Japanese production - no PDU game

[2ndACR]

 Well, I play PBEM exclusively (when I have the free time) and play with a minimum of house rules. And I still have a blast and so do all my opponents. As far as I know they do anyway. Everyone has their own concept of house rules. I pick and choose my opponents based on what we can agree to, these are mainly long term veteren players. Your choice to remove the game, I will not convince you otherwise.
 
 I have been hit with some bugs in all my PBEM games, I talk with my opponent and we work out an agreement to work around it when they occur. Very little "taking advantage" of situations occur.

[ctangus]

I have to agree with 2nd ACR. This game is so complex, you won't find a perfect PBEM opponent unless you play yourself. [;)] At the same time, my two current opponents are good guys & I have no complaints. And we are all enjoying the game a lot.

While WitP could be improved in areas, the people complaining about it LOUDLY are relatively few. Talk a bit with an potential opponent ahead of time & you should do fine.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The only thing I'm going to add is a little historical perspective according to Treespiders numbers.

ORIGINAL: treespider
For all of those people that would like a comparison between the US and Japan here are the actual figures 1939-1945. Figures for the US are Totals...

US Fighters- 99,950
Japan Fighters - 30447

US produced roughly 3x as many fighters...

US Bombers - 97,810
Japanese Bombers - 15,117

US produced roughly 6.5x as many bombers...

US Reconn - 3918
Japan Reconn - 5654

Japan actually out produce the US in one category of aircraft

US Transport - 23929
Japan Transport - 2110

US produced 11x as many transports

US Trainers - 57623
Japan Trainers - 15201

So with 45 months in the historical war, we come up with these average monthly production figures for Japan:

Japan Fighters - 30447 divided by 45 months = 676.6 a month total.

Japanese Bombers - 15,117 divided by 45 months = 335.9 a month total.

Japan Reconn - 5654 divided by 45 months = 125.6 a month total.

Japan Transport - 2110 divided by 45 months = 46.8 a month total.

Total air frames per month: 1182.

I wonder what the Japanese players would think if we were to limit them to historical numbers the way they want to limit the allies all the time. Hell they don't even want the allies to get historical numbers... [8|]

Jim

Just curious but... How much of those 99k fighters and 97k bombers were actually on the front lines of the allied/japanese theatre in 42, 43, 44, and 45? Didn't the allies keep large numbers of troops/planes/and ships in the relative backwaters of the pacific theatre due to a fear of japanese sneak attacks?

And in regards to production - didn't those numbers really ramp up in 1944/45 - roughly 30k worth of bombers and 40k of fighters in the last 18 months of the war?

[mefi]

First line combat aircraft in the Pacific. (US vs Japan).

Jan. 43 - 3537 vs 3200
Jan. 44 - 11442 vs 4050
Jan. 45 - 17976 vs 4600
July. 45 - 21908 vs 4100

Source: [size="-1"]Official History: Air Ferry Squadron One (VRF-1), Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, New York. [/size]

[Arkady]

Just question...do you count for allied in-game production planes that come with air units for free ? Because except CV groups japanese must fill all new groups with on-map production.

[Arkady]

ORIGINAL: mefi

In itself, that is fine. I have no problems whatsoever with Japan being able to tailor and play with its economy to maximise any ahistorical gains or even 'fine tune' problems which held back historical production.

However, the problem is that the Allies cannot similarly tailor production. Which creates a scenario where one side is able to max out on ahistorical aspects of economy whilst the other is held back by some predefined 'historical' production figures. That isn't equitable to allow Japan free rein and the allies have to repeat 'history'.

But you can not create new squadrons with those extra planes so it is pointless, yes I can have more planes but I can fill only existing places in squadrons. I played some PBEMs as Allied commander too and except first half of 1942 I never experienced critical shortage of aircraft pool

[mefi]

I take your point Arkady (I play as Japan by preference). But I think the issue is that the loss of planes is very high within the game and so the US cannot achieve the historical dominance at the historical time whereas Japan can at least make good its losses to a large extent (pilots are another issue..).

The US is definitely missing a lot of aircraft production starting from 1943. Just how much, I don't know - but at least 20 000 planes over the course of 3 years, and probably a lot more.

