The Slant

[Brady]

Below are some of the isues presently in the game that I feal alow the allies to much of an edge, that they in efect creat a "Pro Allied Slant". I do not mean to imply that the game was intionaly designed to be "Pro Allied", nor do I think they thought all who played the Allies were slightly retarted and neaded some special help to overcome the Empire. I do feal and, well know, many points below were offered up to efect better game play, this is a game after all.
I do not feal that in the end Japan should win the war, I just feal that the stock game should be harder for the Allies in the early and certainly the mid part of the war. It should not be posable for the Allies to Bomb Japan in 43 with 4 E bombers, I know your millage will vary and I dont expect that given the scope of the game that they will ever get it compleatly right but I do think they can do better. Most of what I say below is intended primarly for a WiTP II.

.......................................

Dutch Enginears: I am a Dutch Fan Boy, Heinken is good stuff man, but Why do the Dutch Enginears all have Enginearing Vehicals? This is not a Biggy, but good grief, the Allies have it way to good on the enginear front, why are we sweating the pot hear for them as well?

Suply: This is a Big isue many aspects of the suply situation are so contrived that they depart from history to such a degree that the game suffers imo. Any time you generalise like this your going to run up aganst some kind of atack.

S1) Why are all land Units judged equily in terms of suply consumption? Thier should be nationality distinctions when it comes to the consumption of suply in the game. Thier are countless referances available to suport that the Japanese consumed far less material than their US counterparts did in the field, man for man the Japanese neaded less weight in suply than the US did. Virtualy every aspect of the Japanese OOB was less cunsumpative, their Tanks used less fuel, had lighter ammo, and lower ROF's, their infentry weapons on a squad leval again would consume less ammo, and they tended to fair better in adverse condations compared to their allied counterparts, espichaly when low on suply. their present parity in game in this regard only helps the allies, by giving them an unfair advantage, parity.

S2) Consumption of Suplys for Base Building: Nobody built like the Allies did, espichaly the US, this is well represented in the game, perhaps to well, but that is another subject, what I find interesting is that to build a base the game treats all alike. Thier should be nationality distinctions hear as well. Thier is a big diferance between what the Allies would nead base wise to suport their forces and what the Japanese would. A big diferance in materials neaded ,the weight of them , and the Fuel neaded to build these basses. More Raw materials were neaded by the Allies than the Japanese to efect a base building prodject, yet in game their the same. Again the Allies get an unfair advantage hear in parity. Also when a Bases is captured from the Japanese it should imo be droped at least one size to reflect the lesser nature of Japanese neads compared to the allies.

S3) Replacements: I do feal that because of many of the reasions mentioned above that the Japanese should not have to have the same suply leval to receave replacements as the allies, 20K for Japan at a base is a freaking lot. requirng them the same levals as the Allies is not historical, and in the end is not good for gameplay, I would not sugest half but certainly 15K would be reasionable.

S4) Early War Allied Suply: Early on in the pacific war for the Allies suply was a bit of a problem, all maner of item, from fighter planes to profolactics were not in great suply, the tean pregancy rate in New Zeland Skyrocketd in early 42 puting a huge burdon on Allied Transports in their atempt to move desperatly neaded maternatly materials to their from the West coast. All punning aside the Allies cup runith over a tad in this area of the game, their is NO suply problem for the Alies early on, their is enough local suply at all the many allied bases to run things just fine and after the first ships arive even as far out as New Zeland and Nouma their set for the rest of the war, with a ton of materail. This large right from the start Allied suply bonious gives the allies to much of an edge, it alows them to be far to agreasive early on. IMO suply for the allies should be scaled up, the west coast and Indian ports should start off low and ramp up to present levals by the end of 42.


