"The A7M Sam was a GREAT design that matched the performance of the best US fighters."
The A7M did not come close to the best US fighters that were deployed and even less close to the ones in development that were not deployed. In part the problem was Japan's difficulty designing a high-output per weight engine. Most of the Japanese a/c with nominal top end speeds above 380 mph could not routinely achieve these operationally because their motors had a poor performance life and were very difficult to maintain...and even more difficult to produce in large numbers. Huge numbers of the advanced Japanese a/c were refused off the assembly line as unfit for service and had to undergo extensive post-production repair and refit just to make them deliverable.
The game I'd design would have the Japanese putting nine of every ten advanced Japanese x-a/c built directly into the scrap heap. The tenth one would have the pleasure of fighting P51H's, P80s, F9s, A1s, B36s, and Douglas Mixmasters dropping optically-guided 1000 pound bombs.
Production options
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Guys, we keep hurling the same theories at each other, but no one seems to listen.
To the historical crowd, I say that ahistorical production would be merely an option. If you want to play the same war over and over again with no production changes so that the only change in the game is the strategy you decide to use on the ground - fine. The game will surely allow for that. But there is no harm in allowing others to tailor their production to their strategy. If you don't want to do so, you don't have to - but the option would be there. The key word is: OPTION.
To the optional production crowd, let's get realistic. Matrix will probably provide at least as much variability as Gary did in PacWar. I would hope that there is even more control over production with maybe even some resource issues. But some of the wilder suggestions will never take place. I just think that being able to design entirely new classes of ships and aircraft models is simply too much to ask for and would be too much trouble for the design team to balance. I also doubt that you'll see the more obscure aircraft of which only one was built or that were merely on paper. Implementing this kind of anything-goes production would require an entire game engine of its own, and Matrix will not do it. Not to mention that the game would be titled "Wartime Industrial Czar" and become a game of production and not combat. A more reasonable expectation is to be able to build more or less of a particular historical class and to be able to speed up development of some a/c ala BTR or ships (e.g., Midways).
There is no doubt that the game will come complete with purely historical campaigns for the historians among us. There is no harm in allowing optional production for those that want to try different things - as an OPTION.
To the historical crowd, I say that ahistorical production would be merely an option. If you want to play the same war over and over again with no production changes so that the only change in the game is the strategy you decide to use on the ground - fine. The game will surely allow for that. But there is no harm in allowing others to tailor their production to their strategy. If you don't want to do so, you don't have to - but the option would be there. The key word is: OPTION.
To the optional production crowd, let's get realistic. Matrix will probably provide at least as much variability as Gary did in PacWar. I would hope that there is even more control over production with maybe even some resource issues. But some of the wilder suggestions will never take place. I just think that being able to design entirely new classes of ships and aircraft models is simply too much to ask for and would be too much trouble for the design team to balance. I also doubt that you'll see the more obscure aircraft of which only one was built or that were merely on paper. Implementing this kind of anything-goes production would require an entire game engine of its own, and Matrix will not do it. Not to mention that the game would be titled "Wartime Industrial Czar" and become a game of production and not combat. A more reasonable expectation is to be able to build more or less of a particular historical class and to be able to speed up development of some a/c ala BTR or ships (e.g., Midways).
There is no doubt that the game will come complete with purely historical campaigns for the historians among us. There is no harm in allowing optional production for those that want to try different things - as an OPTION.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I think people are getting confused here.
This is a war game, not an empire building game.
-Agree with you
War games have you fight during an historical era, using what commanders then used. It places you in command of the military forces of the nation, and you must do your best to fight with what you are given.
What is being asked here is to expand the game from a war game, to an empire game, where you control the military, but industry and government as well. Historically there was no single individual who had this power, say except an extreme version of Hitler.
-I don´t want an empire building game and I don´t think players
-should be able to control productio. What I think is that those
-features should be customizable in the editor to create what if
-scenarios. Players won´t choose to produce 4 Zuikakus instead
-of the Yamato, for instance, but we could have a what is if
-scenario with 4 Zuikakus, or with Shindens, or withouth the
-A-bombs. Editors are very useful in extending a game´s life.
I would like to see a War in the Pacific where the production does change, but is not up to the whim of the player, it adds too much control to the process of the game, relying particularly on hindsight. Production should change in regards to the course of the war.
-That´s reasonable
Even Pacific War offered the player way too much control over production. Most players would never build the Ki-43-II over the Ki-61/Ki-44 and changed factories to produce these two aircraft. The problem with offering control to industrial output results in games never following their historic results, primarily because things are too manipulated.
-Again agree with you.
I think people are getting confused here.
This is a war game, not an empire building game.
-Agree with you
War games have you fight during an historical era, using what commanders then used. It places you in command of the military forces of the nation, and you must do your best to fight with what you are given.
What is being asked here is to expand the game from a war game, to an empire game, where you control the military, but industry and government as well. Historically there was no single individual who had this power, say except an extreme version of Hitler.
-I don´t want an empire building game and I don´t think players
-should be able to control productio. What I think is that those
-features should be customizable in the editor to create what if
-scenarios. Players won´t choose to produce 4 Zuikakus instead
-of the Yamato, for instance, but we could have a what is if
-scenario with 4 Zuikakus, or with Shindens, or withouth the
-A-bombs. Editors are very useful in extending a game´s life.