This does have the 'benefit' of extending the game, but I feel that once the Japanese auto-victory point has been passed, then extending the game does nobody any favours. The allies will win and no matter how glorious your defence of the home isles, they'll eventually get there if you are willing to play just to allow them to do so. Prolonging this period just causes immense frustration for both sides - death by 4 engine bombers isn't my idea of a fun way to spend a couple of hours figuring out a WitP turn.

I'm coming back to the game after a couple of years away to try out some of the new air-to-air modifications as this is the issue which made me put down the game in frustration. You can't have one side tied down to mock-historic capabilities while the other gets to maximise and tinker to its heart's content without seriously frustrating one or both players. Or forcing them to introduce long and complex house rules to try and resolve fundamental problems with the economic system the game uses.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: mefi

I take your point Arkady (I play as Japan by preference). But I think the issue is that the loss of planes is very high within the game and so the US cannot achieve the historical dominance at the historical time whereas Japan can at least make good its losses to a large extent (pilots are another issue..).

Disagree. US can achive historical dominance with these numbers. If you referring to PZBs game i would point that this game offered quite a lot example of total dominance in the air.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Arkady
I played some PBEMs as Allied commander too and except first half of 1942 I never experienced critical shortage of aircraft pool

Well in my game it's Dec 42 and just about every single USAAF and British fighter pool is sitting at zero or very close to it. Combat hasn't been over-aggressive, it's just that with the low replacement levels I run out of planes very quickly.

In fact my opponent has told me he turned off some of his factories because he has no problem keeping up with me in the attrition war. And this is simply due to the fact 9 times out of 10 I don't have any air frames to fight with so he takes no losses while I am trying to slowly rebuild at rear area bases.

My naval air frame pools are sitting pretty good but I haven't really engaged him much with my naval air since I've been purposefully stockpiling it for my 1943 counter-offensives. But again I'm forced NOT TO FIGHT if I want to build up any kind of reserves in my pools, unlike my opponent who always has abundant air frames available in reserve whether he is fighting with an specific air frame type or not.

I should note my Hurricanes and Spitfires are starting to build up a pool finally, but that’s due to the fact he stopped attacking my airfields and those fighters are too short range for me to take the fight to him. Until he stopped attacking me (about a month ago), they were at zero the entire game too.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: pauk
Jim, i will try to say it again and hopefully help you to finally accept this game as outstanding product (despite some flaws in the design).

I never said it wasn’t an outstanding product Pauk. In fact it is my favorite game. I just want to see it improved upon.

ORIGINAL: pauk
You are mixing the game and history.

I agree the real disagreement seems to be between those who want to game history with all the real life limitations each side had historically and those who want a balanced (equal sides) game that doesn’t reflect history at all. What we have now is this exactly, a balanced game that has no historical basis in reality at all.

Japan has a fantasy land over-powered production system and the US production is neutered. I want that changed to reflect history or at least give the US the ability to deal with the massive numbers crunching air combat system so they can keep units in the fight the way the Japanese can instead of hiding them in the rear for 90% of the game so they can rebuild. BORING! [>:][>:][>:]

ORIGINAL: pauk
Your view is that Japan should never score even a moral victory in 1944, and as long as you have such attitude you will always be a grumpy ol'boy[;)].

Not at all Pauk, I have no problem with Japan achieving a victory. I just want the victory to be tempered against historical probabilities. Japan definitely could never have stopped any US counter-thrust. Could they probably have held out longer at some places than they did? You bet. I’d like to see timed victory point awards awarded to Japan for holding specific locations on specific dates.

So for example: Iwo Jima fell in March 1945, so let’s give Japan a one time VP award if they still occupy it at the end of April 1945. You can do this for all the key strategic locations and still have a fun game, EVEN IF Japan isn’t the uber power it is now.

Jim

[Jakerson]

I got my day full of humor "japanese outproduce USA and then it wons war of attrition". LOL LOL!!! [:D] [:D]

With Japanese replacement pilots skills and Plane tech 1 USA plane is as good as 5-10 JAP planes. To win Japanese need to outproduce USA at least 5-10 times and it still would be even.

[mc3744]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

 Well, I play PBEM exclusively (when I have the free time) and play with a minimum of house rules. And I still have a blast and so do all my opponents. As far as I know they do anyway. Everyone has their own concept of house rules. I pick and choose my opponents based on what we can agree to, these are mainly long term veteren players. Your choice to remove the game, I will not convince you otherwise.

