CHS scenario 160 J7W 2 Engines??

[trollelite]

Just find this big bug in scenario 160, I suppose all other chs scenarios have similar problems. Is it possible to fix it when the game already in progress?

[el cid again]

It does not appear to be a bug. It has two engines - they just look like one engine!

EDIT: This is not true - I had a different engine in mind - see a post below.

[trollelite]

But I am afraid Japanese is weak enough, which make almost every jap player quit after corsair rule the sky. Now it's not wise to make their last hope even expensive.
 
So my question is very simple, if I change database now, would my already in progress game affected? Need my opponent also change his chs scenario database? 

[trollelite]

No, I think you are wrong. Almost every source on internet suggest it had only one engine.

[witpqs]

A game in progress is not affected by database changes. Only changes to the Pwhex.dat file or to the art files gets picked up in progress.

Your game in progress will not be affected.

[trollelite]

It's a very stupid bug, then everyone who play jap in chs would end in disaster by 1945. The already very poor game balance now is beyond repair.

[VSWG]

Maybe this was done on purpose to simulate the engine problems the Japanese had with the J7W?

[el cid again]

OK - I went back to source. You are correct - there are two engines listed in CHS - and by inheritance in RHS. This is incorrect - and there was only one engine. Because of its size I thought it was the engine planned for "the Japanese B-36" (G10N1) - which in fact was two different engines coupled together - but it is not. It was simply a gigantic 18 cyl radial engine. Nor was the follow on project - with a jet engine - fitted with two - although it would not have performed very well with a single 900 kg turbojet.

In light of this - I must change the RHS data set - and I expect Andrew will also change CHS in due course. Curiously enough, stock has it right. I suspect at some point data got incrimented accidentally - the WITP editors do that sometimes - and no one ever noticed it. In RHS we may have to change the engine type: RHS engines are rated for power - and so which one you have depends on how big it was.

Anyway - good catch.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

But I am afraid Japanese is weak enough, which make almost every jap player quit after corsair rule the sky. Now it's not wise to make their last hope even expensive.

So my question is very simple, if I change database now, would my already in progress game affected? Need my opponent also change his chs scenario database? 

Actually - there are a number of rather good Japanese fighter options later in the war. There is some reason to wonder if you should prefer A7M2s, J7W1s, Ki-43 IIIs, J2M2s, N1K1-Jb's, Ki-84s or Ki-100s? Or even twin engine Ki-83s? Depending on your range and attack requirements - you might reasonably pick any - or a mix. I think you might need a carrier fighter (if you still operate carriers), an escort (i.e. longer range) fighter, an interceptor (i.e. short range high ROC) fighter, and a fighter bomber - no one plane being able to do all those things well.

[bbbf]

If I recall, a decision was made to make it more costly to manufacture the J7 - hence the 2 engines.

[trollelite]

Except for Ki-83, no other Japanese fighter even come close to the performance of later corsair, and in chs americans get some additional "wonderful aircraft" that even better than corsair, even jet fighter. What is the purpose to make the game a one-side massacre?  The problem is, every Ki-83 and J7W cost as many HI as 2 other fighters. This is because of game engine, every thing with 2 engines would automatically be consided as a bigger thing (like Me-110 compared with Me-109).
 
As weak as Japs in 1945, there is really no good reason to make them even weaker, for the of game balance.
 
This is the game, not history. Balance is very important. We all know Japs eventually lose the war, so why we still play the game? If an allied player is incompetent, he should get what he fully deserved --- a defeat, perhaps still struggle for Hawaii as later as 1945. He should not win because game simply grant him much more aircrafts or ships. I don't say all scenario should be based on this theory, but at least some seperate what if scenario should provide these.
 
 
 

[mlees]

Umm, Sir, with respect, the game is modeled on history. In '44 and '45, there was no historical balance between the forces.

It is a belief by some players that this game already favors Japan slightly more than historically possible. (Higher rates of aircraft production than was achieved, larger pilot pool, less of supply/fuel/oil crunch than in real life, no need to devote merchant shipping to civilian needs, China can be conquered, etc.)

However, you can always mod the database to your hearts content. IIRC (and Cid can correct me here), the manuever values and top air speed seem to have the largest impact on the air to air model. Try lowering those values for aircraft that you think are too powerfull. (The only flaw with this approach is that you need to have your opponent have the same changes installed.)