I would like to see a War in the Pacific where the production does change, but is not up to the whim of the player, it adds too much control to the process of the game, relying particularly on hindsight. Production should change in regards to the course of the war.
-That´s reasonable
Even Pacific War offered the player way too much control over production. Most players would never build the Ki-43-II over the Ki-61/Ki-44 and changed factories to produce these two aircraft. The problem with offering control to industrial output results in games never following their historic results, primarily because things are too manipulated.
-Again agree with you.
I agree that the only ships and aircraft to arrive in the game are the historical ones. This would mean less micromanagement in the game.
I believe the only control that the player should have on production is how QUICK these historical ships and planes arrive.
In PACWAR the player received weekly "ship production points" based on their shipyard production. The only problem was that you couldn't allocate where these ship production points would go to.
Example. If Japan loses lots of carriers in '42 then the player should be able to choose to allocate more ship production points into getting the next batch of historical carriers (Unryu classes) into battle quicker instead of having to wait for them to arrive at their historical dates of mid '44. On the other hand if they don't lose any carriers in '42 they could choose to then allocate more ship production points into other historical classes of ships and make them arrive sooner.
Same sort of system would apply to aircraft.
An editor is still a definate must for those who want to create ahistorical scenarios.
I believe the only control that the player should have on production is how QUICK these historical ships and planes arrive.
In PACWAR the player received weekly "ship production points" based on their shipyard production. The only problem was that you couldn't allocate where these ship production points would go to.
Example. If Japan loses lots of carriers in '42 then the player should be able to choose to allocate more ship production points into getting the next batch of historical carriers (Unryu classes) into battle quicker instead of having to wait for them to arrive at their historical dates of mid '44. On the other hand if they don't lose any carriers in '42 they could choose to then allocate more ship production points into other historical classes of ships and make them arrive sooner.
Same sort of system would apply to aircraft.
An editor is still a definate must for those who want to create ahistorical scenarios.
Coming second is nothing more than being the first loser...
I agree with having control over production but only to a certain extent...
I understand that alot of you feel that the game would be ahistorical but when you really think about it the game is ahistorical already...
Say the battle of the Coral Sea happened in game but the results weren't historical? then you would have to go the rest of the game with historical production and that kind of contradicts itself because in history the production was based on results of what were happening in the war, if we lost some of our carriers in PH on Dec 7 1941 than I am sure the production in the ship yards would have been alot different
every situation will require different needs from the production yards.
You can not tell me that you will have the same battle results as the commanders in the Pacific had in WWII so why should we have the same priority in Production as them? there has to be some player control
But the player shouldn't neccesarily have total control over production where you get to change the armament of guns on ships and pretty much making them super space ships and junk
Lets say for example that you lost a lot of Transports in a cargo run that ran sour because you ran into a CV TF, well you should be able to switch some production over to compensate for you loses its what makes logic since. Because how unrealalistic would it be if you have a ton of fighting ships but not enough trasports to keep your bases suppllied then you should be able to request trasports be made
what if you loose a ton of airplanes in a battle for an island, you loose way more bombers than fighters, and now you are in desperate need for fighters, if you get historical production then you are going to be screwed because now you are going to have way to many fighters and not enough bombers
my point is simple, the game is set with historical units and wwII demographs, but the situations you get in and the results will not be historical at all, because now we are in the commanders shoes and we can't have fixed production because it wont be to our needs...it would just flat out be unrealalistic to have a fixed production because it would be based on the results of the historical events and not the results of what has happened in the game
I hope my points make sense
I understand that alot of you feel that the game would be ahistorical but when you really think about it the game is ahistorical already...
Say the battle of the Coral Sea happened in game but the results weren't historical? then you would have to go the rest of the game with historical production and that kind of contradicts itself because in history the production was based on results of what were happening in the war, if we lost some of our carriers in PH on Dec 7 1941 than I am sure the production in the ship yards would have been alot different
every situation will require different needs from the production yards.
You can not tell me that you will have the same battle results as the commanders in the Pacific had in WWII so why should we have the same priority in Production as them? there has to be some player control
But the player shouldn't neccesarily have total control over production where you get to change the armament of guns on ships and pretty much making them super space ships and junk
Lets say for example that you lost a lot of Transports in a cargo run that ran sour because you ran into a CV TF, well you should be able to switch some production over to compensate for you loses its what makes logic since. Because how unrealalistic would it be if you have a ton of fighting ships but not enough trasports to keep your bases suppllied then you should be able to request trasports be made
what if you loose a ton of airplanes in a battle for an island, you loose way more bombers than fighters, and now you are in desperate need for fighters, if you get historical production then you are going to be screwed because now you are going to have way to many fighters and not enough bombers
my point is simple, the game is set with historical units and wwII demographs, but the situations you get in and the results will not be historical at all, because now we are in the commanders shoes and we can't have fixed production because it wont be to our needs...it would just flat out be unrealalistic to have a fixed production because it would be based on the results of the historical events and not the results of what has happened in the game
I hope my points make sense
****FUTURE 4 STAR****
So the player should be able to choose when and what ships and planes arrive and how much of them they can build, but the ships and planes themselves should be based on historical models.
That seems to be getting the best of both sides of the debate.