I have been hit with some bugs in all my PBEM games, I talk with my opponent and we work out an agreement to work around it when they occur. Very little "taking advantage" of situations occur.

I don't usually post much (lack of time), but I do read.

This time I had to post my agreement with 2ndACR. I concur 100%

[ChezDaJez]

Hi Jim,

I too want a game based on historical possibilities but not probabilities. I believe it should be possible for Japan to stave off an invasion if the IJ player has prepared a stout defense. Not necessrily probable but possible. I am also not in favor of any game that requires a player to stick to a historical timeline or strategy.

As far as allied production goes, I have no problem with allowing the allied player the ability to expand or tailor his production but there should be some way of limiting it. For example, if a player wants to drastically increase Hellcat production, it should have some type of cost to it that can be felt.

If historical production is what you want then allied production should be limited to what was historically delivered to the Pacific theaters on a monthly basis. Either way, most allied production will be wasted as you have only so many units available to receive them.

The Japanese player should have the ability to increase or change their production in the same manner as RL. Limiting Japanese production to what is available at the beginning of the game ignores the rapid expansion Japan introduced in late 42 through 44. The beginning Japanese production levels are a joke.

A couple of points regarding production. Currently. Allied production does not ramp up as does the Japanese production. Full production is immediately available. That means the allied player has the full benefit of his production from the start. The Japanese player on the other hand has to wait weeks, sometimes months before his production changes take full effect, assuming of course that the flow of resources and oil isn't interrupted. The Japanese player does have some factories that automatically upgrade but most do not.

But probably the biggest issue with production is the instant availability of combat aircraft anywhere in the Pacific the moment it is built. Currently the only limitation on receiving instant rteplacement aircraft is supply and the presence of an HQ.

I would like to see players (of both sides) have to ship their replacement aircraft to where they are needed. (They should also have to do the same for pilots.) Besides being realistic, I believe it would help slow the game down if they had to wait for the arrival of replacement aircraft and pilots to replace losses. This would certainly create a far more realisitc situation.

Chez

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Arkady

Hi, there is a interesting thread [:'(] about allied aircraft production.

I want give some number on Japanese production, game started before PDU was implemented, it is now October 16th 1943.
I expanded facilities a lot, if I want stockpile HI points I need always stiwch off some factories for a while.

Current monthly output numbers:
A6M2-N Rufe - 14
A6M5 Zeke - 650
A6M5c Zeke - 62
B5N Kate - 80
D4Y Judy - 264
E14Y1 Glen - 4
G4M2 Betty - 344
H6K2-L Mavis - 5
H6K4 Mavis - 4
H8K Emily - 40
J1N1-R Irving - 16
J1N1-S Irving - 23
J2M Jack - 38
Ki-21 Sally - 80
Ki-43-IIa Oscar - 401
Ki-44-IIb Tojo - 152
Ki-45 KAIb Nick - 24
Ki-46-III Dinah - 79
Ki-48 Lily - 80
Ki-49 Helen - 46
Ki-51 Sonia - 63
Ki-57-II Topsy - 40
Ki-61 KAIc Tony - 96
L3Y Tina - 5
MC-21 Sally - 5
N1K1-J George - 93

and other 387 factories conducting research

Engine production
1342 Mitsubischi engines
1608 Nakajima engines
Kawasaki and Aichi only in necessary nubmers

Actually I have enough machines to replace any short-term losses immediately. Anyway I missing experienced pilots, machiens alone are useless.
Don't know AC pool numbers from allies but there is no shortage from my point of view.
AC losses are 14866 allied vs 22463 japanese planes

I don't think that allies need any increase in production numbers at all. Only after 9/45 as war in Europe ends and all production can be dedicated to PTO.

WHY ALLIED PLAYERS WORRY Arkady has obviously done a decent job of "improving" his Japanese Aircraft Production Some Japanese Players might do better, and many not as well. But the numnbers he's posted are an excellent example of way the Allied Players in this game worry about at least getting every A/C they are entititled to from their "unmodifiable" production track...