4E Bombers: Sweat fliping Jesious, talk about not Historical,the mother of all gameplay tweaks, I could go on but I have other things to misspel and little time to do it in: Fist off their are way to many of these things, and types not even fielded like the LB-30, their availabality in game is on a leval so far from history it is absurd. Then their is the whole ship killer aspect, they sucked at this in real life and in the game they do it on a scale anc scope that defies description, this was bad enough, then guese what they mad eit worse.[:)] For some reasion that only a true allied fanboy could defend they decided that the bombs they carried neaded to be bigger, even though again their was virtualy no signifagant historical precedent to suport this. Of couse they put a coding in to "limt" the likelyhood of them sorting with the Big Bomb's, but wait they overlooked the fact that the Bombers were so uber in game that they virtualy never get shot down and their experance levals would soare and this was well a joke, or they also used suply as a limiting factor...lol. 4E bombers should be limited to their historical availabilty (see NickMod) and the Naval strike option deleated.( The bigest slap in the face for this whole thing was adding the rule about the bigger bombs and NOT extending it to the Japanese)

P-38: Again to many in game, hugely to many, while many planes are available in Hug numbers compared to their historical availabality the P-38 is special in that it alows the allies to prodject power to early historicaly and on to broad a front, this coupled with the bomber isue above alows the allies to move to fast early one and force an early conclusion to the game.

Suply Atration: Thier should be an option to NOT REPAIR, a port or Airfield, the abaility to depeleat a bases suply by forcing the repair of these facalitys is agian not historical, and gives the allies to big an advantage over the Empire forces.

Zero Bonious: My personal Favorate Funny thing about WiTP is the fact that the AVG is imune from the Zero Bonious, never mind that I cant spell bonious[:)],this is funny of course because the AVG Never actualy faught the Zero...The whole A to A model is buggerd imo in the game, NickMod adreasess it far better imo than the stock game, this subject is very deap and frought with openion and spans the whole scope and time of the war, in short The allies have it too good over the Japanese, SPS (stupid Player Syndrome ) aside, the allies get to many perks to deal with Japan early on like the AVG and far to many fighters of all types to field aganst them for the first year of the war. What this does is spead up the end game for them.

PT's: We realy nead a more realistic aproach to handeling PT's, just crusing up and pooping out a but load of these boats is silly. Again this alows the allies to interdic and efect operations at a local leval that they never realy had or could with out more concern then they presently have to put into it.

Torps: Untill recently this was not a Big isue for me, though I fear the whiners( I to am a whiner) may get what they want (a-la the big bomb iuse for Allied 4E bombers) and further pork the game. The only way to handel this fairly is to make torps something that one nead bring with them, and to alow the torp planes to select torps as a load out option, Torps as a seperat suply item. any of the other sugestions is just going to favor the allies in the end.

Night: Is messed up, Thier were a lot of Night actions that took place that the game just does not acount for or model corectly at all, in the game you will never see a Night time betty atack on a US CV, or any ship for that matter that actualy gets some results under the present model, unless it is some big fluke. The problem hear is that it removes a chance that japanese might do as they did historicaly, put some pause int he allies in 43, presntly in 43 the Allies are mostly imune from fear at this stage of the game.


These are just some of my peaves, the ones off the top of my head that realy efect gameplay, the game as noted above moves to fast, it is far to easy for teh allies to turn the tide and efect an end game far to early.

[Ron Saueracker]

What is your view of the respawn design Brady? Or all that free supply everywhere? Or the invincible man every Japanese soldier is (all fine and dandy, they are strong willed, but like the Boxers, were still not immune to mortality)? Or unwarranted Jap CV strike bonus? Or lack of any Allied CAP advantage? Naval bombardments?

[Mike Scholl]

Dutch Enginears: I am a Dutch Fan Boy, Heinken is good stuff man, but Why do the Dutch Enginears all have Enginearing Vehicals? This is not a Biggy, but good grief, the Allies have it way to good on the enginear front, why are we sweating the pot hear for them as well?

Maybe to make up for the fact they seem to have no explosives or matches. The Dutch blew Hell out of their resource centers, doing a far better job than the Brits in Malaya. The games system doesn't reflect this very well at all...

[Brady]

Ron-

Respawn: Honestly it is a tad troubling, but in the end the Allies (US) will win the day, though I think that if a Ships espichaly a US CV is sunk early on in the war like Dec. 41 it should not arive untill at least 43, that is in short it should be scaled.

Free Suply/Fuel- I feal like a slut ever time I send a Sub or a TF to "get some" at a forward free love base. I think it sucks and should be adreased.