Ships and planes aren't the only thing to worry about...here are some more things
What about the army units? Should they be arriving at historical dates?
What about the airgroups? Should they be arriving at historical dates?
What about the pilots experience in the newcoming airgroups? In PACWAR, pilots experience were preset based on historical fact that Japanese oil supplies were drying up over the years? BUT what if Japan successfully secures plenty of oil with plenty of merchant shipping to collect it? Wouldn't that mean that there would be slightly better trained Japanese pilots?
That seems to be getting the best of both sides of the debate.
Ships and planes aren't the only thing to worry about...here are some more things
What about the army units? Should they be arriving at historical dates?
What about the airgroups? Should they be arriving at historical dates?
What about the pilots experience in the newcoming airgroups? In PACWAR, pilots experience were preset based on historical fact that Japanese oil supplies were drying up over the years? BUT what if Japan successfully secures plenty of oil with plenty of merchant shipping to collect it? Wouldn't that mean that there would be slightly better trained Japanese pilots?
Coming second is nothing more than being the first loser...
Maniac, your point makes perfect sense. A player is not limited in what strategy he will use with his forces and will either try new ideas or will purposely change his strategy in an attempt to do better than his historical counterpart. You will necessarily be changing history. So why not allow the same latitude with production. And, as Maniac points out, production was based on need, which were in turn based on successes and failures on the battlefield. If the U.S. had lost more carriers during the war, would the Midway class have been cancelled?
As for the Empire building v. War game: As long as YOU have the option to play the pure wargame, what is the harm in allowing ME the option of playing an empire building game? Your argument misses the point that ahistorical production is an option. It's like saying that you like your sports cars to be red. I'm saying great; lets offer the car in both white (which I like) and red. You all keep arguing that, no, sports cars should be red only and that white should not be an option. Why not offer red for you and white for me?
So I challenge the historical crowd: So long as each campaign or scenario can be played with historical units, production, and reinforcement schedules like you want, what argument can you make against allowing an additional option of ahistorical production?
As for the Empire building v. War game: As long as YOU have the option to play the pure wargame, what is the harm in allowing ME the option of playing an empire building game? Your argument misses the point that ahistorical production is an option. It's like saying that you like your sports cars to be red. I'm saying great; lets offer the car in both white (which I like) and red. You all keep arguing that, no, sports cars should be red only and that white should not be an option. Why not offer red for you and white for me?
So I challenge the historical crowd: So long as each campaign or scenario can be played with historical units, production, and reinforcement schedules like you want, what argument can you make against allowing an additional option of ahistorical production?
I think the dichotomy between "history" oriented folks and "option" oriented ones is a false dichotomy. The question is how much detail you put into the production model. If you're gonna start cranking out Ki61s in lieu of Oscars or whatever, the changes from historical to ahistorical production should be set within limits that are grounded in some kind of economic reality. The advanced types of Japanese a/c had many flaws, some of which were design bugs that could have been worked out, and some of which were systemic problems that could not have been solved on the scale of time represented by WW2. The Japanese stayed with the poor early-war performers because they were not
very capable of reorganizing production and logistics to build and maintain the faster models in quantity. So you get 40 Oscars or 4 Ki-61s. Take your pick.
If OTOH you think it's a "reasonable option" for Japan to start manufacturing 6-engined strategic bombers that fly to the US I don't agree. IMO it's as wildly improbable as having those 6-engine types opposed by F-102s.
very capable of reorganizing production and logistics to build and maintain the faster models in quantity. So you get 40 Oscars or 4 Ki-61s. Take your pick.
If OTOH you think it's a "reasonable option" for Japan to start manufacturing 6-engined strategic bombers that fly to the US I don't agree. IMO it's as wildly improbable as having those 6-engine types opposed by F-102s.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Well, no. Having historical production does not mean that history will repeat itself. What changes history is what you do with the stuff.Originally posted by Kitakami
And yet merely seeing history repeat itself would be boring.
When you look at all of the major warships built by Japan during the war years this argument really starts to lose its point. Here is the list of warships built/modified during the war, all of cruiser and larger size...
Carriers
1. Shiano "Late 44"
2. Unryu "Late 44"
3. Amagi "Late 44"
4. Katsuragi "Late 44"
5. Kasagi*
6. Aso*
7. Ikoma*
8. Taiho "Late 43"
9. Ibuki*
10. Chitose** "Late 43"
11. Chiyoda** "Late 43"
12. Shinyo** "Late 43"
Cruisers
1. Agano
2. Yahagi
3. Noshiro
4. Sakawa
5. Oyodo
* means never completed
** means a conversion of another non-combat vessel
Now, looking at the list of ships completed, there really is not much area for change. You could order that instead of Unryu's, you build Taiho's, but for every 2 Unryu's you would get 1 Taiho, appearing in early 1945...
You might also have the choice of having either 1 CV and 1 CVL or 1 BB and 1 CA (in the case of Shiano and Ibuki). Also, instead of the 5 Light Cruisers you might be able to build 3 heavy cruisers of an older design. The Chitose and Chiyoda could either remain as AV, or become CVL, same with the Shinyo (not built from keel up, but just modifications). So, in reality, Japan only built 7 Carriers from the Keel up (with 3 never completed), 5 Light Cruisers, 2 conversions of ships being built, and 3 conversions of existing ships.