ZEKES..........Arkady is getting 712 p/m.....historically the Japanese produced 287 in Oct, 1943
JUDYS...........Arkady is getting 262 p/m.....Historically the Japanese produced 46 in Oct., 1943
BETTIES........Arkady is getting 344 p/m.....historically the Japanese produced 53 in Oct., 1943
OSCARS........Arkady is getting 401 p/m.....historically the Japanese produced 145 in Oct, 1943
TOJOS...........Arkady is getting 152 p/m.....historically the Japanese produced 47 in Oct., 1943
GEORGES......Arkady is getting 93 p/m......historically the Japanese produced 14 in Oct., 1943
TONYS...........Arkady is getting 96 p/m......historically the Japanese produced 105 in Oct, 1943

As you can see from these exampled, with the exception of the TONY, Arkady is massively outbuilding the RL Japanese (by close to 700% in the case of the BETTYS). And he's only doing what the game allows him to do. Is it any wonder that the Allied players, who really can't "tweek" their production, are worried about at least making sure what they do recieve is as accurate and adequate as possible? I don't think the Allies should have a production system (who wants to see 3,000 P-51's and 2,000 B-29's coming in every month?)...,,, but with this kind of "improvement" available to their opponants they should quite reasonably worry about getting every single high performance A/C they are entitled too as soon as they are entitled to it.

[marovici]

I really don't understand how come so many people believe that it is fine for Japan to outproduce US and keep winning war of attrition. Not to mention that US production is fixed while Japan gets to adjust its production to reach levels that were unprecedented in reality.

Now I can see the game balance issues here, but to keep denying that the current production system is not tilted toward Japan strikes me as totally ridiculous.

For some of us who would like more realistic approach it would be much better if either the real production numbers are implemented in a seperate scenario or allow some flexibility based on real numbers to both Japanese and US. For Japanese primarily to take advantage or better war campaigns and for US to be able to respoind. Again to argue that Japan can come close and outproduce the colosus of US production in my view is just plain wrong.

Actually the more I am looking at all the great mods out there the more scen 15 looks better. I just feel that every mod tries to get US production more neutered (not necessarily historically wrong) while Japan gets a free ride. My feeling is that if there is more candy all around perhaps US should get some then too, at least when US airplane production is concerned. If someone would just add the missing ships like Ron and RHS has done then we have a starting point.

Still I personally would prefer a fixed historical production scen that gets it right. I know that perhaps it limits Japan and makes it more difficult, but ultimately it was difficult if not impossible for Japan to win. As someone already mentioned US did suffer 1 mil cassualties and for an individualistic society that does not bear casualties lightly it is a very big number.

[2ndACR]

Well, as I stated before, I play Japan exclusively. I have not once played as the allies in PBEM or against the AI. I think I looked at the allied side when I got the game years ago, and not once since. But I can say, that Japan can not win a war of attrition against the allies.

Once the Corsair arrives, just about everything the Japanese fly will fall in droves. Regardless of the experience of the pilots. Allied replacements get better with time, where Japan's only get worse. Yes, Japan can whittle awayat the allied naval pilots and a/c numbers. But that is also why I favor PDU's with some restrictions. PDU's would allow the allied player to downgrade CV groups in repair or refit and free up the numbers. But also, in RL, the allies did not go on multi month offensives. They made a big push and then stood down to refit and rebuild for 2-3 months before going again.

This entire argument came about because the allied player was a little loose with his air groups, fought some huge air battles and then continued the push with little pause to allow his pools to replenish. Can Japan build more a/c than history? Yes. Can Japan streamline heavily in a PDU game? Yes, also in a non PDU game. But the allied player also does not have to contend with really transporting oil/resources to feed his industry. The Japanese player does. Plus the Japanese player has to contend with sometimes crippling damage to oil/resource locations when taking them. I have never captured Balikapan with less than 90% damage and it is usually 100% destroyed. I have spent millions of supply points rebuilding damaged oil/resource locations.

Some need to try it from the Japanese side before griping too much.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Hi Jim,

I too want a game based on historical possibilities but not probabilities. I believe it should be possible for Japan to stave off an invasion if the IJ player has prepared a stout defense. Not necessrily probable but possible. I am also not in favor of any game that requires a player to stick to a historical timeline or strategy.

As far as allied production goes, I have no problem with allowing the allied player the ability to expand or tailor his production but there should be some way of limiting it. For example, if a player wants to drastically increase Hellcat production, it should have some type of cost to it that can be felt.

If historical production is what you want then allied production should be limited to what was historically delivered to the Pacific theaters on a monthly basis. Either way, most allied production will be wasted as you have only so many units available to receive them.

