with the R & D jump. There is no extra cost to switch an already repaired factory.

You're paying the same for better results.

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/16/2016 11:12:32 PM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 62
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 11:15:02 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 274
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada (Lives in Brandon, MB)
Status: offline
geez this thread is like missing an episode of GoT, once you miss one day on here you may as well have missed them all because you're so lost.

I still don't see what the problem is, if its an "over acceleration" of R&D airframes, I can offer a mere theory as to why this is...


So Zero line starts at Rufe... Why? Did the Rufe truly "advance" the airframe in RL? No. Waste of time and effort, same as the A6M2 Sen Baku. The N1K Rex is a different beast, it needed that airframe to even have the idea of the George in the first place. You all have to realize that to advance an airframe you don't NEED to build a fighter-bomber version of it just to learn different techniques on how to make it better. At least that's how I see it. If you want to super accelerate to the A6M8, by all means go ahead. Lets see how it fairs against my hellcats and corsairs and proximity-fused flak shells


I look to Germany as a prime example of wasted R&D on airframes. 109E-4, 109E-7, 109F-2, 109F-4, 109G-2, 109G-4, 109G-6, 109G-10, 109G-14, 109K-4

A friend of mine once said to me "You can upgrade and fine tune a Ford Pinto as much as you want but at the end of the day its still a Ford Pinto."

Eventually you have to look at an airframe the same way. I can upgrade the Zero airframe until the I become "The Empire of the Setting Sun", but at the end of the day its still a Zero. Hopefully my A6M400's are good to go up against those Bearcats...


_____________________________

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"- attributed to Isoroko Yamamoto

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 63
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 11:39:51 PM   
obvert


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

I still don't see what the problem is, if its an "over acceleration" of R&D airframes, I can offer a mere theory as to why this is...

If you want to super accelerate to the A6M8, by all means go ahead. Lets see how it fairs against my hellcats and corsairs and proximity-fused flak shells



Consider that if you have the A6M8 in 43 it's superior to the other models you would have had at this date without the ultra push R & D.

This changes balance, VP totals, possible carrier clashes and ship losses, economic concerns,saves more elite fighter pilots, more bomber pilots, etc. Even in a PDU-off game this could be a problem.

We haven't even mentioned the long bomber path of the D4Y Judy yet. I just got D4Y4 in 4/43. That is a mid-45 kami plane with an 800kg AP bomb. Still not seeing the problem?




_____________________________


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

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 64
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/16/2016 11:59:49 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 274
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada (Lives in Brandon, MB)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:obvert

Consider that if you have the A6M8 in 43 it's superior to the other models you would have had at this date without the ultra push R & D.

This changes balance, VP totals, possible carrier clashes and ship losses, economic concerns,saves more elite fighter pilots, more bomber pilots, etc. Even in a PDU-off game this could be a problem.

We haven't even mentioned the long bomber path of the D4Y Judy yet. I just got D4Y4 in 4/43. That is a mid-45 kami plane with an 800kg AP bomb. Still not seeing the problem?



Then I'll wait................................................................................................................................................. Time is on my side.


Ah yes the great BBBuster, the D4Y4. I've played Japan enough times to finally realise myself that it is truly impossible to have a focused defence all around the perimeter. You simply can't do it. You can focus on one part and have a moderate-medium level defense on all other sectors. The goal of the Allied player should ALWAYS be to find that focused defence sector and avoid it, even if it is the most strategically logical target for you (like the DEI for a prime example). You can even resize your D4Y4's to 81, all that are eligible at least. The OOB will still kill you in the end. Now that being said, I am a firm believer in the theory that it is possible for the Japanese player to achieve total victory, Naval victory is HIGHLY IMPPROBABLE. Land victory is certainly plausible, especially after seeing how dang weak India is at the onset and also playing around with the ANZACs for awhile.




This message was created by a JFB





_____________________________

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"- attributed to Isoroko Yamamoto

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 65
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 2:06:20 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 351
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.


