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: Ki-100 as R&D Target

 
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: Ki-100 as R&D Target Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/1/2020 6:16:30 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2278
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I'm looking at the Ki-83. If I can start producing those in 8/45 they could have an important role in the endgame.

8/45 is well past the endgame in most games though

(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 31
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/1/2020 7:10:15 PM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14336
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert
I'm looking at the Ki-83. If I can start producing those in 8/45 they could have an important role in the endgame.

8/45 is well past the endgame in most games though


Not mine.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 7/20 it is 12/44.

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 32
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 6:29:14 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14683
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
I had a go against AI Ironman too. While Allies lack modern fighter escorts Ki-100 is the best 4E killer, bar none. But it requires research hopping and lasts only for 43 and some 44, then becoming obsolete when new speedy Allied fighters arrive

Well, the J7W, the N1K5 and the Frank Ki-84b I found to be better than the Ki-100 at getting to and killing bombers. Any one of those also lasts better through Allied sweep or escorts. The Allies get P-47s and Corsairs well before the Ki-100 is available with the most aggressive R & D and those two will rip the Ki-100 to shreds easily.

That's exactly what I wrote, innit? You can't get those 3rd gens in 43, and Ki-100 plugs the hole



You can get the George in late 42 and the Frank in early 43, so where would the Ki-100 plug a hole? You have the Tojo for mid 42 and as soon as the Tojo is outdated the George arrives, followed by the Frank in mid 43. Then there's a long journey until anything like Ki-83 or Ki-94 or J7W.


What was the earliest that you have received the Ki-84b (per the specific subject above)? "Early" 1943? Doubtful. I can't even imagine that the Ki-84a would be available 'early' 1943 without prohibitive research factory stacking (see previous comment about 'all-or-nothing-Frank-or-bust').

ETA: Perhaps you meant "Jack"? in early 1943?



quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

George, Frank, Sam, Ki-83. Those 4 as early as you can. Hard for me to allocate RnD to anything else.


My acquisition dates (in Scen 2) were below, without a terribly aggressive R&D program except on the Frank:

02/43 N1K1 George
10/43 N1K2 George
06/44 N1K5 George

06/43 Ki-84a Frank
12/43 Ki-84r Frank
03/45 (no Ki-84b R&D for me)

09/44 A7M2 Sam

10/44 Ki-83

01/43 Ki-44-IIc

07/43 Ki-100-I

I'd focus even more on Ki-83 and Sam in any future game. Probably by taking away some of the Ki-100-I R&D that I did (IIRC I had 5+ factories set to it). I ended up using the Ki-100 as simple disruptive night CAP, for the most part. Just having night CAP present, even if it didn't shoot anything down, seemed to affect the bombers' aim to a measurable degree.

The key dates for Allied fighter production are 04/43 (Hellcats), 07/43 (P-47D2 in low numbers), and 10/43 (CV Corsairs).

If you can get 120/mo production of George and Frank prior to Hellcats showing up, you can maintain superiority of airframes in contexts of your choosing for quite a while.


This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 33
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 7:13:33 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13119
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
I had a go against AI Ironman too. While Allies lack modern fighter escorts Ki-100 is the best 4E killer, bar none. But it requires research hopping and lasts only for 43 and some 44, then becoming obsolete when new speedy Allied fighters arrive

Well, the J7W, the N1K5 and the Frank Ki-84b I found to be better than the Ki-100 at getting to and killing bombers. Any one of those also lasts better through Allied sweep or escorts. The Allies get P-47s and Corsairs well before the Ki-100 is available with the most aggressive R & D and those two will rip the Ki-100 to shreds easily.

That's exactly what I wrote, innit? You can't get those 3rd gens in 43, and Ki-100 plugs the hole



You can get the George in late 42 and the Frank in early 43, so where would the Ki-100 plug a hole? You have the Tojo for mid 42 and as soon as the Tojo is outdated the George arrives, followed by the Frank in mid 43. Then there's a long journey until anything like Ki-83 or Ki-94 or J7W.