The Japanese player should have the ability to increase or change their production in the same manner as RL. Limiting Japanese production to what is available at the beginning of the game ignores the rapid expansion Japan introduced in late 42 through 44. The beginning Japanese production levels are a joke.

A couple of points regarding production. Currently. Allied production does not ramp up as does the Japanese production. Full production is immediately available. That means the allied player has the full benefit of his production from the start. The Japanese player on the other hand has to wait weeks, sometimes months before his production changes take full effect, assuming of course that the flow of resources and oil isn't interrupted. The Japanese player does have some factories that automatically upgrade but most do not.

But probably the biggest issue with production is the instant availability of combat aircraft anywhere in the Pacific the moment it is built. Currently the only limitation on receiving instant rteplacement aircraft is supply and the presence of an HQ.

I would like to see players (of both sides) have to ship their replacement aircraft to where they are needed. (They should also have to do the same for pilots.) Besides being realistic, I believe it would help slow the game down if they had to wait for the arrival of replacement aircraft and pilots to replace losses. This would certainly create a far more realisitc situation.

Chez

About shipping in pilots and replacements, I think that is fairly pointless in the long haul Chez. Think of it this way. Those guys and planes you seemd to get in an instant, were actually the same things that were shipped days or weeks before to make up for shortages anticipated later. I mean, if you could really control the shipping that extensively, that's exactly what you would do instead of seeing a shortage and then shipping it.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: marovici

I really don't understand how come so many people believe that it is fine for Japan to outproduce US and keep winning war of attrition. Not to mention that US production is fixed while Japan gets to adjust its production to reach levels that were unprecedented in reality.

Now I can see the game balance issues here, but to keep denying that the current production system is not tilted toward Japan strikes me as totally ridiculous.

For some of us who would like more realistic approach it would be much better if either the real production numbers are implemented in a seperate scenario or allow some flexibility based on real numbers to both Japanese and US. For Japanese primarily to take advantage or better war campaigns and for US to be able to respoind. Again to argue that Japan can come close and outproduce the colosus of US production in my view is just plain wrong.

Actually the more I am looking at all the great mods out there the more scen 15 looks better. I just feel that every mod tries to get US production more neutered (not necessarily historically wrong) while Japan gets a free ride. My feeling is that if there is more candy all around perhaps US should get some then too, at least when US airplane production is concerned. If someone would just add the missing ships like Ron and RHS has done then we have a starting point.

Still I personally would prefer a fixed historical production scen that gets it right. I know that perhaps it limits Japan and makes it more difficult, but ultimately it was difficult if not impossible for Japan to win. As someone already mentioned US did suffer 1 mil cassualties and for an individualistic society that does not bear casualties lightly it is a very big number.

I'm not saying that Japan has enough materials acquirable, though it may, to match the USSR, but if they somehow took the territory of the USSR, isn't it possible that sooner or later they wouldn't even surpass the USA? You gain enough key territory though the Pacific probably isn't that large a goldmine and you can expect better industrial output; simple as that.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22
About shipping in pilots and replacements, I think that is fairly pointless in the long haul Chez. Think of it this way. Those guys and planes you seemd to get in an instant, were actually the same things that were shipped days or weeks before to make up for shortages anticipated later. I mean, if you could really control the shipping that extensively, that's exactly what you would do instead of seeing a shortage and then shipping it.

Not exactly, Charles. In Real Life the first Tony Squadrons weren't trained and ready for action until 1943, but in the Game they are at the front in the Fall of 1942. And in the example that starts this thread, Georges are there in quite large numbers in the Fall of 1943, while in real life they weren't ready for action until the Spring of 1944. The game does have a problem in this area, but at least it's on both sides.

[bradfordkay]

"But probably the biggest issue with production is the instant availability of combat aircraft anywhere in the Pacific the moment it is built. Currently the only limitation on receiving instant rteplacement aircraft is supply and the presence of an HQ.

I would like to see players (of both sides) have to ship their replacement aircraft to where they are needed. (They should also have to do the same for pilots.) Besides being realistic, I believe it would help slow the game down if they had to wait for the arrival of replacement aircraft and pilots to replace losses. This would certainly create a far more realisitc situation."


I actually try to do something along those lines, Chez. When a new type of aircraft is made available, I put together a supply TF to send to my forward depots. No squadron is allowed to upgrade to that type of aircraft unless the supply TF has made it to a base within range of that squadron. Sometimes I forget and screw that up, but in general that's the way I play.