Naval Bombardments- Sometimes they hurt mostly they dont, imo they should shut down an airfield, bugger a port and put the hurt on any ship in their, and moderatly efect ground troops, and if their is a high fort leval have virtualy no efect on them. Largely in game they are not a real big isue for me, they could stand some tweaking though imo. part of the big problem is liek the efect of aireal bombing the player can't chuse to NOT repair a base.

The other stuff is the subject of another thread, and yes I have some peaves on that front as well.

..........

Mike- I too have been suprised at times at how little damge is done to these facalitys when they are captured, but, I mostly move my Dutch Enginears out of the way to form a line bcause I wnat to use their construction capacity........Not a very Historical move to be shure.

[Mike Scholl]

"S1) Why are all land Units judged equily in terms of suply consumption? Thier should be nationality distinctions when it comes to the consumption of suply in the game. Thier are countless referances available to suport that the Japanese consumed far less material than their US counterparts did in the field, man for man the Japanese neaded less weight in suply than the US did. Virtualy every aspect of the Japanese OOB was less cunsumpative, their Tanks used less fuel, had lighter ammo, and lower ROF's, their infentry weapons on a squad leval again would consume less ammo, and they tended to fair better in adverse condations compared to their allied counterparts, espichaly when low on suply. their present parity in game in this regard only helps the allies, by giving them an unfair advantage, parity. "

No Arguement BRADY. Allied (and especially US) units were certainly supplied at a much higher tonnage level than Japanese Units. And Japanese units did fight to the bitter end on very little. But not by choice. They performed much better in situations where they could pre-stock supplys and ammunition in heavily protected locations like Iwo or Okinawa. But if you look at situations where they weren't able to do so like Kwajalein in the Marshall's, they fought to the death, but the resistance was smashed quickly by superior firepower with the Japs losing 8,000 dead while inflicting far less than half that many total casualties on the Americans even though they were the attackers.

The Allies SHOULD eat up supply at a much higher rate than the Japanese whenever it's available. It's the American way. But it also meant that the Allies had better health and medical services, suffered fewer losses to diseases, and had a lot more shells and bullets to fire. The IJA had a theory that hardship made their soldiers tougher..., but in reality starvation and disease never made anyone fight better.

[Mike Scholl]

"4E Bombers: Sweat fliping Jesious, talk about not Historical,the mother of all gameplay tweaks, I could go on but I have other things to misspel and little time to do it in: Fist off their are way to many of these things, and types not even fielded like the LB-30, their availabality in game is on a leval so far from history it is absurd. Then their is the whole ship killer aspect, they sucked at this in real life and in the game they do it on a scale anc scope that defies description, this was bad enough, then guese what they mad eit worse. For some reasion that only a true allied fanboy could defend they decided that the bombs they carried neaded to be bigger, even though again their was virtualy no signifagant historical precedent to suport this. Of couse they put a coding in to "limt" the likelyhood of them sorting with the Big Bomb's, but wait they overlooked the fact that the Bombers were so uber in game that they virtualy never get shot down and their experance levals would soare and this was well a joke, or they also used suply as a limiting factor...lol. 4E bombers should be limited to their historical availabilty (see NickMod) and the Naval strike option deleated.( The bigest slap in the face for this whole thing was adding the rule about the bigger bombs and NOT extending it to the Japanese)

P-38: Again to many in game, hugely to many, while many planes are available in Hug numbers compared to their historical availabality the P-38 is special in that it alows the allies to prodject power to early historicaly and on to broad a front, this coupled with the bomber isue above alows the allies to move to fast early one and force an early conclusion to the game."

Again, no argument. The designers really screwed up on the availbility of these aircraft. But why is it your concern is ONLY with the Allies? The numbers are just as warped on the other side..., just look at Tony's. Too many and too early. Sound familiar? When you start complaining about all the game's problems on BOTH sides, people are a lot more likely to pay attention to your concerns...

[Brady]

As noted above in my post to Ron, the Allies are the subject of another thread. Also the allies have it so good on so many levals that they realy dont nead all the extra help a lot of these isues give them, the net efect is that it brings the game to an early conclushion, which is not good for anyone. With so many historicaly corect advanatages my point is why all the extra help, to compansate for slopy play styles?

