Admiral's Edition General Thread

[Dili]

Which actually leads me back to my original question: In AE, if I don't 'muck around' with Japanese industry by expanding/closing/monitoring, and just ship in as much oil & resources as possible into Tokyo/Osaka/any Home Island port... will it 'work'? Do I only need to 'play' the Japanese production system if I want to change it from the historical setup and progression? (Can I be an Admiral in the Admiral's Edition, please, and not the Production Minister?

I expect not unless you want all places and units to start expanding and having the last toys, then you can expect ruin. Of course if you want to be on edge you will have to take more care and run the numbers, but with a prudential management i could run Japan without ever looking to a spreadsheet.

[Sarganto]

I have a question about Surface Commbat in AE.
Is there any change to how fleets engage each other? I mean, do they still have to end up in the same hex to fight?
I always found it highly annoying, that my Surface Combat Fleets aren't able to simply follow an enemy fleet and force it to fight. I always had to guess the right hex, the enemy fleet is going to.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Sarganto

I have a question about Surface Commbat in AE.
Is there any change to how fleets engage each other? I mean, do they still have to end up in the same hex to fight?
I always found it highly annoying, that my Surface Combat Fleets aren't able to simply follow an enemy fleet and force it to fight. I always had to guess the right hex, the enemy fleet is going to.

I get where you are coming from. If you turn a submarine TF to computer control, it will follow and attempt to intercept slow moving TF's. So, you would like to see something like that in AE.

I would counter with most the major surface engagements in the PTO were when one side or the other was fixed in position covering an invasion or interceptions of resupply efforts/evacuations: Balikapaypan, Java Sea, Savo Island, Cape Esperance, Vila Standmore, Vella LaVella, etc. The few that weren't were still oriented around a fixed point - First Guadalcanal comes to mind. Mid ocean intercepts were much more common in the Atlantic.

The naval movement system does create some issues like this. Players are forced to guess where the opposing TF's will end up because you only get to alter orders once a day. In RL, float planes and LBA would be able to feed information to the TF commander throughout the day allowing course adjustments to intercept. I think this is just the nature of the beast.

[Dili]

It changed, they can intercept now. Do a search for details.

[AW1Steve]

Sorry, I should have posted in the AE map thread. Post deleted.

[Sarganto]

ORIGINAL: Dili

It changed, they can intercept now. Do a search for details.

Awesome, that's what I wanted to hear [:)]

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Um. I note in your advice in the referred thread that you advocate using a **separate** spreadsheet program to track your industry, resources and such. Gah! [X(] Exceedingly off-putting - especially coming from someone in your position. I can't help thinking there ought to be an 'in-game' solution.

Also that you don't use the autoconvoy system... well as the Allies I could understand that in Stock, but with their interior lines the routing of Japanese convoys ought not to be a problem? [&:]

Which actually leads me back to my original question: In AE, if I don't 'muck around' with Japanese industry by expanding/closing/monitoring, and just ship in as much oil & resources as possible into Tokyo/Osaka/any Home Island port... will it 'work'? Do I only need to 'play' the Japanese production system if I want to change it from the historical setup and progression? (Can I be an Admiral in the Admiral's Edition, please, and not the Production Minister? [;)] )

Steve.

You drew the wrong conclusion from that thread. That was a case where the guy messed around with almost everything and completely annhilated his economy. Joe's suggestion was to turn a lot of things off and to use the spreadsheet to monitor the return to health.

To me, the beauty of the Japanese Production system is that it's a mini-economy, and very hard to "game". I really LIKE the idea that you, as politician-in-charge, can go in with your price controls and command decisions and just break the whole thing almost irretrievably. As others have said, be cautious and do nothing more than tweak, and even then tweak only a few things at a time. Because even if you do nothing, production will slip out of kilter and you'll face shortages of one thing and too much of another. Which is deliciously similar to how the world really works.

[steveh11Matrix]

No I drew the correct conclusion: You can't play the game as the Japanese and ignore the economy. I have to actively run it.

I don't want to run it. I want the AI to run it. All I want to have to do is hand it the raw material. That's what the Admirals and Generals were supposed to be doing, and it was the job of the politicians and businessmen to do the rest. If I wanted to learn to run a "mini-economy", I'd be doing at least an MBA, not playing a game. If I have to handle stuff on spreadsheets outside the game itself, that's a long, long step too far.

The AI has to be able to handle the economy for it to run things when the player is Allies vs Computer Japan. Why not allow a continuation of it with the player running the Japanese military?

Never mind, it's not going to happen, at least not in this edition. I can stick to playing Allies.

Chuckle. I can hear the screams from here, about how "it's the only way to really play the game" and so on. Probably from the same people who say the only way to play the game is PBEM, which is another thing I'm completely un-interested in. [;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

No I drew the correct conclusion: You can't play the game as the Japanese and ignore the economy. I have to actively run it.

I don't want to run it. I want the AI to run it. All I want to have to do is hand it the raw material. That's what the Admirals and Generals were supposed to be doing, and it was the job of the politicians and businessmen to do the rest. If I wanted to learn to run a "mini-economy", I'd be doing at least an MBA, not playing a game. If I have to handle stuff on spreadsheets outside the game itself, that's a long, long step too far.

The AI has to be able to handle the economy for it to run things when the player is Allies vs Computer Japan. Why not allow a continuation of it with the player running the Japanese military?

Never mind, it's not going to happen, at least not in this edition. I can stick to playing Allies.

