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: Is resizing a gamey?

 
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: Is resizing a gamey? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 11:10:39 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 1766
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Loka echoes my views on the matter.

I'm a game purist: if it's possible within the game engine, I'll do it. There's a degree of fuzziness in the engine, but as a whole it works, and is much better than a long list of restrictions on what you can and cannot do.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

The thread wanders around a bit more distant topics but I have more closer question to the topic.
Should air groups from sunken aircraft carriers be used / rebuilt?


Why wouldn't they be?

In reality, if either side had the pilots and planes sitting idle, they'd form new squadrons.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 91
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 11:16:12 AM   
Barb


Posts: 2357
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

The thread wanders around a bit more distant topics but I have more closer question to the topic.
Should air groups from sunken aircraft carriers be used / rebuilt?


I would say "Why not"?
Once destroyed they are available to be bought back for PPs - which is included in a game mechanics for non-static troops too and is well within game developers intent. So the option is there for both sides and under same circumstances and limitations.

It might be debatable whether IRL it would be done and under what pretext:
- as in IJN the airgroups were part of the ships company so once the ship is gone, they would have been distributed to other units, so no "real" reason to get them rebuilt
- on the other hand USN created Air Groups on rather independent basis (although with a certain purpose - be it a VC for CVE or complete CAG for Essex size carrier). They were even able to shift airgroups in and out of carriers and between them to allow for rest and retraining.

In case you go for it (as it is within intention of the game) - as I do - , you should limit the rebuilt airgroups size to their original sizes (and not to create 81-90 plane squadrons). You can then use them to train replacement pilots or use them on the frontlines as LBA - both IJN and USN did operated their CAGs from LBA in combat (Guadalcanal and Solomons Campaigns).

Having 21-19-13 Junyo airgroup operating from the land base still requires at least 2 IJNAF Bns and Air HQ in range to stand in on Lvl 2 AF. For 36-36-18 of the Yorktown/Essex airgroup you still need about 1 Group Base Force and Air HQ in range to be fully effective from Lvl 4 AF. And yet it is a substitute for just a single static carrier!

< Message edited by Barb -- 1/4/2018 11:21:42 AM >


_____________________________

[img]https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzOZPXg_qJ22TG43UmJ5UjRsb3c[/img]

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 92
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 11:44:15 AM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
quote:

In reality, if either side had the pilots and planes sitting idle, they'd form new squadrons.

In game you can't do it. Try to use in this way the overproduction of the Franks (or Hellens) and army pilots.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 93
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 12:54:02 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3158
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Aren't all these Japanese bonuses nullified by the Allies' universal supply?

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 94
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 1:07:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15825
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Right about that Yaab.

I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!

In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/4/2018 1:08:29 PM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 95
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 1:44:12 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6090
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Right about that Yaab.

I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!

In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.




So you find it necessary to dial back the counterbalancing mechanism on the Allies side to more accurately reflect historic limitations, but on the flip side you also find it necessary to defend the outrageously overbalancing Japanese ability to out build the Allies in air frames.

Why is it only the Allies who should be hamstrung by historically accurate limitations.

I can't help but point to the inherent hypocrisy John.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 1/4/2018 1:45:03 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 96
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 1:54:34 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
More about the reconstruction of air groups from destroyed aircraft carriers.
For me it is something similiar to uncontrolled air group resizing.
This leads to the creation of non-existent air groups on what in principle the game doesn't allow and for which it isn't adapted.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 97
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:01:58 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3158
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
But you can't "resize aviation" support in Japanese BFs, so globally your numbers advantage will translate into even more operational losses for the Japs.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 98
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:06:25 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
Regardless of the effect, the same action is doubtful for me.
Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.

< Message edited by Anomander Rake -- 1/4/2018 2:08:36 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 99
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:21:31 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2799
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

The planes are there, the pilots are there.

Resizing and reconstruction.... Dividing and withdraw/disbanding.
Air groups can be created or combined..... divided or eliminated.

This gives options to the player. Allows for the building of a robust training program, more air groups in the field... or... elimination of air groups putting more pilots and planes into the reserve pool for the remaining air groups.