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: bbbf

If I recall, a decision was made to make it more costly to manufacture the J7 - hence the 2 engines.

That's the exact reason.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Except for Ki-83, no other Japanese fighter even come close to the performance of later corsair, and in chs americans get some additional "wonderful aircraft" that even better than corsair, even jet fighter. What is the purpose to make the game a one-side massacre?  The problem is, every Ki-83 and J7W cost as many HI as 2 other fighters. This is because of game engine, every thing with 2 engines would automatically be consided as a bigger thing (like Me-110 compared with Me-109).

As weak as Japs in 1945, there is really no good reason to make them even weaker, for the of game balance.

This is the game, not history. Balance is very important. We all know Japs eventually lose the war, so why we still play the game? If an allied player is incompetent, he should get what he fully deserved --- a defeat, perhaps still struggle for Hawaii as later as 1945. He should not win because game simply grant him much more aircrafts or ships. I don't say all scenario should be based on this theory, but at least some seperate what if scenario should provide these.

IF the statistics are right, the jet is no bargain. It is horribly short legged for one thing. And it was not as fast as the best propeller planes. Also IF the statistics are right, there is a whole list (given above) of Japanese fighters which are competative - and economic.

There is also confusion about the cost of a plane: it is 18 HI points for airframe plus 18 more PER engine. The cost for a one engine plane = 36 HI points. For a two engine plane = 54 HI points. That is significantly higher - but not double the cost.

The Japanese position in 1945 is not easy to know. It depends entirely on events BEFORE 1945. I design scenarios on the assumption Japan may still be very competative by 1945. IRL Japan could actually have won the war - but if it did so - its military leaders view is probably the correct one: it would have to do so early. Players have the same experience - when the Allied player gives up - even if he does not admit defeat. Nemo had the right idea, and so IRL did RAdm Yamaguchi: Japan needs to win a war of battles. The US will win a war of attrition. It is not really possible to put it in the game, but the real battle (as it almost always is) is psychological rather than physical (see Napoleon, who seems to have changed the numbers from time to time: "In war, the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1" or on another occasion "as 10 is to 1"). Japan had a significant and structural advantage: interior lines. It also had other advantages: a serious anti-colonial attitude among most Asians, vast distances from enemy production centers (meaning the enemy could never bring to bear most of his power: USN estimated that it was at least a 2:1 advantage logistically speaking in favor of Japan). What Japan did was to defeat itself - squandering its political credit by tolerating bad behaviors among profiteering soldiers and enterpreneurs of the worst sort - failing to protect its shipping - failing to plan and operate on an integrated army-navy-civilian basis until it was too little too late - failing even to tax enough. We should not be given too many points: we are only slightly better at integrating army-navy-civilian activities, we sometimes squandered political capital, and we never did come up with a really efficient strategy to win the war (we actually fought more than one kind of war simultaneously - and were inefficient because of it). Japan was just so much worse at defeating itself than we were that its natural advantages were overwhelmed. But in a game - many of these factors are not measured. And it is hard for the Japanese in a game (under one player) NOT to be integrated! We don't punish you for messing with Asian civilians. So it is very much more possible things might be very different by 1945.

The forces are indeed not balanced. But the situation is much more balanced than a pure nose counting of military assets indicates. Geography and logistics matter. All Japan needs to do is beat what is at the end of the pipeline (or two pipelines, or however many you are running). Or at least fight it to a standstill or almost standstill. It can be done.


Even if aircraft production can be higher than was done, it may still not be as great as could have been done. My view of this is a bit radical: I think Japan built TOO MANY aircraft, diverted TOO MANY automotive and other resources to aircraft production, and would have been better off to focus on producing better aircraft in numbers it could crew/fuel. The game does make fuel and crews an issue. And the game has only so many "plane slots" - no matter how many you build, you cannot have more flying than the squadrons permit. So too much focus on building lots of planes may be a strategic blunder IMHO. But Japan did better (relative to its economic potential) building aircraft than Germany did - and who laughs at Germany? And Japan didn't get its act together re aircraft production until later in the war. What if it appointed an economic tzar sooner? What if it integrated engines, electrical systems, radios, and weapons sooner? What if it did more sharing of types between services, and built more of the better types and none at all of the less capable types?
There is no inherant reason Japan had to build exactly what it did - and there are sound reasons it could have managed its resources better than it did.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Maybe this was done on purpose to simulate the engine problems the Japanese had with the J7W?