BIG note to AFB's... Realistic R&D should be ON. If it is off, that doesn't mean I cannot do research. It means I can't freely switch between R&D factories and production factories. It is MORE permissive, not less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Game Manual
2.4.8 REALISTIC R&D This switch controls whether the Japanese player can convert the production of factories which are producing currently available aircraft into ones researching future aircraft, and vice versa. If the switch is set to the “on” position, and the Japanese player wishes to change the aircraft type being produced by a factory, the choice of aircraft to convert to will be restricted in the following manner: When switching from an aircraft that is currently available and in production, only other aircraft that are also in production can be selected. Similarly, when that the Japanese player wishes to change the aircraft type of a factory that is performing research (see section 13.5), only other aircraft that are also being researched (that is – not yet available for production) can be selected. This represents the differences between mass production factories and research and development centers. In reality these are two different things, and freely swapping between them is not realistic. If the switch is set to the “off” position, no such restrictions apply. This will allow the Japanese player a greater ability to switch production of their factories to any aircraft type, regardless of whether those factories are representing aircraft production or R&D facilities. The default position for this switch is “on”, as this is a more realistic representation of the Japanese aircraft industry. "{/quote]

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 66
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 2:28:19 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8697
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

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.


More damaging is the George, or the Ki-100. Still, the better mid-war A6M5c model can be crucial to 43 CV battles, and this lets you get that earlier and build big pools sooner.

My point above is not just about superiority, but VPs. If the VP scale is set up based on balance is it still balanced with these research ultra-accelerations?

quote:



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.



Ok. So it's easy to say this to an AFB who doesn't know the production or RnD system.

If you do this you can get the N1K5 faster for the same investment you'd usually use. You're starting it's research earlier, so it comes sooner but costs the same. Right?

So not actually the investment you have to consider as deeply regarding the economy.

quote:



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 favourable 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.


But in this case you bet less to get the same payout. Or bet the same and get a bigger payout.

quote:


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.



I've used this push in my current game, but only from the mid-game on. It will get some 45 fighters to me faster. I wanted to see how much faster and if that really felt right. We'll see, but this whole trade-off argument you're using doesn't work if you push the timeframe with the R & D jump. There is no extra cost to switch an already repaired factory.

You're paying the same for better results.


I disagree about there not being a cost or that you're paying the same for better results, because you're ignoring a not-so-minor quibble:

If you devote (say) 5 factories to researching the N1K1 (or any other 2nd generation plane for that matter), and then skip them forward to the end of the line as they become repaired, you will basically never use the initial model of that line as you won't have any production factories for it. So instead of getting the N1K1 in mid-43, you're getting the N1K5 in early-44 or something. That's a definite cost.

OR you could use more factories (which has its own opportunity cost), or allow 1 to switch to production (decreasing your R&D effort) and pump its production up. This will in turn require more engines to maintain your engine pools, which is more HI and supplies for the expansion and more HI for the consumption.

That is either: a) not paying the same (you spent more to increase a single factory to production of the first model in the line), and/or b) are not getting the same results. I think the results are worse, personally, because if you're still subsisting on A6M2/A6M3a Zeroes and Vals in 1943 you're going to have a worse time of it than if you'd paused to research a version of the A6M5 and the D4Y1.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 67
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 2:30:02 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8697
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

I still don't see what the problem is, if its an "over acceleration" of R&D airframes, I can offer a mere theory as to why this is...

If you want to super accelerate to the A6M8, by all means go ahead. Lets see how it fairs against my hellcats and corsairs and proximity-fused flak shells



Consider that if you have the A6M8 in 43 it's superior to the other models you would have had at this date without the ultra push R & D.

This changes balance, VP totals, possible carrier clashes and ship losses, economic concerns,saves more elite fighter pilots, more bomber pilots, etc. Even in a PDU-off game this could be a problem.

We haven't even mentioned the long bomber path of the D4Y Judy yet. I just got D4Y4 in 4/43. That is a mid-45 kami plane with an 800kg AP bomb. Still not seeing the problem?





They die the same as D4Y3's...

And there is a cost. We can debate whether that cost is too low. It probably is. But it isn't cost free to do this vs. doing standard (both in terms of opportunity cost and resource cost).