Active air groups can be balanced . For example transports, recon, etc groups can be disbanded and fighter groups created thus keeping around the same demand on aviation support

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 1/4/2018 2:29:07 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 100
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:28:22 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2799
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Regardless of the effect, the same action is doubtful for me.
Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.



Yorktown I
Yorktown II

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 101
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:35:52 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

The thread wanders around a bit more distant topics but I have more closer question to the topic.
Should air groups from sunken aircraft carriers be used / rebuilt?

IMO: yes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 102
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:41:05 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Regardless of the effect, the same action is doubtful for me.
Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.



Yorktown I
Yorktown II

That's not a re-spawn or rebuild, it's a rename of a hull that was scheduled/under construction anyway.

_____________________________


(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 103
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:43:03 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Right about that Yaab.

I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!
Not quite that quick and easy but your main point is valid.

In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.
I think this is a good approach.

This also allows the Empire to damage/destroy that industry if they pull off the nearly impossible.





_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 104
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:43:14 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2799
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Regardless of the effect, the same action is doubtful for me.
Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.



Yorktown I
Yorktown II

That's not a re-spawn or rebuild, it's a rename of a hull that was scheduled/under construction anyway.


Yes
Shokaku Airgroup
Named in honor of...

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 105
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:47:47 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Regardless of the effect, the same action is doubtful for me.
Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.

No, it's fine. The IJN (at least early on) made it a practice to keep the same air group with the same carrier but there was really nothing tying them to that. Other navies moved their air groups around. In the game all navies can move them around, and only the naming of the IJN air groups might make it seem funny.

_____________________________


(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 106
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:48:51 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Regardless of the effect, the same action is doubtful for me.
Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.



Yorktown I
Yorktown II

That's not a re-spawn or rebuild, it's a rename of a hull that was scheduled/under construction anyway.


Yes
Shokaku Airgroup
Named in honor of...

I thought you were referring to the ships Yorktown and Yorktown II. I don't understand your comment, would you explain?

_____________________________


(in reply to MakeeLearn)
Post #: 107
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 2:53:20 PM   
MakeeLearn

 

Posts: 2799
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

Anyway, it's a bit strange to fight using Shokaku Airgroup when the shokaku has long been resting on the bottom.


He seem to be referring to being troubled by the name. Just because the carrier was destroyed does not mean the air group was and even if it was the group can be recommissioned in honor of...

Shokaku Airgroup

As a new carrier can be named in honor of...

Yorktown

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 1/4/2018 3:01:12 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 108
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 3:46:43 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5220
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  Japanese has absolute certainty that the Soviets will not launch a surprise attack on her before August 1945. 

It is of incalculable strategic benefit to the Japanese player.  It allows for a draw down of the Manchukuo army which simply was not possible historically.

This is a false statement, Alfred. The Manchuko army most certainly was drawn down to bare bones, and most of the artillery and tanks were withdrawn. Soviet post-war estimates grossly exaggerated the size of the Japanese army that they confronted: claiming for example that the army was nearly 1.5 million men in size and contained 1,150 tanks. Recent scholarship agrees with the Japanese sources that the Kwantung army had been stripped completely of all its best units, including most of its tanks and artillery. In fact, the Soviets encountered and destroyed very few tanks, and only about 370 were captured; most were inoperable. Here is a source. https://web.archive.org/web/20110723082515/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp#c3-15 .

I quote, "Despite its numerical strength, the Kwantung Army lacked quality. The Japanese Imperial High Command had transferred most veteran Japanese divisions from Manchuria before the summer of 1945. Hence, most remaining divisions were newly formed from reservists or from cannibalized smaller units. In fact, only the 119th, 107th, 108th, 117th, 63d, and 39th Infantry Divisions had existed before January 1945. Training was limited in all units, and equipment and materiel shortages plagued the Kwantung Army at every level. The Japanese considered none of the Kwantung Army divisions combat ready and some divisions only 15 percent ready."