To be honest, I was not involved in the decision to make the J7W have 2 engines, so I can't comment on the reasoning. I doubt it was a typo though.

I guess the pertinent question is - did the J7W take more resources to manufacture than other single engine fighters? If not, then it probably should be given only 1 engine.

As for numbers and types of aircraft added to the CHS scenario. In my opinion they increase the accuracy of the scenario. Historical accuracy is what we are aiming for. Not fudging things to give the Japanese more of a chance than they had in RL. I agree with the view that the Japanese have certain advantages in the game compared to RL anyway.

Andrew

[el cid again]

In my view there are "certain advantages" for both sides - but perhaps 3 or 4 times as many for the Allies as for Japan. I don't mind that - because I think most of them are realistic. And it is clear that in the game Japan does enjoy interior lines - and almost nothing can change that - which again I have no problem with - because it is realistic. The complaint one can build "too many" planes should not be regarded as historical in this sense: IF Japan is able to move resources and oil to Japan - its factories will not be shut down so much (actually most of the time late in the war); IF Japan is not bombed out its factories will be producing instead of repairing. Clearly more factories with adequate resources will/would have built more aircraft - IF you want them. So while the potential to build more than really ended up being built exists - IMHO it should exist. Make the Allies earn their victory as they really did: cut the supply of vital materials by sinking ships or capturing or damaging resource centers; destroy the factories by bombing or captured the places they are at. If you do that well and soon, Japanese production will be even less than it was. The game is a good system to simulate things like that: but the POTENTIAL should exist to show what happens if the resources flow and the factories are not only undamaged - but even expanded (which was also a real option). I don't expand them - because I don't want pools with too many planes and no job - and I suspend production in the ones that are left when the pools are too large (so I don't waste HI points on things I cannot use soon). But a player should have (and does in all forms of WITP) the option of shoothing himself in the foot - expanding plants so big he cannot feed them - and building so much if he does feed them he cannot use all they produce. IF this becomes a problem, the Allies are not cutting out his heart like they really did. Of couse, a gamer may allocate more ships to moving resources, he may route them more efficiently, he may protect them better with escorts and aircraft - and he may protect his resource / oil centers with strong fighter cover - but all of those are real options - and they should have an impact on what is produced.

The J7W1 was not going to cost a lot more to produce than other aircraft - provided its engine was available. In RHS (and this was invented in a form by CHS first) some engines are available only later in the war. Regretfully - we cannot make them cost more (but look for that in a future version of WITP). I think engines could cost about 1 HI point for every 100 hp (or fraction thereof) of power at takeoff rating. I think airframes should cost about 1 HI point for every 100 kg (220 pounds) of empty equipped weight. That way heavier planes, and / or planes with more powerful engines - would cost more in a closer sense than is now the case.

What may not be too historical is to let the J7W1 be produced at all? It was never produced. The design was never accepted for production. It is historical in the sense the design existed and development was underway - and IF the war lasted long enough - and IF Japan had production facilities - it MIGHT have been accepted for service. [It WAS ordered into production even though it had not been completed to the point it could even enter pre production: only 3 short flights were made by a single prototype aircraft.] It was a radical design - and a very fine one (we have a similar configured aircraft here - and it is unbelievably maneuverable). It think it is a very interesting possibility - and it is in all forms of RHS. From x.78 it will only require a single engine to produce - albiet of a late type you will need to make in sufficient quantity - or engines will limit the number built. [Since the engine is not used by a lot of planes, and since you cannot produce it very early and save the engines - which in my view is poor simulation - you need to expand engine production - or you will only get a handful. And in AIO - if played by AI - you will see that in action: even if Japan still is functional in an economic sense, it will never get a large number of these planes because not many engines are being built - and AI won't order any more]

[trollelite]

Perhaps I don't say very clearly. I don't mean your scenario "historical inaccuracy", the problem is, the game engine itself produces some "historical inaccuracy", for example strategy bombing, B-29 anti-ship, invinsible corsair, or Ubercap, or IJN sitting ducks in day-time surface combat. Some could be solved by house rule. But it is also good if some deliberate "inaccuracy" in scenario could be used to achieve actual  " historical accuracy" in the game play. This may sound strange, but it's not.
 
