AI and Jap Production

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Its not a built in disadvantage. The Allied CAP detection bonus (7/43) is designed to help those airgroups obtain the bounce more often. Probably was done to represent improvements in radar and fighter direction capability.

All righty, then. I did not realise the difference was due to a "bonus" given to the Allied side. Reading bstarr's post, I assumed that the Japanese side was penalized. Thanks!

[bstarr]

The problem is this disadvantage, bonus, or whatever you want to call it, may be a little much when taken with the other japanese disadvantages (allied bonuses or whatever). I've always been in favor of the low skill of japanese replacements; however, if you take a pilot who comes into the game at 15 skill and add him to a unit which is already fighting at a disadvantage (or fighting against units which have an advantage, if you prefer) and have them outnumbered about three to one in every engagement, things are going to get way out of hand. I realize that allied doctrine, tactics, training and equipment was far superior at this stage in the war, but it is still possible to take it too far. It reminds me of a WWI board game I owned some time ago - I forget the name. The designers had apparently taken heed of the massive casualties caused by artillery too much to heart, and the game devolved into basically moving artillery regiments around the board and blasting infantry until they were no more. Infantry had been reduced to nothing more than artillery escort. It is possible to take a correct idea (artillery caused over 90% of casuaties in WWI or allied fighters were vastly superior in late war Pac theater WWII) too far. Keep in mind that I was seeing an average of 2.5 to 1 loses in units that were exactly even in every statistic. There's no way you're going to have even statistics in 1944.

added:
also, neither unit in my test had radar at their base.

[mlees]

Well, the Japanese industrial infrastructure began to unravel in 1944 due to the submarine blockade and, later, the strategic bombing campaigns. These campaigns caused serious shortages in fuel, for example.

(This crippling of the Japanese Industry bia sinking the merchant shipping does not seem to take place in most games. Most players seem to use their AK's for their amphib campaign, needing little for shipping resources. But, maybe my perception is not of the average games.)

Also, the demands of the war on the skilled labor in Japan bit deep, so much so that skilled labor almost gone by 1945. Parillo's book on the Japanese merchant marine mentions that the loos of skilled seaman and longshoremen had a serious impact on the efficiency on the merchant marines sealift capability and loading times. Other historians have pointed out some of the problems with the late war Japanese airplane designs was due to the lower and lower quality in the machined parts supplied to the aircraft manufacturers.

This loss of skilled labor is not modeled by the game, AFAIK.

To model these issues would require a game code change, I assume. If the level of replacement pilot experience, and manufacturing capability was tied to Japanese imports, you might see more historical decline of the Japanese capability. The only problem with this is that the Allied pilot and industrial pools are untouchable by the Japanese (as they were historically), so would be seen to be way too one sided.

[el cid again]

Well, the Japanese industrial infrastructure began to unravel in 1944 due to the submarine blockade and, later, the strategic bombing campaigns. These campaigns caused serious shortages in fuel, for example.

True - but will that happen in a game? What if Japan is winning? We need to model what happens IF the Japanese can keep the industry running?

[mlees]

True - but will that happen in a game? What if Japan is winning? We need to model what happens IF the Japanese can keep the industry running?

Not really. I assume that the "at start" levels of production (and whatever industry expansions that the player can order do to supply levels on hand) already do that.

Basically, if you wish to expand (to increase your output), do so. But if you dont, you are already producing the most you are going to, because all your industry is supplied, and undamaged. If it remains undamaged, you wont see a loss of production. Staying alive as a world military power was one of the reasons for the war.

It only falls apart if the supply chain is disrupted enough, or if the Allies can damage the industry themselves. If the Allied player does not disrupt the chain, than the Japanese are never gonna have a fuel/supply issue.

Whether the supply chain can be damaged to the historical levels they were, sinking the same historical levels of shipping and resources is hard to say. I think that the Japanese player can produce more, with less input from overseas, than is historical. But I realise I have only my own hunches to go on as evidence.

The skilled laborer issue is not addressed by the game at all, as far as I know.