Realistically, where the Japanese had the most control over production, and what people don't talk about much, is smaller vessels, like Destroyers, Destroyer Escorts and Patrol vessels. These vessels took around a year to build.
check out this site, it is really interesting, albiet incomplete and somewhat vague.
http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/flee ... plans.html
Notice that the number of planned vessels varies, and in the most part is a pipe dream of the Navy? They never came close to completing most of their planned vessels (Type B Heavy Cruisers, Type A Battle Cruisers). Choosing to build either fewer Akitsuki DDAA or slightly more Yugumo DD is basically the choice of the Japanese player. DE's were not designed by the IJN until 1944, due to a sense of this being defensive and defeatist. Now, should the player be restricted by this? Since it is a wargame, I think yes. However, they are free to use their vessels in whatever means they feel (which many commanders did, using expensive fleet destroyers for escort duty!). Had any military commander, even Yamamoto, insisted on DE's being produced in 1941 they would have been ignored, and possibly removed from their position for the 'wrong attitude'. The limitations of some wargames is that many of the limitations felt in reality are not there, and they are given the freedoms that their historical counterparts could never dream of. So, realistically, the Japanese could build a few average destroyers, or even fewer kick-*** destroyers. Nothing they do can have them complete against the USN, whose Fletcher class had more destroyers then the total IJN.
The US Navy planned to do much the same as the Japanese and convert many large liners for use as carriers. However, when war broke out, plans were scrapped because the Essex Class would be appearing within the year. Even during the dark days of pre-Midway the US was not panicing to the state that they would drastically change their production. In fact, they had to cut most of their plans due to lack of resources and the concept of concentrating efforts. Had the US lost every carrier at Midway there would not be much to do in the immediate timespan but to wait for the Essex class, and have the Wasp, Ranger and Saratoga fill in, with possibly modifying more Independence CVL's, and possibly sooner.
In reality, there is not much that the player can do to manipulate production to meet an immediate situation. Most Industrial war plans were kept from the beginning to the end, with the only real modifications being cancelling some projects, and converting others (i.e., Shiano, Ibuki, Independence class).
There really is not much a player can do to improve production, given realistic circumstances. The US player cannot do much to improve their production, it was virtually flawless. The Japanese player cannot do much either, mainly due to their lack of production facilities and resources. Giving production to the player will just result in someone building 50 Indepdencence Class CVL's, something totally historically improbable. Game mechanics might allow this to work, but in reality, having all of these CVL's would be a maintenence and supply nightmere, as well as deteremental for the fleet in losing all of those valuable scout Light Cruisers.
Midway did not do much to effect Japanese production, ecept to get it into realistic motion! Their pre-Midway plans were unrealistic (looking at that website). They could only build a few vessels, and those would not see service until the war was virtually over. The main thing they had control over were light vessels, which they had the choice of building quantity or quality, each of which has its strong points and its weak points.
Now, sure, to be fair as many options for the player should be offered. If you want to have Jets in 1941, the Japanese having access to nuclear bombs, or full control over production, then it should be allowed. However, you have to think about what Matrix Games is creating here. They want to create a war game of the Pacific War from 1941-1945 (possibly 1946?). Sure, things happen during this game that didn't happen historically, but would the response be significantly different? Would the Shiano have ever been built as a Battleship? Would the IJN feel confident that 6 Fleet Carriers would be good enough so they won't have to build the affordable Unryu class? The actual choices are fairly limited. Of course the Japanese, had there been a Midway or not, would face unsurmountable numbers in 1944-45 that not building the Unryu's would lead to disaster. Had the IJN wiped out the US fleet in 1942 at Midway without losses they would still be outnumbered in 1945, in quantity and quality. No matter what would have happened the Ibuki would never have been completed as a Heavy Cruiser, because demands for carriers was high even as early as 1941. The Japanese were converting anything that floated in 1941-42 (before Midway) to increase their carrier fleet. The USN had their plan from 1940, with new battleships and carriers coming out of every port in the nation. Changing their production would merely be windowdressing. "Should I have 9 Independence class or 20?" "How many Guam BC's do I feel like this time?" "Should I build a bunch of Baltimores or Clevelands?"
No matter what would have happened historically, production would not be drastically different from historical accounts. Had the IJN lost all of its battleships during one of the Guadalcanal raids, I am sure that the Unryu's would not be converted into Battle Cruisers to compensate...
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Originally posted by mdiehl
I think the dichotomy between "history" oriented folks and "option" oriented ones is a false dichotomy. The question is how much detail you put into the production model. If you're gonna start cranking out Ki61s in lieu of Oscars or whatever, the changes from historical to ahistorical production should be set within limits that are grounded in some kind of economic reality. The advanced types of Japanese a/c had many flaws, some of which were design bugs that could have been worked out, and some of which were systemic problems that could not have been solved on the scale of time represented by WW2. The Japanese stayed with the poor early-war performers because they were not
very capable of reorganizing production and logistics to build and maintain the faster models in quantity. So you get 40 Oscars or 4 Ki-61s. Take your pick.
If OTOH you think it's a "reasonable option" for Japan to start manufacturing 6-engined strategic bombers that fly to the US I don't agree. IMO it's as wildly improbable as having those 6-engine types opposed by F-102s.