What was the earliest that you have received the Ki-84b (per the specific subject above)? "Early" 1943? Doubtful. I can't even imagine that the Ki-84a would be available 'early' 1943 without prohibitive research factory stacking (see previous comment about 'all-or-nothing-Frank-or-bust').

ETA: Perhaps you meant "Jack"? in early 1943?



quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

George, Frank, Sam, Ki-83. Those 4 as early as you can. Hard for me to allocate RnD to anything else.


My acquisition dates (in Scen 2) were below, without a terribly aggressive R&D program except on the Frank:

02/43 N1K1 George
10/43 N1K2 George
06/44 N1K5 George

06/43 Ki-84a Frank
12/43 Ki-84r Frank
03/45 (no Ki-84b R&D for me)

09/44 A7M2 Sam

10/44 Ki-83

01/43 Ki-44-IIc

07/43 Ki-100-I

I'd focus even more on Ki-83 and Sam in any future game. Probably by taking away some of the Ki-100-I R&D that I did (IIRC I had 5+ factories set to it). I ended up using the Ki-100 as simple disruptive night CAP, for the most part. Just having night CAP present, even if it didn't shoot anything down, seemed to affect the bombers' aim to a measurable degree.

The key dates for Allied fighter production are 04/43 (Hellcats), 07/43 (P-47D2 in low numbers), and 10/43 (CV Corsairs).

If you can get 120/mo production of George and Frank prior to Hellcats showing up, you can maintain superiority of airframes in contexts of your choosing for quite a while.


This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny



Andy, it has never been different since day one of realease. If the air team hasn't "noticed" this then it's actually quite appaling for a player. Feels like a reminder at how long it took to notice what strato sweeps and the never ending dive meant in the air routine.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 6/17/2020 7:14:52 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 34
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 7:21:55 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14683
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
maybe I am not the air guy and my last PBEM to get that deep was v PZB so a loooong time ago and I had other problems in that game ;) but 20+ months accel for Frank r v allied fixed production - ouch

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 35
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 7:33:31 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 2439
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

just because it's much worse in game than in RL, unfortunately. Have a go. I did twice and couldn't justify it in the end. Just ended up using most of them for training.


I thought the way it is rated in the game reflected its RL performance on the lower octane avgas available to the IJ.

As opposed to its inflated performance under USAAF testing, when they filled it up with the very high octane stuff.

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 36
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 7:49:37 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4086
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny


I agree. Juggling with R&D is part of what makes it interesting to play Japan, but this is too much even for the JFB in me. As a solution, I do propose a variant of my mod which has considerably reduced the number of R&D factories from over 70 to just 18. Only planes with specifications issued before Dec 1941 have an R&D factory assigned, and only the first variant of each plane. And all R&D factories start at 0(0). It is still possible to advance a few planes a few months, but not to have results bordering "what if" scenarios.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 37
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 7:58:53 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 6674
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
The R & D probably compels the Allies to move faster, to try and keep ahead of the Japanese nice fighters. But that does not offset the complete cooperation that the Allies have in the game.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 38
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 8:18:36 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13119
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

maybe I am not the air guy and my last PBEM to get that deep was v PZB so a loooong time ago and I had other problems in that game ;) but 20+ months accel for Frank r v allied fixed production - ouch


I don't disagree with you, hence I had various hrs on R&D like a maximum of 6-9 months ahead of normal arrival. Just saying the possibility to get certain aircraft really early has always been there and it didn't take long the majority of the Japanese PBEM players knew how to do it. Not saying those that knew how to all actually did.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 39
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/17/2020 8:33:27 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 4112
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Toronto and Lima
Status: offline
Unrealistic R&D acceleration has a significant supply cost, which means that many times the Japanese economy crashes in 45 if not in 44.

At the end of the day, regardless of how many Georges or Franks or Sams, the game typically ends with the Allies on Tokyo; thus I don't see it as too much of an issue

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 6/17/2020 8:54:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 40
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/20/2020 12:04:10 PM   
obvert


Posts: 14026
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny


So interesting to see that you think they'd be shocked. They set up the system so had to be aware of its possibilities, right? They gave players control to change focus, scale and level of production on the Japanese side and most likely added supply and fuel constraints they thought would be a balance for that.