Finally, Japan could have some confidence that the Soviet Union was not going to go on the offensive, because substantial lend-lease materials were flowing through Vladivostok, which the Japanese could have cut off.







Why don't you quote in full what I wrote in post #50. Then quote in full what I further clarified in responding to LargeSlowTarget. Context is so important. As you have informed as that you are professional historian you would understand the importance of context. Whilst you are doing that why don't you properly quote in context what Glantz actually wrote. I'll come back to that shortly but first let's deal with your statement that "The Manchuko army most certainly was drawn down to bare bones...". Before addressing the rest of your comments this statement needs to be clearly dissected for it goes to the heart of missing the context of my comments and also Glantz's.

The colourful language in your extracted quote is "bare bones". Not very precise and consequently open to various interpretations. I think most people would attach to those words the meaning of an emaciated structure/organisation, certainly a much smaller structure/organisation than was the case previously. In short it refers to the quantum size of the "Manchukuo army". Less commonly it could also refer to the quality of the "Manchukuo army" but this is not obviously your intended meaning were it not for the immediately following words you write of ", and most of the artillery and tanks were withdrawn". Combined with the Glantz quote you used, the context then clarifies that your term "bare bones" is intended to mean both a much smaller (quantum) and greatly degraded (quality) organisation. See how important it is to take context into account.

Although we now know you mean substantial decreases in both quantum and quality, there is still a critical contextual point missing, one that I can't seem to find any hints in your total comments on this issue. I refer to the time factor. You might claim that the Glantz quote "The Japanese Imperial High Command had transferred most veteran Japanese divisions from Manchuria before the summer of 1945" provides the time context but I am afraid that is a very weak link to rely upon. You see left unsaid is when before the summer of 1945. was this done. Were the transfers done the last week of autumn 1945? Were they done in 1944, 1943 or 1942? Just to add some piquancy were some veteran divisions rotated in at the same time some veteran divisions were moved out. One simply can't know from the Glantz quote you produced and unfortunately this is rather important contextual point very relevant to my comments which you so kindly thought were not necessary to be quote.

It would be a very desperate act of your's to now rely on the further Glantz comments you quote to provide the time context: "In fact, only the 119th, 107th, 108th, 117th, 63d, and 39th Infantry Divisions had existed before January 1945." because that doesn't really provide the time context for it is unclear whether these were veteran divisions which had been transferred out before the summer of 1945. After all Glantz does identify them as existing before January 1945 although he doesn't specifically state when they were created or whether they had seen combat. Ah but I have been somewhat naughty for in between the two Glantz quotes he did state: "Hence, most remaining divisions were newly formed from reservists or from cannibalized smaller units." When the three Glantz quotes are read in order, the inference is that those six divisions were some of the "newly formed" units. You will have to forgive my little naughtiness for I wanted to demonstrate the importance of context.

Still the Glantz quotes in the preceding paragraph don't enhance, dare I say support, your comments which I quoted previously. For now the contextual problem arises as to what is meant by a veteran division. Normal usage of the term "veteran division" is usually restricted to a unit which has seen substantial combat, has in the past performed well in combat and is expected to outperform/hold its own in combat against enemy non veteran/veteran divisions respectively. Is it now a metaphysical question to ask whether, as a question of fact, there were any veteran Japanese divisions in Manchuria to actually transfer out "before the summer of 1945"? After all the divisions located in the area had not seen much recent combat. Admittedly there had been border battles in 1938 and 1939 with the Soviets but those battles had involved a limited number of Japanese units, had not witnessed a good Japanese combat performance and the passage of time without combat (what with changes in personnel and the evolution of equipment) does tend to dull the combat prowess of units. No I don't think it is only a metaphysical question but one very germane.

It is clear to me that you have adduced the Glantz comments (including the ones I have not specifically addressed yet) to support the proposition that the "bare bones" of the "Manchukuo army" made it a pale shadow of it's previous (although time period is still missing) martial prowess and the objective empirical evidence, rather than just relying on your's and Glantz's comments, is found in the performance against the invading Soviets from 9 August 1945. Certainly that is what I would try to do, back up judgements (for ultimately that is all your's and Glantz's comments are) with some objective empirical evidence.