As the old Pacific War game goes, there is none of this detail in production model beyond cost of aircraft, which is tweaky at best
Some of these limitations go beyond, as mdiehl said, the pure technical, and as I said, attitudinal. The Japanese could produce, and could not produce certain military types because of their purpose, and not merely an incapability. Going back to the idea about producing Convoy Escorts at a mad pace is probably the most logical step for the Japanese Navy, and most players would agree (myself being one of those!). However, no matter how much you begged and pleaded, you would never get those escorts until half your fleet train is under water. Your submarine commanders would refuse to attack worthless transports while valuable carriers and battleships sail by.
Their attitudes did change, mainly due to necessity (when half their merchant navy was gone, and the other half incapacitated, they built escorts, and when the US were landing on every island they wanted, the IJN started targetting troop transports).
I do agree that some form of limited input into production should be allowed. With options increasing over time and experience (i.e., when you lose X many Merchant ships the option about designing and building DE's appears). However, you would probably find that historical production would not vary much from in game production, if the engine is completed well.
As you know I am for ahistorical gameplay because this game is ahistorical and if it was really a historical game we wouldn't be playing the game we would be watching a game like documentary on the war in the pacific. I just think that when you get to close to "Empire Building" the game looses its flavor.Originally posted by byron13
As for the Empire building v. War game: As long as YOU have the option to play the pure wargame, what is the harm in allowing ME the option of playing an empire building game? Your argument misses the point that ahistorical production is an option. It's like saying that you like your sports cars to be red. I'm saying great; lets offer the car in both white (which I like) and red. You all keep arguing that, no, sports cars should be red only and that white should not be an option. Why not offer red for you and white for me?
I think that production levels for each country should probably fixed, so basically so its not like you are micromanging the US to get maximum production shields (hehe for those of you who play the Civ games
) but the game should allow for production changes based on the economies of the countries realalistically from those time periods so you can't change the amount of production unless lets say you start bombing Toyko or San Deigo or something 
There should be flexibility in production to accomodate our personal strategies and our personal battle results. But Production should NOT be based on anything other than the realalistic capabilities for that time period
Originally posted by byron13
So I challenge the historical crowd: So long as each campaign or scenario can be played with historical units, production, and reinforcement schedules like you want, what argument can you make against allowing an additional option of ahistorical production?
I agree that this should be an option (By the way i like black sports cars
) but I think some people just want to push the envelope on production to make things unrealalistic and complicated.I am sure Matrix games will make a good judement call and will make production so that all of us will be equally happy...and even if we don't get our ways exactly I am sure we will all still love the game more than anything
****FUTURE 4 STAR****
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
HOWEVER, not to detract on everything that I have just said, but in most wargames there are options to change historic situations.
For example, the AH game Operation Crusader had scenario options that allowed you to, for example, make the Italian units stronger, give the Axis more Tank replacement points, etc...
These did change the historic situation of the game, but had its penalties (I believe). If you chose these options (to your benefit) then you would be penalized somewhere else, probably in your score.
While I don't believe that production should, and would remain at 100% historical accuracy, I do believe that certain limitations, restrictions, consequences and controls should be in place. Having options like "More Defensive IJN" that would allow construction of DE's in 1941, should be in the game, but have their consequences (either give the Allies a score benefit, Axis a score penalty, or have them lose out on some other aspect, possibly the Long Lance torpedo?)
However, the best wargames I have seen tend to limit the ability of the player to produce the weaponry and equipment to fight the war. How many times have you played War In Russia, or Pacific War, where unit arrival is totally fixed and had totally different outcomes?
For example, the AH game Operation Crusader had scenario options that allowed you to, for example, make the Italian units stronger, give the Axis more Tank replacement points, etc...
These did change the historic situation of the game, but had its penalties (I believe). If you chose these options (to your benefit) then you would be penalized somewhere else, probably in your score.
While I don't believe that production should, and would remain at 100% historical accuracy, I do believe that certain limitations, restrictions, consequences and controls should be in place. Having options like "More Defensive IJN" that would allow construction of DE's in 1941, should be in the game, but have their consequences (either give the Allies a score benefit, Axis a score penalty, or have them lose out on some other aspect, possibly the Long Lance torpedo?)
However, the best wargames I have seen tend to limit the ability of the player to produce the weaponry and equipment to fight the war. How many times have you played War In Russia, or Pacific War, where unit arrival is totally fixed and had totally different outcomes?
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Don't mean to harp here, but here goes...
Regarding Land Combat Units...
I believe that logically, one would assume that if you would have X many troops in the replacement pool, X many Artillery Guns, and X many tanks, then why can't you create formation X from it?
It seems rational, and if the replacement pool is done well, something that I would like to see. Many units were formed in the field, but field commanders, for example, the Combined Army/Marine Division that fought on Guadalcanal. However, like many armies, the choice of disbanding units should be there because there might be a shortage of men and equipment that the formations have outstripped their replacements.
Land Combat Units are much easier to form then create ships. They could, and were, done by the supreme army commander.
Even the formation of air groups would be along these lines. Which gets us into other tricky situations, such as pilot training... Should the Japanese be allowed to develop a Western pilot training system (i.e., having their aces become instructors instead of fighting to the death?)? This would probably be one of those beginning of game options, like building DE's in 1941...