Some Allied players get all bent out of shape about it, while others just use what the Allies do best and still win the war.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 41
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/20/2020 12:40:58 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 14974
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny


So interesting to see that you think they'd be shocked. They set up the system so had to be aware of its possibilities, right? They gave players control to change focus, scale and level of production on the Japanese side and most likely added supply and fuel constraints they thought would be a balance for that.

Some Allied players get all bent out of shape about it, while others just use what the Allies do best and still win the war.

The discussions I heard years ago about the rush to get this game completed meant that extensive testing of all aspects of the game was not done. I am not sure the developers would have had time to micromanage production of advanced aircraft for Japan the way players do. And having done so, players now have charts that help them set up ideal production and advice on most effective aircraft to develop.

About the supply and fuel - don't the advanced aircraft help Japan keep their conquests longer and harvest more oil/resources/supply? I know I was pretty amazed at one game where the Japanese air and naval resistance in the Bonins bled the Allied player so badly that he had to bypass Iwo Jima et al. Set back the Allied steamroller by at least six months. This was with minimal use of kamikazes.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 42
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/20/2020 1:47:37 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4086
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
IRRC the reason there are 70+ R&D factories is to help the AI.

There are no dediated human vs. human and human vs. AI stock scenarios, so one must fit all.

The game has been conceived with the idea that the great majority of buyers will not play PBEM but human vs. AI.

But the AI cannot "optimise" plane production and does not have cunning plans to concentrate on only a handful of key airframes.

It must be able to produce the great variety of different plane types needed to fill-out the groups that arrive with these different plane types.

As a result, in human vs. human and human vs. AI games, the Japanese player has all these nice R&D factories meant to help the AI at his disposition and with experience will dedicate large numbers of R&D factories to a few key planes, esp. since most games are PDU on.

_____________________________


(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 43
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/20/2020 3:34:18 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9367
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny


So interesting to see that you think they'd be shocked. They set up the system so had to be aware of its possibilities, right? They gave players control to change focus, scale and level of production on the Japanese side and most likely added supply and fuel constraints they thought would be a balance for that.

Some Allied players get all bent out of shape about it, while others just use what the Allies do best and still win the war.

I'll take this a step further …

IJ design and development had some internally devised constraints. Since the game is one of what-ifs, a key what-if has to be "What if some of the foolish self-inflicted disasters had been avoided?". You could take it one or steps further and wonder "What if they had actually run their 1940's RnD they way they did in the 50's/60's?". Clearly they didn't and they needed the lessons of the 40's to teach them what to do later. But what if they had learned sooner?

I think the PDU ON ability and the RnD capability is one of the single most significant concepts built into the game and has contributed greatly to it's longevity.

I know this is all anathema to stall-wart historians, bless each one of you. But to someone who often wonders "what-if", these capabilities are what makes this the game the game it is.

All hail the Henderson Field Dev Team!!!!




**** Spoiler Alert ****

As Erik notes: It actually doesn't change the outcome of the war much no matter what. The allies dates move a bit later, maybe some of the European material has to go to the Pacific earlier, but the end is still a numbers game that the IJ simply cannot match the numbers. But, it is fun to reach 6/46 ….

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 6/20/2020 3:36:32 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 44
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/20/2020 3:48:28 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25212
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny


So interesting to see that you think they'd be shocked. They set up the system so had to be aware of its possibilities, right? They gave players control to change focus, scale and level of production on the Japanese side and most likely added supply and fuel constraints they thought would be a balance for that.

Some Allied players get all bent out of shape about it, while others just use what the Allies do best and still win the war.

I'll take this a step further …

IJ design and development had some internally devised constraints. Since the game is one of what-ifs, a key what-if has to be "What if some of the foolish self-inflicted disasters had been avoided?". You could take it one or steps further and wonder "What if they had actually run their 1940's RnD they way they did in the 50's/60's?". Clearly they didn't and they needed the lessons of the 40's to teach them what to do later. But what if they had learned sooner?

I think the PDU ON ability and the RnD capability is one of the single most significant concepts built into the game and has contributed greatly to it's longevity.