So how exactly do you reconcile the poor combat performance inferred from the preceding selective Glantz quotes with this Glantz quote: "As for the argument that the Japanese lethargy reflected the low quality of their troops and poor esprit de corps, the combat record of units in the ensuing campaign dismisses that charge." Then a little further on he also states: "While many units never saw combat, those that did aquitted themselves well". But wait there is an even better Glantz quote to be presented. In the Conclusions Section, where the loose ends are tied together, assessing the performance of the Kwantung Army in August 1945, (remember this is the very same force that had lost all its veteran units and according to you was only a "bare bones" force) against the Soviets, Glantz states:

"In terms of leadership, equipment, and manpower, the Kwangtung Army of 1945 certainly was not the same army as it was in 1941, but it was also not so ineffective as some analysts have claimed. In many instances, the marginal replacements of 1945 performed well on the battlefield, whenever they were permitted to fight."

Somewhat not compatible with "bare bones" meaning a severely degraded in quality terms force.

This all rather brings us back to that metaphysical point I raised as to whether the pre summer 1945 transfers were of truly veteran units. Which is a good segue into my earlier promise of returning to the context of my comments you so kindly omitted to quote.

At no stage did I refer to veteran units. I did refer, in the context of the AE game the Manchukuo garrison requirements, to specific game devices, namely AFVs and artillery. I also referred to outside of the game the importance accorded by Japan to keeping AFVs but I don't ascribe any veteran status either to the game or the historical position. Nor did I ever say no historical transfers occurred.

As I know that English is not your native language I will give you the benefit of the doubt and inform you that in the second sentence of the only two sentences of mine you do quote out of context, and which lead you to claim I have made a "false statement" (and therefore by extension I lied and thus I am to be seen as a liar), I use the indefinite article "a", not the definite article "the". If I had used the definite article then that second sentence would have had the meaning that it was historically impossible for any drawdown to have occurred historically. Instead the indefinite article turns the sentence meaning into drawdowns which were historically impossible, and which when read in context with my other non quoted comments, specifically means AE player unit transfers which were not historically possible. Context, context, the bane of historians.

I did earlier point out the value of empirical evidence to back up comments/judgements. So without further ado let's dive back into the Glantz paper you so kindly provided. I wouldn't want you to think I had snubbed your generosity in providing it by not reading it, especially when it contradicts your position and supports mine.

We begin with the time context. 1942 saw the creation of three armoured divisions out of smaller in situ armoured units. These armoured divisions remained until the first quarter of 1944. Why were these units not moved out in 1942 or 1943? Was the war going along so splendidly for Japan that there was no where on the frontlines where these unemployed units could not have been gainfully employed. After all you yourself said above that "Japan could have some confidence that the Soviet Union was not going to go on the offensive, because substantial lend-lease materials were flowing through Vladivostok, which the Japanese could have cut off." Quite clear that in your judgement that there was no impediment to their transfer well before the first quarter of 1944. Could there be any validity to my unquoted statement that:

"because an AV is the same as any other AV for the purposes of the garrison rule, every single Japanese AFV can be withdrawn and sent elsewhere whereas historically there was never any thought in the high command that they could afford to be caught by a surprise Soviet attack without the bulk of their armour being present."

Let's bring Glantz into this debate point. He makes the observation that until 1944, the Kwangtung Army planned for the offense. This then changed in September 1944 to planning for a "realistic defence" and in 1945 to conducting a defend the borders and defending deeper in Manchuria. Whilst not spelled out by Glantz it is inconceivable that Japanese planners could contemplate offensive action against the tank heavy Soviets without employing their own armour.

The April - December 1944 time period covers the Ichi-Go campaign. At last a use for those unemployed armour units up in Manchuria was found. What wasn't sent to participate in Ichi-Go was sent elsewhere. Read my comments in context, unlike the Japanese High Command, AE players tend to not wait until early 1944 before moving these armoured units, often into China to form in early 1942 the Japanese PanzerArmee which tramples the underequipped anti-tank forces. Now why didn't the historical Japanese High Command come up with the same bright idea? Glantz and I provide ideas (in a situation where the official Kwangtung Army records were destroyed). Is Glantz a liar too? What can be said with certainty is that by early 1944 the strategic considerations which had kept those units in Manchuria no longer trumped other strategic considerations for their use.

