Production, Bend Over Here It Comes Again

[Ringbolt]

My idea is not to have the ETO as a temporary drain, but as a total modifier on primarily the U.S. force levels. The worse you want the ETO to have gone the less you get in the PTO. I know this is not possible, but for arguements sake, lets say the Germans took Greenland, Nova Scotia and the Bahama's. In that scenario you could say at the begining that %40 of the historic PTO forces should, for the games length, be sent to the ETO/East coast.

Personally I see no ships from TF's in Dec '41 being taken like the Brits, but if you select, say %40, you only get %60 of the Essex cv's that actually were there later. This could be expanded to everything from BB's to shoelaces, but ships, CV's in particilar, would have the most impact on gameplay IMO. Its a quick and simple way to "even" the odds to your liking. Using this idea, an historic Pearl strike, or a Midway of opposite results, could be truely war winning for the Japanese.


Ringbolt

[byron13]

Now that everyone is folding their UV tents and tramping over to WitP, I see some issues being raised that have been previously discussed at length. Rather than reinventing the wheel, I've moved some posts on WitP production up to the present so that people will have the benefit of these earlier discussions.

Hope nobody minds!

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Joel and I read the posts, even if Gary doesn't always. I have kept abreast of the ideas discussed here. Gary will be programming this part of the game. I have only spoken to him briefly about the issue. He hasn't worked out all the details.

Keep up the Suggestions, they are appresciated...

Michael Wood

[bradfordkay]

It seems to me that, for Japan, production levels are dependant upon resources found in conquered territories. I think that if the player can adjust production to improve resource convoy protection (build more ASW early), then the increased delivery of resources to the industrial centers should allow for an overall increase in production capability.

It wouldn't make sense to force Japan to stick to historical production levels if the US player fails to interdict the Japanese merchant shipping.


However, if you don't take into account the actual origin of Japan's resources (how much is found in the home isles, how much on the same island as the foundry, Chinese iron, Malaysian tin and rubber, Indonesian oil, etc.) then a variable production capability is not anywhere near as important to me.

[Ron Saueracker]

byron13...in Gary's Battle of Britain(Talonsoft), if you reach a decisive victory ( child's play against the AI, I would love to try to survive as RAF/1940 against a human player...hint!) the game is complete. I don't know about BTR, but I didn't buy it because of the disappointing BOB AI.

[byron13]

Bradfordkay:

I agree that production should be dependent on available resources. (See, again, the previous threads on production). Limited input on production was always a disappointment in PacWar. I would hope that there is more input in WitP. Despite the nay-sayers claiming that CV and BB production is, for all intents and purposes, locked in because of the long lead times, I don't believe it. If I want to start a game with the intent of invading the home islands in 1946, I would like to be able to tailor my force from the get-go. Why not? It's certainly not beyond the capabilities of the programmers. Maybe you could even be allowed to change what was laid down in 1940 and 1941 before the game starts so that you can get a two-year head start. And for those of you that say it would be unrealistic because everyone would just build carriers - who cares? It's my game, and I can do what I want to try different strategies or test different hypothoses.

Mike Wood's statement about probably making the conversion if it happened in the real war bothers me because it sounds like they're limiting production. Granted: (i) Mike was not making a committed statement of policy, and (ii) his statement was limited to conversions which, with all of the different conversions that were actually done or contemplated in the war, would be difficult to model. So please, Mike, give the players the option of changing historical production. The key word there is OPTION! I respect the historical buffs that want to act like theatre commanders with no input, and the game should accordingly have a historically-base production option. But in a game with this large a scale, I would like to have some of the powers of the War Department.

Ron:

Hint received. You looking to do a PBEM BoB game? You're right about the AI in that series. In fairness to Gary (especially if I want any chance of Beta testing), the AI in both of those games must have been horrendously difficult to model. Throw in the fact that you've actually got several different AI's to design for each side (it is well-known that the Allied AI in BTR will undertake one of several strategies in the beginning) and, well, I wouldn't want to have to design it. If you want to do a PBEM game, let me know. I've got another PBEM game going on HPS's Bulge '44, but I could work a BoB game in - so long as you don't have any unrealistic expectations as to turnaround time.