As for the J7W problem, I think only several allied player actually suffer from its wrath, but how many Jap players suffered from invincible corsair? Mighty as corsair, it's never a wonder weapon as depictded in the game. I know the data is somewhat accurate, so why? We could only think it's game engine problem. We cannot change game engine, but we do could change data in scenario.

[el cid again]

I believe that some of these problems have been effectively addressed by data manipulation. I think Nik was the very first to do this successfully - re "ubercap" - and if I am not confused, CHS and some other mods use his system, or a variation of it. RHS did something similar by a more theoretical approach - attempting to integrate solving "ubercap" with making attrition rates and AAA damage lose rates more realistic (these problems being related via the durability field of aircraft). It is uniformly reported there is no "ubercap" in RHS. RHS may have been even more successful getting rid of "nuclear bombardment" by both battleships and bombers - in spite of increasing bomb loads considerably. Again - the methodology used was theoretical: we re-rated bombs and shells on a power function rather than on a linear function.
I am not entirely happy with the effectiveness of Allied air power after late 1944 - but players who love to do games in 1945 are reporting that we have substantially succeeded in making things competative in the air PROVIDED the Japanese economy still runs, the Japanese player does not convert over entirely to kamakazes (which code does - and which prevents normal missions from ever occurring), and tactics are not entirely stupid.

As for surface combat, I have not become aware of this as a problem. There is something of a misconception that the US wasn't good at it in good visibility: it was early war NIGHT surface combat the USN had problems with - its greatest defeat in actual naval battle being at Savo Island (all time naval battle defeat). But USN gunnery doctrine was substantially successful in daylight at all times, and it became deadly at night after the early period. In spite of that, I observe substantial success for Japanese warships, in good condition: What makes you think this is an issue? I mean, specific data "what"??? If it is a problem, I might be able to mitigate it - but I need to understand the problem first.

[trollelite]

The problem is very simple. Navy ships tend to fire their torpedos in MAXIMAL range, i.e, they fire them as soon as possible when enemy enter range. Because most day-surface battle began in about 20,000 feet, so long lance torpedo's long range become its undoing, as no torpedo could hit in such range. In the end they just waste their torpedos. Allies torpedo, which with a much shorter range, actually offer some possiblity to hit even in the day. I hope you simply reduce the range to 10000 or less.

The other thing is US CL tend to engage multi-target in the same time. Now you could see, Japs light force (CL and DD) could offer no threat (5.5 inch gun no chance to penetrate) , their gun ineffective against CL, their torpedo already wasted long before that. They just become sitting ducks. And worst, they never think to run away from an impossible battle , only fight to their certain doom.

As a result, one or 2 US CL (even obsolete omaha class) routinely destroy a japanese destroyer flotilla, along with their CL leaders.

If you play DND game, you would know there is something called critical hit, that is, by a roll of 20 (out of 1-20), one could actually hit and hurt something usually immune to certain damage. This is just the way Prince Eugen with her 8 inch gun destroyed the mighty Hood. But such thing would never happen in WITP. Oh, I know, such misfortune COULD acutally happen to Japanese Navy, but never allies.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: trollelite

Mighty as corsair, it's never a wonder weapon as depictded in the game.

This is getting slightly off the topic of the Shinden, but have you played a CHS game into '43 or later? The F4U-1, in CHS, is certainly a fine airplane but its stats are reduced from stock and it can be vulnerable. It's the best airplane around when it arrives, but not a wonder-weapon. By Mar '44 I've lost well over 1000. Admittedly I'm playing a tough opponent.

The F4U-1D is certainly kick-ass (same stats as stock I think). But that arrives a year later and with its small range it can't project power very far.

I do think a couple things regarding the Corsair should be changed. The F4U-1 (not the F4U-1D) shouldn't be carrier capable. Most players house-rule it anyway. As the FAA proved they certainly could have deployed on carriers but they didn't IRL and it could be potentially game-breaking.

Also, the FAA erroneously gets the F4U-1D (under the name of the Corsair III/IV) about 7 months before the USMC does. Corsair III/IV availability date should be bumped back to maybe Feb or Mar '44. It might be good to add a Corsair I/II (with F4U-1 stats) before then - I've seen conflicting data on when they exactly arrived - between 6/43 & 10/43. Maybe 8/43 would be a good compromise.