Anemic SBD Production

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Kadrin
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Orange, California

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Kadrin »

ORIGINAL: Misconduct
Thats just how the game goes for now, and I side with the developers on adding the arcade value where "allies are handicapped into historic choices". Problem is if the developers know they made a historical game and it couldn't sell, there's no way they'd make it. AE is a pretty good balance of Arcade and realism that feeds the hunger, honestly I rather have the game sell enough copies maybe in the feature its possible for a AE 3. In the mean time if realism is such an option, there is always mods and thats what makes games on the computer so awesome.

The baseline game should be as historically realistic as possible, there should be options and scenarios that allow Japanese capabilities beyond what they historically had, AND there should be options and scenarios that allow the Allies to do the same (maybe a Pacific first policy scenario). But that all comes AFTER the base game is set.

Game sales aside, I played AE for its historical realism, if it's going to be balanced I might as well play a game that isn't trying to be historically realistic, then I won't be as disappointed every time I see something that isn't historical or realistic.
Image
packerpete
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:10 pm

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by packerpete »

Don't take this the wrong way but I strongly disagree. I would gladly play the japanese side with the historical limitations. However, you could add a few treaks to sweeten it for the Japanese if you start the war in May 1942 till the end and add a small bit of rationality to some of the decisions in the beginning.

These are suggestions for a mod obviously:
1. Don't stop Val and Kate production until you have a viable replacement in volume production.

2. Have at least a barebones pilot training program for the IJNAF and the army.

3. A flexible IJN sub doctrine. You could have a target of opportunity option or an a very ahistorical merchy option.

4. A workable, within limits, ASW strategy. Belatedly, even would be acceptable.

5. Feel free to pile on after this.

The May 1 start date would be a work around for all the supply issues/borking in ASIA.


Since I am getting way off topic, why don't the Dev's allow and the Japanese the option to downgrade aircraft squadrons with the PDU option OFF?
mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: Kadrin
The baseline game should be as historically realistic as possible, there should be options and scenarios that allow Japanese capabilities beyond what they historically had, AND there should be options and scenarios that allow the Allies to do the same (maybe a Pacific first policy scenario). But that all comes AFTER the base game is set.

Game sales aside, I played AE for its historical realism, if it's going to be balanced I might as well play a game that isn't trying to be historically realistic, then I won't be as disappointed every time I see something that isn't historical or realistic.


Kadrin..., you hit the nail right on the head. "Historically Accurate" should ALWAYS be the baseline for a simulation game. Then the designers and the modders can dish up all the "options" their little hearts desire. But if it isn't "right" to begin with, it never will be.
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by eMonticello »

It's highly unlikely that the priorities of US industry would shift to create additional naval aircraft if the US didn't lose carriers early in the war. More than likely, a few of the "excess" Essex carriers would be canceled to keep the Truman Committee happy and the newly available resources would be used to support the European Theater.

On another level, if you look at Douglas' El Segundo plant, you see that it's still job shop manufacturing. I don't think Douglas adopted assembly-line manufacturing until the Tulsa plant was built. I suspect Grumman was in the same boat until GM picked up the FM-1 and TBM-1 contracts in 1942. So... Admiral King orders you to limit your losses until production can catch up, since there will be no additional production contracts to fill out your CAGs.

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
jonreb31
Posts: 716
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:08 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by jonreb31 »

The closest you're going to get to historical and realistic is by watching a documentary.. but even then WiTP comes pretty darn close. The Allies are most likely to win just about every game of WiTP and with good reason considering their enormous production, resources and manpower. Even giving Japan control of it's economy is a modest challenge for the sledgehammer that Uncle Sam whips out later in the war. In fact... I'd like to see a link to an AAR where the Japanese have won the war-- the closest I've come across to Japanese "victory" are bloodier and gorier allied victories.


User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by treespider »

You Guys do realize you can simply use the editor and get rid of the japanese aircraft factories....and give them monthly allotments of aircraft just like the Allies.

But what fun would that be ...you wouldn't have anything to bitch about...
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by crsutton »

Well the lack of carrier fighters and bombers is one issue. More critical to me is the inability to train naval fighter pilots and torpedo pilots for the reserve pool. As said before, you can easily train DB pilots with the kingfishers but with no extra shore based navy fighter or torpedo squadrons, my pools of American carrier pilots are zilch.  Meanwhile my Japanese opponent with plenty of land based Naval zero and kate squadrons, is able to keep his pilot pools very flush. Who came up with this idea? I can see giving Japan lots more planes and some pilots but the way training works now just blows for the Allies. Give us a way to train up Navy fighter pilots and torpedo pilots.
 