I know this is all anathema to stall-wart historians, bless each one of you. But to someone who often wonders "what-if", these capabilities are what makes this the game the game it is.

All hail the Henderson Field Dev Team!!!!




**** Spoiler Alert ****

As Erik notes: It actually doesn't change the outcome of the war much no matter what. The allies dates move a bit later, maybe some of the European material has to go to the Pacific earlier, but the end is still a numbers game that the IJ simply cannot match the numbers. But, it is fun to reach 6/46 ….


I agree. But for the economy / research / R&D / developmental autonomy given the Japanese player in this game, its popularity would have waned many years ago.

Speaking for myself, I got tired of beating the Japanese AI into the ground within the first 6 months of the war. Many other players have said the same thing. Having to then rationalize letting the Japanese AI 'cheat' in myriad ways or be mandated to take your jackboot off of their throat was hardly palatable either. Let alone walking on eggshells to not 'break' the AI.

In PBEM this game finds its real footing. Eliminating the things that make PBEM great would seriously diminish the popularity, longevity and playability of this masterpiece.

_____________________________


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 45
RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target - 6/20/2020 6:54:58 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9108
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



This is sooo broken to be beyond belief the Air team would be appalled at what players can achieve through R&D - wow not funny


So interesting to see that you think they'd be shocked. They set up the system so had to be aware of its possibilities, right? They gave players control to change focus, scale and level of production on the Japanese side and most likely added supply and fuel constraints they thought would be a balance for that.

Some Allied players get all bent out of shape about it, while others just use what the Allies do best and still win the war.

I'll take this a step further …

IJ design and development had some internally devised constraints. Since the game is one of what-ifs, a key what-if has to be "What if some of the foolish self-inflicted disasters had been avoided?". You could take it one or steps further and wonder "What if they had actually run their 1940's RnD they way they did in the 50's/60's?". Clearly they didn't and they needed the lessons of the 40's to teach them what to do later. But what if they had learned sooner?

I think the PDU ON ability and the RnD capability is one of the single most significant concepts built into the game and has contributed greatly to it's longevity.

I know this is all anathema to stall-wart historians, bless each one of you. But to someone who often wonders "what-if", these capabilities are what makes this the game the game it is.

All hail the Henderson Field Dev Team!!!!




**** Spoiler Alert ****

As Erik notes: It actually doesn't change the outcome of the war much no matter what. The allies dates move a bit later, maybe some of the European material has to go to the Pacific earlier, but the end is still a numbers game that the IJ simply cannot match the numbers. But, it is fun to reach 6/46 ….


I agree. But for the economy / research / R&D / developmental autonomy given the Japanese player in this game, its popularity would have waned many years ago.

Speaking for myself, I got tired of beating the Japanese AI into the ground within the first 6 months of the war. Many other players have said the same thing. Having to then rationalize letting the Japanese AI 'cheat' in myriad ways or be mandated to take your jackboot off of their throat was hardly palatable either. Let alone walking on eggshells to not 'break' the AI.

In PBEM this game finds its real footing. Eliminating the things that make PBEM great would seriously diminish the popularity, longevity and playability of this masterpiece.


Adding on: with the victory conditions as slanted towards the Allies as they are, it would be essentially impossible to win anything but a smashing 1943 autovictory as Japan without the R&D system as it stands now to provide even the hope of delaying the Allies enough to matter.

I did fairly well, perhaps even transcendently well, in a game as Japan - and all it takes to trigger cascading defeat is one medium-size defeat in 1944/1945 when the Allies have essentially their full OOB on the board. There just aren't enough points available to Japan to counteract strategic bombing, and there is too much time on the clock. Achieving even a draw under the victory conditions as assigned by the game is nearly impossible.

I've played 3 PBEM games deep into 1945. I've come to the same basic conclusion in all of them. Some time back (perhaps 1-2 years ago), if I took the time to find it, I posted more detailed thoughts on what's wrong with the time-running-out victory conditions.

< Message edited by Lokasenna -- 6/20/2020 6:55:49 PM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 46
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ki-100 as R&D Target Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.147