Regarding Land Combat Units...
I believe that logically, one would assume that if you would have X many troops in the replacement pool, X many Artillery Guns, and X many tanks, then why can't you create formation X from it?
It seems rational, and if the replacement pool is done well, something that I would like to see. Many units were formed in the field, but field commanders, for example, the Combined Army/Marine Division that fought on Guadalcanal. However, like many armies, the choice of disbanding units should be there because there might be a shortage of men and equipment that the formations have outstripped their replacements.
Land Combat Units are much easier to form then create ships. They could, and were, done by the supreme army commander.
Even the formation of air groups would be along these lines. Which gets us into other tricky situations, such as pilot training... Should the Japanese be allowed to develop a Western pilot training system (i.e., having their aces become instructors instead of fighting to the death?)? This would probably be one of those beginning of game options, like building DE's in 1941...
Good. At least the more recent posts indicate that there is some agreement: some optional production should be allowed so long as it is, as Maniac points out, within the physical capacity of that country.
I agree that the game should not allow for some of the wilder ideas I've seen. Most of them, such as being able to design your own ships and planes or allowing builds of aircraft that never made it beyond the blueprint stage, are not a serious option because they are either to difficult to program within time/budget constraints or just aren't realistic. Likewise, I can see where fairly free conversion of one class to another, while historically considered or even implemented, would be difficult to program. But I do believe the game should allow a player (if sufficient resources are available) to build all battleships if he wants. He is likely to be disappointed when he finds that it takes three years to get the damned things into the fight, but what the hell?
Hey, man, I'm all for that. It would be like WIR's ability to attach divisions, brigades, and battalions to a corps-sized unit. But, again, this would probably be hard to program. Like it or not, the armies in question were, at this scale, based on fairly standardized battalion-sized units. To custom make divisions or brigades "should" require a whole new subroutine that would be smart enough to deduct battalion-sized packets from the force pool and have some screen that allows you to assemble the brigade. It would be fun to create a mission-specific brigade from the force pool, but I just don't think that the cost-benefit is there for Matrix - especially considering how abstract land combat is. The differences between a carrier and a battleship or a fighter and a bomber in game terms are significantly greater than the difference between an artillery battalion and a tank battalion. I'd like to see it, but I doubt we will. A more likely option is to build less generic army materiel in favor of more ships.
Good point, but it all depends on where you see the game player being allowed to depart from history. I'm sure you all would agree that the player should be allowed - if not encouraged - to use different strategies and tactics with the historical units provided than were used historically. That is, after all, the whole purpose of the game. But using these different strategies and tactics may often violate basic historical doctrine of that country, and you have departed from history at that point. I would argue that you should be able to depart in other areas as well. Producing convoy escorts at a mad pace is nothing more than a doctrinal shift that should be allowed - if within the capacity of that country. There is certainly a line to be drawn, since Japan was physically capable of designing six-engined bombers to bomb Seattle and, quite frankly, I can't define where the line should be. But the line should be drawn to allow plausible deviations. HEY! That's it: plausibility. That would seem to be the operative term.
Pilot training rates is a tough, tough question. Japanese pilot training rates seems to have been such an inherent defect in the system that it seems unfair, or unrealistic, or implausible for the Japanese player to freely triple pilot training. I can't say that I can cobble together a coherent or consistent argument for this. Maybe when you shift doctrine too much, there is a penalty, as Jeremy suggests. I'd rather it be a production penalty, e.g., making production in excess of 120% of historical rates extremely expensive, than a victory point penalty.
Well, friends, a fun discussion without end. I look forward to seeing WitP on my computer and seeing the AARs. I, too, trust Matrix's design decisions and hope they allow flexibility.
But the most important point is: black sports cars?! Yuck!
I don't believe there is a real dichotomy, either. But look at earlier posts and at other production threads, and you will see a violent debate fought in terms of "either/or" and not "and." Historical and "ahistorical" should be able to coexist in the same game quite easily.Originally posted by mdiehl
I think the dichotomy between "history" oriented folks and "option" oriented ones is a false dichotomy.
I agree that the game should not allow for some of the wilder ideas I've seen. Most of them, such as being able to design your own ships and planes or allowing builds of aircraft that never made it beyond the blueprint stage, are not a serious option because they are either to difficult to program within time/budget constraints or just aren't realistic. Likewise, I can see where fairly free conversion of one class to another, while historically considered or even implemented, would be difficult to program. But I do believe the game should allow a player (if sufficient resources are available) to build all battleships if he wants. He is likely to be disappointed when he finds that it takes three years to get the damned things into the fight, but what the hell?
I believe that logically, one would assume that if you would have X many troops in the replacement pool, X many Artillery Guns, and X many tanks, then why can't you create formation X from it?
Hey, man, I'm all for that. It would be like WIR's ability to attach divisions, brigades, and battalions to a corps-sized unit. But, again, this would probably be hard to program. Like it or not, the armies in question were, at this scale, based on fairly standardized battalion-sized units. To custom make divisions or brigades "should" require a whole new subroutine that would be smart enough to deduct battalion-sized packets from the force pool and have some screen that allows you to assemble the brigade. It would be fun to create a mission-specific brigade from the force pool, but I just don't think that the cost-benefit is there for Matrix - especially considering how abstract land combat is. The differences between a carrier and a battleship or a fighter and a bomber in game terms are significantly greater than the difference between an artillery battalion and a tank battalion. I'd like to see it, but I doubt we will. A more likely option is to build less generic army materiel in favor of more ships.