Tony- speciicaly this has been been discused before and while I am geting off track her a tad, it realy has virtualy no signifagant impact of the present game (stock) They are undermodled to the point of insignafagance realy, the AVG by way of contrast is so over modled that Tony's who should slaughter those those P-40's have a negative K/D ratio aganst them, at least in my games they do. The Tony should also give the P-38 pause and in the stock game it does not, also in the stock game they model but one varioent of the tony and it is the worst of the lot, and not even by far the most represenative model available.

[pasternakski]

Brady, no offense intended, but it is impossible to read this post, much less discern any sense from it.

From what little I can make of it, you are merely putting forth - again - unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion about how the game is "unfair" to the Japanese.

I suggest you forget it and go play the game for what it's worth as it is. It's all you're gonna get, I'm afraid.

[m10bob]

IMHO most of the issues mentioned have already been addressed in the different mods available.
RHS seems to have the most accurate oobs I have had the pleasure to peruse........................
Some of the other issues Sid and Andrew have addressed in the CHS/RHS collaborations, (with their teams) has gone far to correct many wrongs, geographically, OOB's, and supply to name a couple...
Brady my friend..Are you playing vanilla or any of the mods??

[Brady]

Stock games at present, As I mentioned above this was or is intended largely as a sugestion for aWiTP II game. Howeaver some points that are hard coded, like the "Big Bomb" rule are revelent to WiTP no mater what game your playing.

[witpqs]

Well, some things you say seem valid. Other things make no sense - I recall historical references were given for LB-30's, and for the 1,000 and 2,000 pound bombs used by Allied 4E bombers against naval targets. You just come out and say 'there's no historical precedent' or words to that effect. Similar for P-38's - people have shown that they were there but you claim - what? - that they weren't there? [EDIT: I am thinking mostly of CHS as I write these comments.]

If people use the resources in the game differently than they were used in real life and that has a different effect - well that's the point of playing the game.

I respect your opinions, Brady, and I agree with a few things you wrote here, but for the rest I'll go with the folks who presented facts of what did happen and what was there.

Peace. [8D]

[aletoledo]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Brady, no offense intended, but it is impossible to read this post, much less discern any sense from it.

From what little I can make of it, you are merely putting forth - again - unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion about how the game is "unfair" to the Japanese.

I suggest you forget it and go play the game for what it's worth as it is. It's all you're gonna get, I'm afraid.

his biggest and best point is that the allied forces should use a lot more supply than the japanese. I agree with this and feel that both the supply requirements and consumption should be higher for the allies.

the other points I feel could be easily argued back and forth, but something I've recently seen the light with and feel would contribute as much as the supply issue, is plane attrition.

Plane attrition is something many people have brought up before and as someone did an interesting analysis of play data in another thread (in the war room I believe), the combat loses are twice the rate of op-loses. I think if op-loses were to be brought in line (too small a base, too many planes, too much fatigue all increasing loses), we wouldn't see the 4e allied bomber problems as much.

I like the A2A and AAA changes in nikMod, but perhaps they are too much in favor of the japanese. but supply, attrition and A2A seem to be the areas that I've seen convincing arguments about changing.

[Brady]

witpqs- Every point I made can be suported by facts and has been done so by me in the past, for the sake of brevity I did not post them again hear. For the P-38 their are lengthy post by me on this subject and the numbers are clearly their to be had(My point is that their are far to many I belave like a 600% increase in game numbers compared to the real world figures). The Big Bombs from Bombers has only one incedent of actual use in the war as an example, and again this has been posted on many times before. The LB-30 isue has also been posted on many times before and from I understand Non were used in the Pacific war operationaly.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Ron-

Respawn: Honestly it is a tad troubling, but in the end the Allies (US) will win the day, though I think that if a Ships espichaly a US CV is sunk early on in the war like Dec. 41 it should not arive untill at least 43, that is in short it should be scaled.

Free Suply/Fuel- I feal like a slut ever time I send a Sub or a TF to "get some" at a forward free love base. I think it sucks and should be adreased.