In AE, the Manchukuo Garrison starts off with more than 12,000 AV. The Garrison rule allows for a reduction of more than 1/3 without even taking into account the type of AV withdrawn or any units which do not have an AV. In the game, the garrison rule is met by any Japanese unit which is located in the relevant area irrespective of whether it is or isn't attached to the Kwangtung army. This is not the case when Glantz is describing the size of the Kwangtung Army before the Soviet invasion. Firstly Glantz does not accept a figure of 1.5 million Japanese troops so you mentioning it is somewhat of a red herring. One has to drill down to footnote #4 of chapter 3 for the hard data on the differing troop estimates. The lowest Japanese source estimate for Manchuria and North Korea (which is not the total AE garrison zone) is 713,724. This is a figure which needs to be treated with caution for as previously mentioned the Kwangtung Army records are lost and according to Glantz the Japanese sources on casualties is definitely too low. Ultimately Glantz accepts a figure of about 1.2 million Japanese troops in the area covered by the games garrison zone. Secondly, Glantz clearly states that the 1941 Kwantung Army was 1 million men. Whilst it is unclear whether that 1941 figure excludes other non Kwangtung Army units located in the AE garrison zone, it is impossible to see how anyone can maintain that in the quantum meaning of "bare bones" the Kwangtung Army in August 1945 meets that definition.

As to the number of Japanese tanks, the figure accepted by Glantz is 1,150. Yes the Soviets only claimed the capture of just under 370 tanks but they give no figures for destroyed Japanese tanks. In any case the relevance of this is very questionable for by this stage of the war I remind you about indefinite articles.

I went through Appendix 1 and counting only the AE non AV units which still remained in the garrison zone when the Soviets invaded there was a total of:

Artillery
9xrgt
7xbn
1xbattery
1xcompany
1x "unit"

Mortar
4xbn
1xcompany

Anti-Tank
3xbn

AA
1xrgt
6xbn
1x"unit"

Engr
2xrgt
7x"unit"

I wonder how many Japanese players leave that many units in the garrison zone by mid 1942 let alone still in August 1945.



Remind me how all of Glantz's work proves me to be wrong, in fact a liar, and you correct.

Alfred

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 109
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 4:35:20 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I know that in Babes they made a huge effort to get all as right as they could. With 11,906 ships in the database (but who's counting?) there just have to be a bunch that are still wrong or that they made judgement calls on that could be better, but I suspect they got a lot more right than wrong. Yes: 11,906.


What DBB does is adding a lot of small fry and auxiliaries not present in stock scenarios. Sadly, the errors I mentioned are in DBB as well, probably because the APA/AKA ships concerned are major types which simply have been carried over from stock into DBB. There are other errors like duplicate ships and ships belonging to the wrong class, and even in DBB there are numerous important ships missing. For example, many Japanese auxiliaries like AR and AKE types are not present. This is not to blame the people who created the ship database, it is very time-consuming to verify such data (if one can find it) and to correct / add the ships in the editor. The Nihon Kaigun website has the operational histories and TROMs of Japanese auxiliaries, including ARs, AKEs, ADs, even hospital ships, tugs and icebreakers - modder fodder.


They added and corrected a lot of ships. I recall there being some disagreement over decisions they reached based on varying sources. Were you in some of those discussions?

It would be great to get additions and corrections. Of course hospital ships, tugs, and icebreakers are not modeled in the game but adding missing AR, AKE, AD, and other types would be good.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 110
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 6:09:45 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4715
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

No, it's fine. The IJN (at least early on) made it a practice to keep the same air group with the same carrier but there was really nothing tying them to that. Other navies moved their air groups around. In the game all navies can move them around, and only the naming of the IJN air groups might make it seem funny.