Some of these limitations go beyond, as mdiehl said, the pure technical, and as I said, attitudinal. The Japanese could produce, and could not produce certain military types because of their purpose, and not merely an incapability. Going back to the idea about producing Convoy Escorts at a mad pace is probably the most logical step for the Japanese Navy, and most players would agree (myself being one of those!). However, no matter how much you begged and pleaded, you would never get those escorts until half your fleet train is under water. Your submarine commanders would refuse to attack worthless transports while valuable carriers and battleships sail by.
Good point, but it all depends on where you see the game player being allowed to depart from history. I'm sure you all would agree that the player should be allowed - if not encouraged - to use different strategies and tactics with the historical units provided than were used historically. That is, after all, the whole purpose of the game. But using these different strategies and tactics may often violate basic historical doctrine of that country, and you have departed from history at that point. I would argue that you should be able to depart in other areas as well. Producing convoy escorts at a mad pace is nothing more than a doctrinal shift that should be allowed - if within the capacity of that country. There is certainly a line to be drawn, since Japan was physically capable of designing six-engined bombers to bomb Seattle and, quite frankly, I can't define where the line should be. But the line should be drawn to allow plausible deviations. HEY! That's it: plausibility. That would seem to be the operative term.
Pilot training rates is a tough, tough question. Japanese pilot training rates seems to have been such an inherent defect in the system that it seems unfair, or unrealistic, or implausible for the Japanese player to freely triple pilot training. I can't say that I can cobble together a coherent or consistent argument for this. Maybe when you shift doctrine too much, there is a penalty, as Jeremy suggests. I'd rather it be a production penalty, e.g., making production in excess of 120% of historical rates extremely expensive, than a victory point penalty.
Well, friends, a fun discussion without end. I look forward to seeing WitP on my computer and seeing the AARs. I, too, trust Matrix's design decisions and hope they allow flexibility.
But the most important point is: black sports cars?! Yuck!
Well Bryon I agree with pretty much every thing you said except the "yuck" to black sports cars :rolleyes: ...come on you know you like it when you see a nice sports car with a black paint job where you can see your own reflection as if it were a mirror although candy apple red probably does take the cake lol
I just want to add a few things to what bryon's post and I think he will agree with me...hopefully *crosses fingers*
I think where everyone will be able to make a compromise is in realism I think that is where Matrix will be trying harder to get to than historical or what not...because the point I have been trying hard to make is that this game is not perfectly historical and if it was it would suck...it is a realalistic simulation of a historical war...
if you look at it that way then you see that you can't give exact historical outputs from factories because those where for the situations of the war for them in history in the game the wars and battles will be different with different results...so we need to be able to accomodate for our mistakes by replacing things and to accomodate for our achievments so we can maybe go on the offensive...if you are able to choose what types of ships you want to prioritize and what types of planes you want than it added variety to the game so when you play against human oppenets there is endless strategies they can use so then you never know what is going to happen, and then it becomes mroe realalistic because in WWII they didn't know what exactly the enemy was going to do or produce...
its all about realism... and remeber is a realalistic simulation of a historical war
I just want to add a few things to what bryon's post and I think he will agree with me...hopefully *crosses fingers*
I think where everyone will be able to make a compromise is in realism I think that is where Matrix will be trying harder to get to than historical or what not...because the point I have been trying hard to make is that this game is not perfectly historical and if it was it would suck...it is a realalistic simulation of a historical war...
if you look at it that way then you see that you can't give exact historical outputs from factories because those where for the situations of the war for them in history in the game the wars and battles will be different with different results...so we need to be able to accomodate for our mistakes by replacing things and to accomodate for our achievments so we can maybe go on the offensive...if you are able to choose what types of ships you want to prioritize and what types of planes you want than it added variety to the game so when you play against human oppenets there is endless strategies they can use so then you never know what is going to happen, and then it becomes mroe realalistic because in WWII they didn't know what exactly the enemy was going to do or produce...
its all about realism... and remeber is a realalistic simulation of a historical war
****FUTURE 4 STAR****
"There is certainly a line to be drawn, since Japan was physically capable of designing six-engined bombers to bomb Seattle and, quite frankly, I can't define where the line should be."
I'm not sure they were physically capable. Stay with me for a moment on this: 1. Japan did not have high octane fuels. 2. Generally speaking, high power-weight ratio engines are superior for a/c because at economical mainfold pressure/rpms they are more fuel efficient per unit of weight. 3. They are also desirable because at emergency maniforld pressure/rpms settings they give you much more thrust, which gives you better speed, which is primarily what wins air battles. 4. They operate at higher cylinder pressures because that's how they get more power per unit of weight. 5. They need a high-octane fuel. Otherwise you get premature detonation (knocking), which tends both to impair performance (reduced thrust, poor acceleration), and ruin the engine (increasing maintenance costs, requiring vast service pools of highly trained professionals. reducing operational readiness, and so forth).