Naval Bombardments- Sometimes they hurt mostly they dont, imo they should shut down an airfield, bugger a port and put the hurt on any ship in their, and moderatly efect ground troops, and if their is a high fort leval have virtualy no efect on them. Largely in game they are not a real big isue for me, they could stand some tweaking though imo. part of the big problem is liek the efect of aireal bombing the player can't chuse to NOT repair a base.

The other stuff is the subject of another thread, and yes I have some peaves on that front as well.

..........

Mike- I too have been suprised at times at how little damge is done to these facalitys when they are captured, but, I mostly move my Dutch Enginears out of the way to form a line bcause I wnat to use their construction capacity........Not a very Historical move to be shure.

Respawn: Honestly it is a tad troubling, but in the end the Allies (US) will win the day, though I think that if a Ships espichaly a US CV is sunk early on in the war like Dec. 41 it should not arive untill at least 43, that is in short it should be scaled.

Brady, I don't get it. You are as much of an accuracy freak as I am, at least when it comes to including all the goodies, but the bizarre elimination of what amounts to a TF which is more powerful than the TF that attacked Pearl Harbor is OK because in the end the "Allies will win the day?"[X(][:-][:D]

The simple inclusion of this "feature" should eliminate any concern that the game has an Allied slant. If anything, it has a pro Japanese slant as the game design, in almost any situation one looks at, opts for game balance over accuracy.

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Below are some of the isues presently in the game that I feal alow the allies to much of an edge, that they in efect creat a "Pro Allied Slant". I do not mean to imply that the game was intionaly designed to be "Pro Allied", nor do I think they thought all who played the Allies were slightly retarted and neaded some special help to overcome the Empire. I do feal and, well know, many points below were offered up to efect better game play, this is a game after all.
I do not feal that in the end Japan should win the war, I just feal that the stock game should be harder for the Allies in the early and certainly the mid part of the war. It should not be posable for the Allies to Bomb Japan in 43 with 4 E bombers, I know your millage will vary and I dont expect that given the scope of the game that they will ever get it compleatly right but I do think they can do better. Most of what I say below is intended primarly for a WiTP II.

.......................................

Dutch Enginears: I am a Dutch Fan Boy, Heinken is good stuff man, but Why do the Dutch Enginears all have Enginearing Vehicals? This is not a Biggy, but good grief, the Allies have it way to good on the enginear front, why are we sweating the pot hear for them as well?

Suply: This is a Big isue many aspects of the suply situation are so contrived that they depart from history to such a degree that the game suffers imo. Any time you generalise like this your going to run up aganst some kind of atack.

S1) Why are all land Units judged equily in terms of suply consumption? Thier should be nationality distinctions when it comes to the consumption of suply in the game. Thier are countless referances available to suport that the Japanese consumed far less material than their US counterparts did in the field, man for man the Japanese neaded less weight in suply than the US did. Virtualy every aspect of the Japanese OOB was less cunsumpative, their Tanks used less fuel, had lighter ammo, and lower ROF's, their infentry weapons on a squad leval again would consume less ammo, and they tended to fair better in adverse condations compared to their allied counterparts, espichaly when low on suply. their present parity in game in this regard only helps the allies, by giving them an unfair advantage, parity.

S2) Consumption of Suplys for Base Building: Nobody built like the Allies did, espichaly the US, this is well represented in the game, perhaps to well, but that is another subject, what I find interesting is that to build a base the game treats all alike. Thier should be nationality distinctions hear as well. Thier is a big diferance between what the Allies would nead base wise to suport their forces and what the Japanese would. A big diferance in materials neaded ,the weight of them , and the Fuel neaded to build these basses. More Raw materials were neaded by the Allies than the Japanese to efect a base building prodject, yet in game their the same. Again the Allies get an unfair advantage hear in parity. Also when a Bases is captured from the Japanese it should imo be droped at least one size to reflect the lesser nature of Japanese neads compared to the allies.

S3) Replacements: I do feal that because of many of the reasions mentioned above that the Japanese should not have to have the same suply leval to receave replacements as the allies, 20K for Japan at a base is a freaking lot. requirng them the same levals as the Allies is not historical, and in the end is not good for gameplay, I would not sugest half but certainly 15K would be reasionable.