[el cid again]

Not really. I assume that the "at start" levels of production (and whatever industry expansions that the player can order do to supply levels on hand) already do that.

Nope. Japanese production in Dec 1941 is so low Americans never can believe it. It is vastly improved during the war - far more than it is easy to put into this simple model. Japan did better than Germany did in important measures (e.g. aircraft production vs size of industry - see The Air War). Part of the problem is that economics involves efficiency. Japan changes its efficiency for technical reasons and because it achieves economy of scale. This all gets overwhelmed by other factors later in the war: lack of fuel - even coal - due to lack of ships moving it - lack of raw materials - significant drafting of skilled labor - bomb damage - these things eventually matter a lot. But you cannot say they had to happen: what if the Allies fail to sink ships, mine harbors, bomb? What if the Japanese import a lot of raw materials? What if military units are not suffering horrible combat attrition? Ignoring this means - even if Japan wins it does not get its real autarky. See Parillo: the essential strategy was viable on its face: there was "more than enough oil" for example.
The contest should be about wether or not it actually captures it and moves it, not pre-ordained to be at a low level no matter what.

[el cid again]

Basically, if you wish to expand (to increase your output), do so. But if you dont, you are already producing the most you are going to, because all your industry is supplied, and undamaged. If it remains undamaged, you wont see a loss of production. Staying alive as a world military power was one of the reasons for the war.

Essentially wrong. Japan is not organized for war in an economic sense. It also changes that. Mobiliation means you get more production from the same base - because you no longer make widgets instead of machine guns - or whatever. It also means you get more air plane engines per ton of aluminum - as efficiency improves. This simple model only shows such increases in efficiency by increasing the nominal HI itself - staying the same in fact is not what happened. Acting as if it did means you have a weaker than real Japan. Fine if you think Japan can do well without its real improvements - or if you think it is just a target in any case.

[el cid again]

I think that the Japanese player can produce more, with less input from overseas, than is historical.

You are right - but that is gonna change.

[mlees]

Essentially wrong. Japan is not organized for war in an economic sense. It also changes that. Mobiliation means you get more production from the same base - because you no longer make widgets instead of machine guns - or whatever. It also means you get more air plane engines per ton of aluminum - as efficiency improves. This simple model only shows such increases in efficiency by increasing the nominal HI itself - staying the same in fact is not what happened. Acting as if it did means you have a weaker than real Japan. Fine if you think Japan can do well without its real improvements - or if you think it is just a target in any case.

OK. I see the disconnect here. I never really examined the in-game Japanese economy, assuming that it provided a fair "minimum" production in supply, ships, and planes without player input. (The player, who wants "action!", and not micromanagement, merely needed to bring resources and oil to the home islands.) After all, this is the economy the AI is saddled with, right?

However, a weaker "at start" industrial base is merely a scenario tweak, isn't it? So, if you feel that the industrial level for Japan, "at start", needs tweaking upwards, fine by me.

True - but will that happen in a game? What if Japan is winning? We need to model what happens IF the Japanese can keep the industry running?

No change to the game engine is needed here. If Japan (after you tweaked the industrial capacity to what you feel are historical levels) can keep the allies from damaging the economy, than Japan will "win" the game.

What do you think Japan should "receive" if it is winning? Increased production rate? (Even though you have already "tweaked" those levels to what you felt were the historical levels already...) Faster research times?

I will bow to your greater experience in playing the game than I. (I have played Japan only once, against the AI, for 6 months. I usually play Allied.)

From my limited perspective (I have gotten into 1944 vs AI 3 times), even after getting near the 3 to 1 VP mark, Japan's economy does not appear to be in a collapsed state. (Granted, I did not "log in" as a Japanese player to view the economy.) All I know is that there are still plenty of airplanes flying, plenty of barges moving about, and there troops are getting harder and harder to dislodge.