Japan's entire a/c economy (production, tactics, service pool) was designed to accommodate the limitations otherwise imposed both by their designs and productive capacities. With low thrust-weight ratio engines such as the one put in the A6M, you could only get decent speed by reducing weight. Hence fragile a/c with long ranges and lousy pilot protection, and relatively low payloads (the Betty was a long range bomber with fairly weak punch for a twin engined attack ship). Because the engine in the A6M series was an uncomplicated and relatively low-maintenance, low-pressure radial, it was relatively reliable.
Putting 6 engines of this kind on a bomber uses up engines that could be put in other ships, reducing production of other types. Will it reach the US? Seattle? Maybe. But it's gonna need more fuel, which means more weight, which means a stronger (ergo, heavier) air frame will be required, which means stronger (ergo, heavier) landing gear which means you need either more thrust (not available) or more fuel (which makes it even heavier), go back to the beginning and start again. Heavier. Heavier. Heavier. Heavier.
The result may have been that extant capabilities did not allow them to design an a/c that could reach the US. If it could, it may not have been capable of carrying more than a pilot and some recon equipment.
I'm not sure they were physically capable. Stay with me for a moment on this: 1. Japan did not have high octane fuels. 2. Generally speaking, high power-weight ratio engines are superior for a/c because at economical mainfold pressure/rpms they are more fuel efficient per unit of weight. 3. They are also desirable because at emergency maniforld pressure/rpms settings they give you much more thrust, which gives you better speed, which is primarily what wins air battles. 4. They operate at higher cylinder pressures because that's how they get more power per unit of weight. 5. They need a high-octane fuel. Otherwise you get premature detonation (knocking), which tends both to impair performance (reduced thrust, poor acceleration), and ruin the engine (increasing maintenance costs, requiring vast service pools of highly trained professionals. reducing operational readiness, and so forth).
Japan's entire a/c economy (production, tactics, service pool) was designed to accommodate the limitations otherwise imposed both by their designs and productive capacities. With low thrust-weight ratio engines such as the one put in the A6M, you could only get decent speed by reducing weight. Hence fragile a/c with long ranges and lousy pilot protection, and relatively low payloads (the Betty was a long range bomber with fairly weak punch for a twin engined attack ship). Because the engine in the A6M series was an uncomplicated and relatively low-maintenance, low-pressure radial, it was relatively reliable.
Putting 6 engines of this kind on a bomber uses up engines that could be put in other ships, reducing production of other types. Will it reach the US? Seattle? Maybe. But it's gonna need more fuel, which means more weight, which means a stronger (ergo, heavier) air frame will be required, which means stronger (ergo, heavier) landing gear which means you need either more thrust (not available) or more fuel (which makes it even heavier), go back to the beginning and start again. Heavier. Heavier. Heavier. Heavier.
The result may have been that extant capabilities did not allow them to design an a/c that could reach the US. If it could, it may not have been capable of carrying more than a pilot and some recon equipment.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?
My comment on the six-engined bomber was probably more rhetorical than anything. My point was that if they stopped making all airplanes and ships and brought in all the farmers from the rice paddies, they probably could have built such a bomber. But is simply wasn't plausible to divert as many resources as would have been required, so the game should not allow for it.
Maniac makes a very good point. Maybe it's because he so kindly supported my position, which is rare around here. I primarily play against the AI, so I don't consider the one on one play very much. When you're playing against a live opponent, it gets unrealistic when Player A times an invasion to occur because he knows that in one week Player B gets two fresh carriers. Optional production changes the timing and mix of forces so that a player is stuck with the historically accurate uncertainty as to what forces his opponent has. You gotta admit that that is a good point.
Maniac makes a very good point. Maybe it's because he so kindly supported my position, which is rare around here.
I primarily play against the AI, so I don't consider the one on one play very much. When you're playing against a live opponent, it gets unrealistic when Player A times an invasion to occur because he knows that in one week Player B gets two fresh carriers. Optional production changes the timing and mix of forces so that a player is stuck with the historically accurate uncertainty as to what forces his opponent has. You gotta admit that that is a good point.It's an okay point. But one could make similar argument for most everything. FE there ought to be an optional setup to correct for ahistioric knowledge of at-start location of enemy forces Pac Fleet might leave PH Dec 6, which, being a cloudy day, goes unnoticed by Japan. Kido Butai arrives and finds... nothing there.
Back to production. One could limit decisions to classes of material. Single-engine airframes. Low tech radials. High tech radials. In-lines. Varied maintenance costs with the high-tech stuff. You could ameliorate the maintenance problem with increased commitment to logistics in Pacific LBA, but it comes at the expense of logistics in, say, China or Burma. You can divert the farmers from rice paddies to making electrical switches, but production generall decreases across the board because of worker deprivation and so forth. Or there is a random event military coups/reorganization that leads immediately to several-month delays in new deployments.
Back to production. One could limit decisions to classes of material. Single-engine airframes. Low tech radials. High tech radials. In-lines. Varied maintenance costs with the high-tech stuff. You could ameliorate the maintenance problem with increased commitment to logistics in Pacific LBA, but it comes at the expense of logistics in, say, China or Burma. You can divert the farmers from rice paddies to making electrical switches, but production generall decreases across the board because of worker deprivation and so forth. Or there is a random event military coups/reorganization that leads immediately to several-month delays in new deployments.
Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.
Didn't we have this conversation already?
Didn't we have this conversation already?