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 68
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 4:18:51 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 351
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
I think in some limited situations that skipping is entirely justified by historical events and capabilities (A6M8, Ki-100).

Despite my avid support of skipping models as a legitimate tactic in those cases, I must admit that I find research to be too easy for Japan. I think my biggest issue is that there were limited numbers of designers in Japan and the game doesn't really demand sacrifices in design efforts for one model to advance another model.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 69
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 5:07:42 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Actually, it wasn't aircraft designs that caused the delays, it was the engines. The entire Ha-4x family had induction issues that delayed ALL of the "late war" designs. If you address that issue (tech trade with GER/ITA), then SAM is ready in 6 months later easily ... ditto for George/Frank/.... aircraft designs were not the limiting factor. This is why all the Oscar/Zero models came from. Designers were stuck with the Ha-3x series until late war ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 70
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 5:40:31 AM   
n01487477


Posts: 4773
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
There is always the modding option to fix all of this by having short upgrade paths, engine changes and load cost (HI cost) multiplication for both frames and engines... plus a number of other options such as weapon modification variants etc that could make this more in-depth. Unfortunately, I never finished that mod with NYGiants. But it goes without saying that the official scenario's are open to this.

[edit] I forgot one other thing I put in it ... every a/c had to be researched as they all had months and years added to their availability ;-)

< Message edited by n01487477 -- 12/17/2016 5:42:07 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 71
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 5:54:41 AM   
Reg


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

I believe the developers (and modders) seriously under estimate the ability of players to get around restrictions and take advantage of the system.



_____________________________

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 n01487477)
Post #: 72
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 12:11:42 PM   
szmike

 

Posts: 314
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


I believe the developers (and modders) seriously under estimate the ability of players to get around restrictions and take advantage of the system.




But the advantage is blown out of proprtion by AFBs, so it evens out in the end... and JFBs are still going to kill their supply economy sooner or later, depending on skill.

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 73
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 1:31:36 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8663
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike


... and JFBs are still going to kill their supply economy sooner or later, depending on skill.

Many do. If you are playing PDU ON and Realistic RnD OFF, then I would say you also play with no VP. This then says first off you are playing outside the historical parameters that the Devs created, you realize that, and so you also understand that the VP system they created no longer functions. If the IJ player doesn't tank his economy in '44 (most will/do), then the allied player will get to use ALL of his toys, in particular all of the ones that come after SOV activation. Even with ALL of the above thrown in, the IJ will struggle to keep the allies out of the HI. Meaning, it is a really fun and hotly contested end game. Those last 8 months when the allies are getting essentially endless P51H and B17's on top of the unbelievable numbers of SOV ARM and ARTY .... you have to play it to really understand the carnage that occurs EVERY day.



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to szmike)
Post #: 74
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 1:50:38 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2990
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
+1 to this lol

I'll never forget a raid in late '44 in a PBEM game where the Allies had 600+ planes in an attack . As Japan, I did not have anything even close to those numbers anytime during the game lol.

At that timeframe multiple 200-300 plane raids by the Allies were pretty common multiple times a turn. Nothing you produce as Japan is going to make much of a dent in those numbers.

The VP system is pretty useless since both side can easily get an AV. Japan in '43 by overrunning China and no Midway type losses. The Allies in '45 without even touching the Japanese HI. So the players need to determine what is a 'win'. Mine as Japan is to last longer than historical Have not done it yet . Except against the AI

< Message edited by Numdydar -- 12/17/2016 1:51:41 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 75
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 2:12:12 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 1163
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
+2 to that.

The late game is really is really the best part of the game for the Japanese player. Sure, you are getting whacked from every direction but are also finding out if the strategic gambles you made early are paying off or not. And you get the benefit of interior LOCs, very interior indeed!

I only made to the late war once (August '45) before my opponent bumped his VPs to achieve a major victory. I narrowly missed my benchmark of victory of lasting longer than historical and keeping the Allies from achieving a major victory. But I had a blast getting my arse handed to me.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 76
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 2:28:10 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2990
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
'Blast' being the operative word here You are definitely getting 'blasted' each and every turn. It really makes us JFB's 'special' to be willing to keep playing .