While this is the historical result, I, in the game, had acheived a greater than historical level of ship and plane destruction. I sunk 90% of the AK fleet. I had retaken Java, Celebes, Burma, New Guinea. I had conquered the Marshalls, Hokkaido, Sahkalin, Kuriles. My B24's and B17's were flying out of Hokkaido and bombing Osaka and points northeast. I was preparing to move on Saipan and the PI. But even with my greater than historical acheivments, I still encountered respectable air resistance in the SRA, Truk, and Honshu. Their land units still put up a ferocious defence anywhere I landed. Is it unreasonable to wonder what I am doing wrong? Or is it just too tough to destroy the Japanese economy in this game?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Not really. I assume that the "at start" levels of production (and whatever industry expansions that the player can order do to supply levels on hand) already do that.

Nope. Japanese production in Dec 1941 is so low Americans never can believe it. It is vastly improved during the war - far more than it is easy to put into this simple model. Japan did better than Germany did in important measures (e.g. aircraft production vs size of industry - see The Air War). Part of the problem is that economics involves efficiency. Japan changes its efficiency for technical reasons and because it achieves economy of scale. This all gets overwhelmed by other factors later in the war: lack of fuel - even coal - due to lack of ships moving it - lack of raw materials - significant drafting of skilled labor - bomb damage - these things eventually matter a lot. But you cannot say they had to happen: what if the Allies fail to sink ships, mine harbors, bomb? What if the Japanese import a lot of raw materials? What if military units are not suffering horrible combat attrition? Ignoring this means - even if Japan wins it does not get its real autarky. See Parillo: the essential strategy was viable on its face: there was "more than enough oil" for example.
The contest should be about wether or not it actually captures it and moves it, not pre-ordained to be at a low level no matter what.

Basically agree Cid, but the Japanese Economy had a lot of problems that weren't solvable during the war. The Machine Tools industry was small and under-developed, and experiance with "mass production" was limited. Which meant that while production and effeciency can be improve some, they never came close to those achieved elsewhere in terms of production per man hour or in terms of floorspace. They could mobilize more people, but unskilled workers need either close supervision by a lot of skilled workers or automated tools that allow them to do one or two repetitive tasks on an assembly line basis. The Japanese industrial base wasn't big enough to supply the additional skilled personel (even before the IJA started drafting them), and the machine tools availability and production line engineering skills and experiance weren't available either. So when production was pushed to the max, you wound up with things like a 30% rejection rate on areo engines.

[Mike Scholl]

An interesting comparison of the differences in US and Japanese production.

In 1941, the US produced 26,277 Aircraft, weighing 81,500,000 lbs with production output equaling 1.42 lbs per man day of labor.
In 1941, Japan produced 5,088 Aircraft, weighing 21,200,000 lbs with a production output equaling .63 lbs per man day of labor

In 1944, the US produced 96,318 Aircraft, weighing 951,600,000 lbs with production output equaling 2.76 lbs per man day of labor.
In 1944, Japan produced 28,180 Aircraft, weighing 111,000,000 lbs with production output equaling .71 lbs per man day.

This is where the Japanese weakness in Machine Tools and Industrial Organization and design really shows up. They do manage to increase their aircraft production by about 550%, but virtually none of the increase is due to increasing worker effeciency, and the average weight of each aircraft decreases as fighter production is increased at the expense of attack aircraft. All of the increase is pretty much as a result of throwing more workers at the problem, leaving fewer for other areas of production.

For the US, the number of aircraft produced increases only about 340% (though from a much larger base)
But when you look at weight and size, the increase is almost 1000%, and the individual worker's productivity has almost doubled (again from a much larger base). By 1944 the average US aircraft worker was producing at almost 4 times the effeciency of the average Japanese aircraft worker. Were US workers that much bigger, stronger, faster, and cleverer than Japanese workers? Of course not. But US Plant designs, Assembly line set-ups, and Machine tool availability WERE than much better.

[el cid again]

OK. I see the disconnect here.

Yep.

First, the stock game economy does not work.