According to "Shattered Sword" the IJN (did more than just by coincidence) assigned the pilots/aircrew to the ship's company thus administratively, the personnel and airframes of the Shokaku Airgroup was just like the Seamen, Machinist's Mates and Deck Officers of the and the 25mm AA guns of the HIJMS Shokaku. In game it makes no difference but historically the Zuikaku missed sailing for Midway because its air group needed replenishment after Coral Sea. If the ship got sunk surviving personnel were put into the general pool of replacements.(Since we don't pay our cyber-warriors or worry about their health we don't care about them much).

By the same token USN carrier air groups (or maybe squadrons) had their own administrative organization to make sure that the flyers and mechanics got paid and had their teeth cleaned on schedule. Thus the USS Yorktown got its air group replenished after Coral Sea by having flyers and air frames switched from the USS Saratoga since it was in the yard (Can't remember for sure but IIRC Fighting 3 and Bombing 3 transferred). The USN also had some reserve carrier air groups that were training ashore that are not included in the Allied OOB (at least until a carrier hull to utilize them appears - IIRC Carrier Air Group 10 shows up with the Essex whereas it actually formed during the summer of 1942).

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 111
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 6:49:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 23148
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

No, it's fine. The IJN (at least early on) made it a practice to keep the same air group with the same carrier but there was really nothing tying them to that. Other navies moved their air groups around. In the game all navies can move them around, and only the naming of the IJN air groups might make it seem funny.


According to "Shattered Sword" the IJN (did more than just by coincidence) assigned the pilots/aircrew to the ship's company thus administratively, the personnel and airframes of the Shokaku Airgroup was just like the Seamen, Machinist's Mates and Deck Officers of the and the 25mm AA guns of the HIJMS Shokaku. In game it makes no difference but historically the Zuikaku missed sailing for Midway because its air group needed replenishment after Coral Sea. If the ship got sunk surviving personnel were put into the general pool of replacements.(Since we don't pay our cyber-warriors or worry about their health we don't care about them much).

By the same token USN carrier air groups (or maybe squadrons) had their own administrative organization to make sure that the flyers and mechanics got paid and had their teeth cleaned on schedule. Thus the USS Yorktown got its air group replenished after Coral Sea by having flyers and air frames switched from the USS Saratoga since it was in the yard (Can't remember for sure but IIRC Fighting 3 and Bombing 3 transferred). The USN also had some reserve carrier air groups that were training ashore that are not included in the Allied OOB (at least until a carrier hull to utilize them appears - IIRC Carrier Air Group 10 shows up with the Essex whereas it actually formed during the summer of 1942).


I remember that, but IIRC the IJN largely changed that later. I don't think it's a big deal for Japan players to use/buy/rebuild/whatever squadrons after the initial assigned carrier was sunk. I am pretty sure many players already move IJN carrier squadrons around if/when they think it called for. YMMV.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 112
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 7:14:03 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3158
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Is resizing threads to four pages forumey?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 113
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 7:16:52 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

The thread wanders around a bit more distant topics but I have more closer question to the topic.
Should air groups from sunken aircraft carriers be used / rebuilt?


If you want to spend the PPs (and then airframes) to do so, then why not? It's not like you get the CVs back - and you still have the same amount of aviation support and the same limitations on airfields.

I bought all of mine back and resized them in one of my Allied games. I didn't need to. I noticed a week ago that I had literally 500 TBMs sitting at one base, doing nothing - and I didn't feel the need to transfer them to the front, either. At the same base, there were over 600 fighters of various USN models. Again, didn't need them at the front. The existing OOB was plenty big enough.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 114
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 7:24:30 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Right about that Yaab.

I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!

In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.




So you find it necessary to dial back the counterbalancing mechanism on the Allies side to more accurately reflect historic limitations, but on the flip side you also find it necessary to defend the outrageously overbalancing Japanese ability to out build the Allies in air frames.

Why is it only the Allies who should be hamstrung by historically accurate limitations.

I can't help but point to the inherent hypocrisy John.