But I agree, more JFB's should be willing to go the distance as the late war really is an amazing education on how truly awesome the Allied power was at this stage of the war.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 77
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 4:31:32 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8697
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Short points before I run out for errands:

a) I don't think most IJ players "will/do" run out of supplies in 1944.
b) There are more examples of games going into 1944 than there are of "most" IJ players not being willing to continue beyond 1943
c) There are probably as many dropped Allied games as there are IJ games.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 78
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 4:48:33 PM   
MakeeLearn


Posts: 3362
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

R&D favors the bold.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to SheperdN7)
Post #: 79
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 7:53:15 PM   
Kull


Posts: 1410
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

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


It's linked in the first post of this thread

_____________________________


(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 80
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 8:07:27 PM   
Bullwinkle58


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.


BIG note to AFB's... Realistic R&D should be ON. If it is off, that doesn't mean I cannot do research. It means I can't freely switch between R&D factories and production factories. It is MORE permissive, not less.



I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2. Which is one reason, although not the main one, I am currently at 1.6:1 against in VPs in July 1944. And why I disagree with statements here that allowing ahistoric R&D is a certain route to VPs going out the window.

N.B. I am primarily at 1.6:1 against because Lokasenna is a far better player than I am. But man, have I learned a lot playing him.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 81
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/17/2016 8:09:49 PM   
obvert


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

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

+1 to this lol

I'll never forget a raid in late '44 in a PBEM game where the Allies had 600+ planes in an attack . As Japan, I did not have anything even close to those numbers anytime during the game lol.

At that timeframe multiple 200-300 plane raids by the Allies were pretty common multiple times a turn. Nothing you produce as Japan is going to make much of a dent in those numbers.

The VP system is pretty useless since both side can easily get an AV. Japan in '43 by overrunning China and no Midway type losses. The Allies in '45 without even touching the Japanese HI. So the players need to determine what is a 'win'. Mine as Japan is to last longer than historical Have not done it yet . Except against the AI


I completely agree the late game is one of the best game playing experiences I've ever had. Its constant, relentless pressure and only sporadically effective resistance. It's just important to see what you can still do, how your plans actually end up, for better or worse.

I do disagree though that the VPs are useless. That was actually what kept me going, even though my opponent and I had both begun the game with an agreement not to care about the VPs. By the end we both did because it was really the only objective measure we had of what was going on, especially with strat bombing and the kind of territory taken vs the losses incurred.

As much as I'm arguing the ultra research may skew VP results and game play balance I'm actually advocating for VPs. They give Japanese players a reason to keep fighting and scrapping to the end when its dire and every turn offers staggering losses with endless cleanup. If there is a measure of success, and if that measure isn't too tainted by bringing planes so far forward that balance suffers, then it's easier to stick in it to the bitter end knowing you have an honourable result to shoot for.

< Message edited by obvert -- 12/17/2016 8:10:47 PM >


_____________________________


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

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 82
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 12:35:36 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 5739
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
OK, I missed another day and WOW again.

The way I see it Alfred hit the nail on the head again. The problem really comes into being with the ability to R&D and play with PDU On, which I do. I just won't use the two to 'abuse the system', so to speak. IOW I won't skip the R&D chain. I play PDU On for two reasons. One I don't wish to be confined to the historical limits concerning A/C usage. If I have 'em I want to use them when and where I choose. As has been pointed out before not all air units will convert to just any airframe. To me that's fine, there need to be limits. The other reason I choose PDU On is a bit of lazyness. Its just that I have so much, from my point of view, to keep track of as it is that to now learn what airframes and how many A/C of each I need is just too much for me to track.

My intent is never to 'game the game' to the extent that I abuse what is given to me. Let's be honest the "game games' the game" a bit by giving us these goodies. Ever hear the expression, 'I give you a finger and you take the whole hand', that's what I wish to avoid. So have fun with what is given, but use a little restraint. Again if both players agree to any tactics, I say fine.