S4) Early War Allied Suply: Early on in the pacific war for the Allies suply was a bit of a problem, all maner of item, from fighter planes to profolactics were not in great suply, the tean pregancy rate in New Zeland Skyrocketd in early 42 puting a huge burdon on Allied Transports in their atempt to move desperatly neaded maternatly materials to their from the West coast. All punning aside the Allies cup runith over a tad in this area of the game, their is NO suply problem for the Alies early on, their is enough local suply at all the many allied bases to run things just fine and after the first ships arive even as far out as New Zeland and Nouma their set for the rest of the war, with a ton of materail. This large right from the start Allied suply bonious gives the allies to much of an edge, it alows them to be far to agreasive early on. IMO suply for the allies should be scaled up, the west coast and Indian ports should start off low and ramp up to present levals by the end of 42.


4E Bombers: Sweat fliping Jesious, talk about not Historical,the mother of all gameplay tweaks, I could go on but I have other things to misspel and little time to do it in: Fist off their are way to many of these things, and types not even fielded like the LB-30, their availabality in game is on a leval so far from history it is absurd. Then their is the whole ship killer aspect, they sucked at this in real life and in the game they do it on a scale anc scope that defies description, this was bad enough, then guese what they mad eit worse.[:)] For some reasion that only a true allied fanboy could defend they decided that the bombs they carried neaded to be bigger, even though again their was virtualy no signifagant historical precedent to suport this. Of couse they put a coding in to "limt" the likelyhood of them sorting with the Big Bomb's, but wait they overlooked the fact that the Bombers were so uber in game that they virtualy never get shot down and their experance levals would soare and this was well a joke, or they also used suply as a limiting factor...lol. 4E bombers should be limited to their historical availabilty (see NickMod) and the Naval strike option deleated.( The bigest slap in the face for this whole thing was adding the rule about the bigger bombs and NOT extending it to the Japanese)

P-38: Again to many in game, hugely to many, while many planes are available in Hug numbers compared to their historical availabality the P-38 is special in that it alows the allies to prodject power to early historicaly and on to broad a front, this coupled with the bomber isue above alows the allies to move to fast early one and force an early conclusion to the game.

Suply Atration: Thier should be an option to NOT REPAIR, a port or Airfield, the abaility to depeleat a bases suply by forcing the repair of these facalitys is agian not historical, and gives the allies to big an advantage over the Empire forces.

Zero Bonious: My personal Favorate Funny thing about WiTP is the fact that the AVG is imune from the Zero Bonious, never mind that I cant spell bonious[:)],this is funny of course because the AVG Never actualy faught the Zero...The whole A to A model is buggerd imo in the game, NickMod adreasess it far better imo than the stock game, this subject is very deap and frought with openion and spans the whole scope and time of the war, in short The allies have it too good over the Japanese, SPS (stupid Player Syndrome ) aside, the allies get to many perks to deal with Japan early on like the AVG and far to many fighters of all types to field aganst them for the first year of the war. What this does is spead up the end game for them.

PT's: We realy nead a more realistic aproach to handeling PT's, just crusing up and pooping out a but load of these boats is silly. Again this alows the allies to interdic and efect operations at a local leval that they never realy had or could with out more concern then they presently have to put into it.

Torps: Untill recently this was not a Big isue for me, though I fear the whiners( I to am a whiner) may get what they want (a-la the big bomb iuse for Allied 4E bombers) and further pork the game. The only way to handel this fairly is to make torps something that one nead bring with them, and to alow the torp planes to select torps as a load out option, Torps as a seperat suply item. any of the other sugestions is just going to favor the allies in the end.

Night: Is messed up, Thier were a lot of Night actions that took place that the game just does not acount for or model corectly at all, in the game you will never see a Night time betty atack on a US CV, or any ship for that matter that actualy gets some results under the present model, unless it is some big fluke. The problem hear is that it removes a chance that japanese might do as they did historicaly, put some pause int he allies in 43, presntly in 43 the Allies are mostly imune from fear at this stage of the game.


These are just some of my peaves, the ones off the top of my head that realy efect gameplay, the game as noted above moves to fast, it is far to easy for teh allies to turn the tide and efect an end game far to early.

I am a player that only plays allies but I have a lot of sympathy with Brady's points.