Second, ships burn too little fuel and carry far too much cargo. That makes the Allies way too powerful - not just the Japanese. Players can do a wargaming thing - Joe calls it "AKs to burn." Real admirals value their AKs and don't do that on purpose. But you have so many you don't need - why not?

Third, it is not clear we can make the economy work. Several attempts have failed. I have not yet given up - but I am having trouble - and I may fail too.

Fourth, there is NO single "historical production rate" that makes sense for most things. Production does not work that way. IF you went over to a system - as proposed at the start of this thread - of setting one value per item - then what value could you use? One assumes an 'average' value - which for a value that changed greatly over time means mostly it will be wrong on any given date. Worse, it will be a value assuming a historical campaign - so the preprogrammed level won't reflect a successful Japanese autarky. Now you COULD program in the best case - and then force the allies to hurt that - or not. But that would make Japan too strong for my taste at the start. As soon as I get my files in sync I will look at this - and I may have more to say.

[el cid again]

Basically agree Cid, but the Japanese Economy had a lot of problems that weren't solvable during the war. The Machine Tools industry was small and under-developed, and experiance with "mass production" was limited.

I agree. This is also fairly well modeled in this system - by the amount of industry we allow. It is a reason I disagree with greatly increasing that industry - it was not possible - no tools. Yep - I agree.

[el cid again]

The Japanese industrial base wasn't big enough to supply the additional skilled personel (even before the IJA started drafting them), and the machine tools availability and production line engineering skills and experiance weren't available either. So when production was pushed to the max, you wound up with things like a 30% rejection rate on areo engines.

But part of the problem WAS solvable: Parillo says the Army and Navy ignored each other's needs:

A plant making Navy planes would have a critical worker - and the Navy would not draft him - but the Army said "who cares" and drafted the guy anyway - so the plant loses its expert worker! Also, they put American POWs in shipyards! These guys regularly sabotaged the ships! One of these POWs said "I think they must do it for morale reasons - surely they know it isn't efficient." [In fact, about 2000 US soldiers died at Hiroshima - they were prisoners not in camps but in industrial facilities. Along with about 20,000 Koreans - people who were nominally victims of 80 years of Japanese imperial aggression and such good allies they were the main way we knew of things in the empire.]

[el cid again]

I see you have The Air War. Interesting reading.

[mlees]

First, the stock game economy does not work.

Does it inevitably and unavoidably "collapse" at some point?

Or, is it that it doesn't work from the get-go?

If I play the Allies against the Japanese "AI", what will happen to the economy, and when?

My efforts at getting into bomber range of the Home Islands, and sinking the AK fleet are ultimately futile, as far as reducing the enemy's production goes? I should be going for victory points only?

How dissapointing. I have been playing my games strategically, that is, to reduce the enemies ability to wage war. Not just by destroying their military formations, but also trying to choke the life out of the industry/production.

[el cid again]

First, the stock game economy does not work.

Does it inevitably and unavoidably "collapse" at some point?

Nope. And you don't have to import anything like you should to make it work. Worse, you don't have to export supplies either! Not good.

[el cid again]

How dissapointing. I have been playing my games strategically, that is, to reduce the enemies ability to wage war. Not just by destroying their military formations, but also trying to choke the life out of the industry/production.

I am doing a "quick and dirty" economic fix for RHS. It will need to be "calibrated" - and it needs a point by point analysis to get particular things right (e.g. mines). But eventually I hope to get there - and I hope player feedback helps "calibrate" (measure) what is too strong, what is too weak. I have been warned others have tried and failed - but I am still willing to try. A big problem is the structural way supply points get generated at resource centers - but I have a theory about how to fix that...time will tell.

[Mifune]

el cid, I do hope that you will elaborate your ways and means at the appropriate time. A viable economy model and insight of its workings would make a very interesting read for all in this forum. In real life this is a short interesting read http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I see you have The Air War. Interesting reading.

Yep. Overy is one of the best I've found on the economic side of the war. Also have WHY THE ALLIES WON. Sometimes I feel he get's a little heavy-handed with the Political Commitee's role, but overall he gets it right.