Edit:In addition I always play realistic 'R&D On' as well.




< Message edited by rustysi -- 12/18/2016 12:53:36 AM >


_____________________________

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 obvert)
Post #: 83
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 12:50:07 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 5739
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

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.


Yup, this is one feature of the game that I don't like. It was probably impossible to launch major operations either to or from the Aleutians in WWII, and I'd add even today. I've seen all the film footage I can get may hands on of the place and its not good. As one of my duty sites in the military was Shemya Island I can attest to the nasty weather of the region. Not that I was ever stationed there, but I had served with others who were. It had a reputation throughout that community of the military.

I always put as much as possible in the region. More than what the game provides, but I still see it as a vulnerable location.

_____________________________

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 Numdydar)
Post #: 84
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 1:02:58 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 5739
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:


You're paying the same for better results.


I disagree about there not being a cost or that you're paying the same for better results, because you're ignoring a not-so-minor quibble:


Lokasenna, I respect ya man, but I have to side with Obvert here.

_____________________________

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 rustysi)
Post #: 85
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 1:15:43 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 5739
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2.


See to me scen2 is a bane to any Japanese player who goes beyond '42. Why? Well yeah, the Japanese player gets extra goodies to play with, but some are a drain on his/her resources. Like for instance the extra ground units that are given. Then in '43, wham all those extra pilots are slamming his/her HI pool. Now he begins to feel the pinch, and it can wreck his/her economy.

From everything I've read the scenario was really intended to be used by the AI in order to give an Allied player a better challenge. I mean anyone can use it, but I'll stick to scen1.

_____________________________

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 rustysi)
Post #: 86
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 1:33:04 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8697
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.


BIG note to AFB's... Realistic R&D should be ON. If it is off, that doesn't mean I cannot do research. It means I can't freely switch between R&D factories and production factories. It is MORE permissive, not less.



I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2. Which is one reason, although not the main one, I am currently at 1.6:1 against in VPs in July 1944. And why I disagree with statements here that allowing ahistoric R&D is a certain route to VPs going out the window.

N.B. I am primarily at 1.6:1 against because Lokasenna is a far better player than I am. But man, have I learned a lot playing him.


I'm honestly not sure realistic R&D on or off makes much difference. It allows you to switch some factories from production to R&D at the start, but having started a second game with the same scenario and setting up my R&D... the number of factories that I would even want to switch is 2 or 3.

The biggest difference is that with realistic on, you have to make sure that you don't let any of your R&D factories switch to production factories unless you want them to do so, because once they've flipped you can't flip them back.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 87
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 1:33:50 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8697
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:


You're paying the same for better results.


I disagree about there not being a cost or that you're paying the same for better results, because you're ignoring a not-so-minor quibble:


Lokasenna, I respect ya man, but I have to side with Obvert here.


OK, but numbers don't lie.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 88
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 1:33:50 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2990
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
I played Scen 2 in a PBEM game and my HI costs for pilots in mid to late '44 were over 100K/month

It is a lot of fun though. Again none of the extra 'toys' did much at the end Still lost in early '45.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 89
RE: Japanese A/C R&D - 12/18/2016 1:41:36 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 2990
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Short points before I run out for errands:

a) I don't think most IJ players "will/do" run out of supplies in 1944.
b) There are more examples of games going into 1944 than there are of "most" IJ players not being willing to continue beyond 1943
c) There are probably as many dropped Allied games as there are IJ games.


a) I was mainly talking about HI. Sorry for the confusion.
b) Hard to say how many quit or not. But I've seen any number of threads of AFBs complaining about JFBs quitting in '43 or earlier. There are a number of AARs that have been abandoned as well. So my impression comes from these observations so could well be wrong.

But after experiencing the Allied might up close and personal, I can easily see many JFB's leaving games when that starts happening. Especially when they know it is NOT going to be getting any better for them for the rest of the game.

c) Doubt it. If there are, it is likely due to RL events versus getting beat up by Japan.

Just my thoughts

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 90
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

0.180