Even if the bolded part were true (a claim I find dubious*), 500 mosquitoes instead of 300 mosquitoes are still just mosquitoes.

*It can be done, but at great cost. What is the Allied front line fighter production rate in 1944? In 1945? Something like 400, 500 per month - correct? Expanding Japanese production to those levels while maintaining pilot training to support that level of air operations, while maintaining production of strike aircraft, while maintaining the supplies at bases necessary to fly the planes, etc. - it adds up.

Just ask MM about his supply situation and how many planes he burned through. If you want an example of the Japanese "outrageously overbalancing" (whatever overbalancing means; I think you mean overmatching), it would be his production. It was simply a challenge to solve with the Allied OOB - just another strategy to counter, probably done at the expense of a different strategy (say, a defense in more depth instead of in front line strength).

Also, as it pertains to John's mods, he is quite clear that his Japan-strengthening mods are precisely that and are in no way any kind of reflection of history. They are fantasy what-if scenarios. You don't have to play them. The discussion in this thread should really be about stock scenarios only, or scenarios closed based on stock like DBB, where the same general calculus applies across them all. This general calculus does not apply to John's mods, and I think he would be the very first person to say so.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 115
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 7:26:34 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7951
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Right about that Yaab.

I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!
Not quite that quick and easy but your main point is valid.

In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.
I think this is a good approach.

This also allows the Empire to damage/destroy that industry if they pull off the nearly impossible.






I don't think it affects Japanese attempts to destroy the industry, at least not in a positive way. I've never seen industry be destroyed by anything but an atomic bomb (the so-called firestorm method) - only damaged. And if it's already damaged, it's less likely to be damaged by fires in the hex. So damaging Allied industry at start has the secondary effect of reducing the "available" strategic bombing VPs to Japan until that industry is repaired.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 116
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 7:43:19 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6090
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Right about that Yaab.

I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby!

In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue.




So you find it necessary to dial back the counterbalancing mechanism on the Allies side to more accurately reflect historic limitations, but on the flip side you also find it necessary to defend the outrageously overbalancing Japanese ability to out build the Allies in air frames.

Why is it only the Allies who should be hamstrung by historically accurate limitations.

I can't help but point to the inherent hypocrisy John.


Even if the bolded part were true (a claim I find dubious*), 500 mosquitoes instead of 300 mosquitoes are still just mosquitoes.

*It can be done, but at great cost. What is the Allied front line fighter production rate in 1944? In 1945? Something like 400, 500 per month - correct? Expanding Japanese production to those levels while maintaining pilot training to support that level of air operations, while maintaining production of strike aircraft, while maintaining the supplies at bases necessary to fly the planes, etc. - it adds up.

Just ask MM about his supply situation and how many planes he burned through. If you want an example of the Japanese "outrageously overbalancing" (whatever overbalancing means; I think you mean overmatching), it would be his production. It was simply a challenge to solve with the Allied OOB - just another strategy to counter, probably done at the expense of a different strategy (say, a defense in more depth instead of in front line strength).

Also, as it pertains to John's mods, he is quite clear that his Japan-strengthening mods are precisely that and are in no way any kind of reflection of history. They are fantasy what-if scenarios. You don't have to play them. The discussion in this thread should really be about stock scenarios only, or scenarios closed based on stock like DBB, where the same general calculus applies across them all. This general calculus does not apply to John's mods, and I think he would be the very first person to say so.



You have great technical insight Loka, but often miss the forest for the trees.

The general point I endeavor, apparently poorly, to make is that one side is given an ability to do way, way better than historical (even in stock where it is common for Japan to conquer all of China, or 3/4 of India or 3/4 of Australia) while the other side is consistently limited, both by game engine AND player induced mods and house rules to no better than a historical performance.

If it is fair for japan to have a chance to knock the Allies out by the end of '43, shouldn't it be just as fair for the other side to do the same?

The constant litany of rationalization from JFBs is that the Allies are destined to win no matter what so they shouldn't get any opportunity to do better than historical.

The Allies are hard pressed to achieve the autovictory by the historical date, let alone achieving it a year early.