Chuckle. I can hear the screams from here, about how "it's the only way to really play the game" and so on. Probably from the same people who say the only way to play the game is PBEM, which is another thing I'm completely un-interested in. [;)]

I agree--the default settings for the Japanese economy should provide vanilla-flavoured management given adequate imports of resources and oil. The fact that the default settings cause it to crash and burn in about a game year is a serious deficiency.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

No I drew the correct conclusion: You can't play the game as the Japanese and ignore the economy. I have to actively run it.

I don't want to run it. I want the AI to run it. All I want to have to do is hand it the raw material. That's what the Admirals and Generals were supposed to be doing, and it was the job of the politicians and businessmen to do the rest. If I wanted to learn to run a "mini-economy", I'd be doing at least an MBA, not playing a game. If I have to handle stuff on spreadsheets outside the game itself, that's a long, long step too far.

The AI has to be able to handle the economy for it to run things when the player is Allies vs Computer Japan. Why not allow a continuation of it with the player running the Japanese military?

Never mind, it's not going to happen, at least not in this edition. I can stick to playing Allies.

Chuckle. I can hear the screams from here, about how "it's the only way to really play the game" and so on. Probably from the same people who say the only way to play the game is PBEM, which is another thing I'm completely un-interested in. [;)]

I think the Japanese Economic model is included in WITP for two very important reasons:

1. Historically the Japanese did a very poor job managing their economy that it begs the question: "What would happen if just a few better decisions were made in this area?" Just somthing as simple as not tieing up so many resources in building superbattleships and their conversions? WHat if the Japanese applied more resources to building a better ASW fleet. If WITP is meant to be more than than just a replay of the RL events, these are questions worth asking

2. More importantly, the war against Japan was as much economic as it was military campaign. So much much affected Japans ability to continue to fight the war as their economic resources dwindled. Without an economy to attck, the Allied player would have no way to pursue this course of the war.

SO its a very necessary beast. I do agree that it should be easier to manage on default settings

[steveh11Matrix]

If it takes such careful management, is the AI up to it?

If it is up to it, why not have "AI control of factories" (or some similar wording) as a startup switch, like "Auto-Subs" & so on?


...and if it isn't, what's the point in having such a detailed/complicated model in the first place? Does the AI 'cheat'? Run a simplified model? Again, should be an option for the player, if it does.

I'm all in favour of the Japanese player having to get resources/oil from the periphery to the home islands, it's a very central part of the war and needs to be simulated. But forcing the player to actively run the economy in the way it's being presented here is too great a requirement.

It's moot for the initial release anyway, and I'm sure the coders will tell me that it's not something doable with the current game engine, so I'm stuck with it for future patches as well. But I'd like the marker put down for future consideration anyway, please.

Steve.

[Grotius]

The fact that the default settings cause it to crash and burn in about a game year is a serious deficiency.

They do? In stock, at least, the most important thing is to get the oil and resources to your industrial areas. I've tweaked aircraft production a bit, increased vehicle/arms production a hair, but I haven't really done much other than that. I've just let things run themselves, and in August 1942, I'm still humming along nicely. Maybe it will all come crashing down on me soon, but really everything just seems to depend on my getting oil/resources home. Maybe it's more difficult in RHS or CHS, but in stock running the economy doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Am I missing something?

[Barb]

What will be limit to number of units divided into /A/B/C ?
SAIEW?

[Yamato hugger]

After they are formed into their parent, yes.

[Barb]

YH: that was not I was asking about. In WITP there was limited number of units that could be divided for both sides at a time.

[Barb]

No reply about how many units could be divided (/A/B/C) at the same time? In WITP it was 20 or so for both sides total.

[jwilkerson]

In stock there are 500 slots for unit breakdowns so if only units with three breakdown components breakdown, then you would have 166 breakdowns allowed.

In AE we have 2000 slots for this purpose, so up to 666 units may breakdown in AE.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

The fact that the default settings cause it to crash and burn in about a game year is a serious deficiency.

They do? In stock, at least, the most important thing is to get the oil and resources to your industrial areas. I've tweaked aircraft production a bit, increased vehicle/arms production a hair, but I haven't really done much other than that. I've just let things run themselves, and in August 1942, I'm still humming along nicely. Maybe it will all come crashing down on me soon, but really everything just seems to depend on my getting oil/resources home. Maybe it's more difficult in RHS or CHS, but in stock running the economy doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Am I missing something?

If you fail to do your homework in logistical terms - some locations will run into bottlenecks re supply production in a few months, in RHS. On the other hand - the economy will run AI vs AI until the game crashes and burns in late 1944 - when the kamakaze code cuts in. I estimate ignoring the economy ultimately wastes 5/6 of its potential. But this isn't obvious right away - so it is like not backing up - you can get into deep trouble if you ignore it. There are many dimensions of this trouble: in RHS there are garrison requirements in more places than usual - ignore them and AI will start destroying resource centers, etc.; there are places that need oil - when the stocks run out - you had better have sent more; there are places that need resources - same same; there are things you better turn off - trying to build everything is not going to leave enough HI points for what you prefer. Then there are the things you can do to cause a build up of what you want - and if you don't do them - they won't happen. AI is not a good manager - don't let your situation depend on it.

[GaryChildress]

My apologies if this one has been asked already. Nothing came up in the search engine under this thread.

In WITP there is the ability to expand all bases on a list. So for instance I can go to the menu for "Show all Bases" and then click expand and everything will expand. The only drawback is that literally EVERYTHING will expand, airfields, ports and fortifications. If I only want to expand fortifications but not airfields I need to go into each base and individually set one or the other. Will there be a way in AE to only expand fortifications in one click for every base on a list while not doing the same for ports or airfields?

Granted its late in development so if it aint in there at this point it aint gonna make it and it obviously isn't a make or break the game sort of thing. Just curious, though.

Many thanks. [:)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Sorry, Gary, but no.