Dutch Engineers should have a seperate pool so cannot rebuild and should have limited vehicles - I Agree

S1 - S4 I agree

4 E Bombers I disagree more or less as long as Betties and Nells are such LR Killers based on the destruction of Force Z alone you wont hear me concede any points on 4E bombers except that LB24 should have a pool of about 80 and no production or a factory that upgrades to B24D's thus removing the masses of this plane type. I am ptretty sure
B24D's did more damage on antishipping than Betties did apart from Force Z so really not sure I agree on this one

P38 I find it very hard to argue against a capable allied fighter given the extreme production that Japanese are capable of with Zeroes, Tonies etc. I agree its ahistorical but with Japanese production on I dont accept this. If Production is off for WITP II for both sides I would be more sympathetic to the P38 issue.

Repairing bases toggle I agree

Zero Bonus I disagree I think it should be out totally and the benefit should be reflected entirely by the XP of the Air Group. A hardcoded bonus is bullshit the fact that IJAAF airgroups at start is higher XP should be all that is required

PT's I agree

Torpedos not fussed about - Betties and Nells carrying those Torpedos to 600+ miles on naval strikes operating from poor AF's and being so effective I do have a problem with not sure how to fix this one. p.s. I think Beuforts always using Torps at normal range is equally stupid.

Night - Not sure if this is really an issue or not

[Brady]

Ron- Are we talking about the same thing? I was or am refering to the rule that instantly put's a sunk US CV in the pipeline. to be returned in I belave years time...This is to alow the US to Win in the end no mater what presumably.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Ron- Are we talking about the same thing? I was or am refering to the rule that instantly put's a sunk US CV in the pipeline. to be returned in I belave years time...This is to alow the US to Win in the end no mater what presumably.

If we are talking about respawn, yes we are on about the same thing. I'm playing only one game right now and in my PBEM we have yet to lose an aircraft carrier on either side despite having had a few CV battles. The reward for the Allies for not losing prewar CVs is basically a punishment...he loses the early built Essexes historically renamed for lost CVs (CV 10, 12, 16, 18). I've yet to lose an USN or RAN cruiser either, despite having placed many in harms way. I lose the cruisers historically renamed for any historically sunk and renamed too.

So, what is the impact for Bill? He still gets to convert CSs to CVLs. Why? Is there a shortage? The Allies get screrwed, the Japanese don't. Where is the pro Allied slant here?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Brady


Ron- Are we talking about the same thing? I was or am refering to the rule that instantly put's a sunk US CV in the pipeline. to be returned in I belave years time...This is to alow the US to Win in the end no mater what presumably.

If we are talking about respawn, yes we are on about the same thing. I'm playing only one game right now and in my PBEM we have yet to lose an aircraft carrier on either side despite having had a few CV battles. The reward for the Allies for not losing prewar CVs is basically a punishment...he loses the early built Essexes historically renamed for lost CVs (CV 10, 12, 16, 18). I've yet to lose an USN or RAN cruiser either, despite having placed many in harms way. I lose the cruisers historically renamed for any historically sunk and renamed too.

So, what is the impact for Bill? He still gets to convert CSs to CVLs. Why? Is there a shortage? The Allies get screrwed, the Japanese don't. Where is the pro Allied slant here?

the conversion of those two CS is worth nothing. Just like the conversion of Hyuga and Ise. I never do it. If you use those two CS like they are against subs and they are able to sink one then they have achieved more than two CVL would achieve. They are only training targets for 4E bombers.

[Brady]

Ron-Well, I think your game is likely the exception and not the rule, to be honest I did not know that the allies did not get the New built ships despite them haveing not been lost, but I gues it makes since, something I have to mull on I supose, every game i have played or am playing their have been CV's lost, even the newest start game has CV loss in in it and it is just now Feb. 42.

[juliet7bravo]

"So, what is the impact for Bill? He still gets to convert CSs to CVLs. Why? Is there a shortage? The Allies get screrwed, the Japanese don't. Where is the pro Allied slant here?"

Other considerations aside, the 3 IJN CS's were designed/purpose built so they could be easily converted to CVL's. In their particular cases, it's prior planning and preparation on the part of the IJN and can't be connected to other issues.