Why is it only one side gets to improve on history?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 117
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 7:51:08 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
quote:

If you want to spend the PPs (and then airframes) to do so, then why not? It's not like you get the CVs back - and you still have the same amount of aviation support and the same limitations on airfields.

I'm more concerned that by acting as you write I create a in fact non-existent air group. The game doesn't allow such things except for using tools that aren't necessarily assigned to this purpose.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 118
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 8:47:46 PM   
hartwig.modrow

 

Posts: 839
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If it is fair for japan to have a chance to knock the Allies out by the end of '43, shouldn't it be just as fair for the other side to do the same?



Hans,

can you define what would qualify as a "knock out" ? I think the answer to your question depends on that definition.

My personal answer would be - just that is what happens all the time, more precisely each time an IJ player quits/stops sending turn back. It means you have done that well that IJ did not want to continue the war. That's a clear knock out. Most impressive victory you can achieve. Of course, there are also Allied players who are knocked out of the war once they note Midway is not a hardcoded event in this game.

If you look at what the knock out by end of '43 means (meeting a VP condition), I would agree that it would be more symmetric to have a second VP condition which defines a minimum achievement for IJ. So if VP ratio is less than X or if IJ has less then Y VP or if Allied have more then Z VP by end of 43, there is an Allied auto victory.

But if a knock out means the Allied should have a chance to be more competitive in early war, I am not sure how to implement this within the asymmetric design of the game. The interesting thing is how the change of the balance in the game is realized -IMHO to a large extent by changing relative capabilities rather than numbers, using parameter like experience and device stats over time. Problem is that you can easily make the starting conditions more similar, but then you have to reduce the rate of change of capabilities as well to keep a balance. Or, in other words - isn't it unfair that one side's infantry squads undergo substantial improvement in firepower and the othe side does not get a chance to do something similar ?

So what is the kind of knock out you would like to see?

As an aside - would the same game asymmetry be as relevant to you as it is now if red was fighting blue on an arbitrary map, i.e. without the historical axis-allied connotations?

Just curious.

Hartwig

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 119
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/4/2018 9:44:00 PM   
RickInVA

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurorus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

1.  Japanese has absolute certainty that the Soviets will not launch a surprise attack on her before August 1945. 

It is of incalculable strategic benefit to the Japanese player.  It allows for a draw down of the Manchukuo army which simply was not possible historically.

This is a false statement, Alfred. The Manchuko army most certainly was drawn down to bare bones, and most of the artillery and tanks were withdrawn. Soviet post-war estimates grossly exaggerated the size of the Japanese army that they confronted: claiming for example that the army was nearly 1.5 million men in size and contained 1,150 tanks. Recent scholarship agrees with the Japanese sources that the Kwantung army had been stripped completely of all its best units, including most of its tanks and artillery. In fact, the Soviets encountered and destroyed very few tanks, and only about 370 were captured; most were inoperable. Here is a source. https://web.archive.org/web/20110723082515/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp#c3-15 .

I quote, "Despite its numerical strength, the Kwantung Army lacked quality. The Japanese Imperial High Command had transferred most veteran Japanese divisions from Manchuria before the summer of 1945. Hence, most remaining divisions were newly formed from reservists or from cannibalized smaller units. In fact, only the 119th, 107th, 108th, 117th, 63d, and 39th Infantry Divisions had existed before January 1945. Training was limited in all units, and equipment and materiel shortages plagued the Kwantung Army at every level. The Japanese considered none of the Kwantung Army divisions combat ready and some divisions only 15 percent ready."

Finally, Japan could have some confidence that the Soviet Union was not going to go on the offensive, because substantial lend-lease materials were flowing through Vladivostok, which the Japanese could have cut off.







{snip}

Alfred


Hmm, one might almost say, Alfred, that you are looking to cloak yourself in historical accuracy in an effort to make it easier for you to win.

After all, the game as it came down from Mount Sinai allows the Japanese to draw down the garrison to 8000 value, with no exceptions for type of AV. Based on your prior posts you should honor that developer decision.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Is resizing a gamey? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.165