Once you get a few CVEs in late 1942 you can use the VR squadrons for training and that helps dramatically (but not for torpedo bombers). You can also swap out the wildcats in those squadrons for buffalos and the SBD3 for your left over SBD2s. This will help with the pools of aircraft.
 
However, get in a major scuffle with KB in mid 42 or use your navy planes to help defend an important base and you are just SOL as you will not have any fighter pilots in the pool for some time to come.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: Kadrin
If this game was 100% realistic, I would love to play Japan, to try and do better than they did knowing I am winning because I was BETTER not because I had a crutch with all the silly bonus' they get, and that my opponent was handicapped into historical choices and production.
I'm a bit tired of hearing this mantra, because it is untrue. This game, by its very nature (giving the player a God's eye view of the entire theater, full operational and political control and pixeltruppen you can sacrifice as part of your plans all you want) cannot be 100% realistic. Ever. This is an impossible demand. And note, that this nature of the game alone will make Allied forces on the frontline several times stronger than they were in RL, unless the Allied doesn't known how to play.
This game also makes logistics vastly easier than they were in RL, in all aspects, from making bases operational to shipyard availability. Which naturally benefits the side that is on the offensive for most of the game, i.e., Allies.
And finally, the notion that Japan somehow gets "silly bonus'" in the game that still severely nerfs most of IJAAF fighter arm and, before the patches, made Japanese surface combatants horribly inferior from Day 1, is, frankly, ridiculous. No, ability to change the production is not a bonus. It can reward Japanese for a good play, or it can punish them for not micromanaging like crazy. And, as current AARs prove beyond a shadow of doubt, the game actually is balanced about the assumption that a Japanese player will use the control of production to counter massive logistical and other advantagers it offers to Allies. It is almost impossible for Allies not to advance much faster than historical otherwise.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
Kadrin
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Orange, California

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Kadrin »

ORIGINAL: FatR
I'm a bit tired of hearing this mantra, because it is untrue. This game, by its very nature (giving the player a God's eye view of the entire theater, full operational and political control and pixeltruppen you can sacrifice as part of your plans all you want) cannot be 100% realistic. Ever. This is an impossible demand.

Of course it can never be 100%, but he was using the example of 100% and so I went with that. The fact that one person controls EVERYTHING on their side makes the game unrealistic. The fact that the Japanese player knows the strength of every unit on map at start and knows exactly where it is, and how fast it can be moved elsewhere, and what is and isn't important to take by a certain time before the Allies can reinforce it, is also completely unrealistic, but that's a combination of hindsight and just plain being able to fire up the game from the Allied side and take a look at what they have and knowing how to use the game mechanics to accomplish those tasks.

But that's neither here nor there, there is only so much that can be done, doing what they can the best they can is all we can ask for.

And note, that this nature of the game alone will make Allied forces on the frontline several times stronger than they were in RL, unless the Allied doesn't known how to play.

How so? Most of the allied units on the map start 25-75% disabled, in bad positions. If you're refering to the Artillery Deathstars, that's just a broken game mechanic that both sides can abuse until it's hopefully fixed.

This game also makes logistics vastly easier than they were in RL, in all aspects, from making bases operational to shipyard availability. Which naturally benefits the side that is on the offensive for most of the game, i.e., Allies.

Logistics are a 2-way street, it's easier for both sides. The only way it benefits the allies more, that I can see, is they have more ships and engineers to speed up repairs/transportation, which they did have vastly more of than the Japanese.
And finally, the notion that Japan somehow gets "silly bonus'" in the game that still severely nerfs most of IJAAF fighter arm and, before the patches, made Japanese surface combatants horribly inferior from Day 1, is, frankly, ridiculous.

If I'm not mistaken, the Japanese do get few bonus', one of which being their invasion bonus which minimizes disruption and fatigue for land units for the first 4 months.

Your game experience may vary depending on what you and your opponent do, but from what I've seen Japanese fighters are not nerfed. Most of them were worse than contemporary Allied fighters and only attained success through numbers and surprise (the destruction Philippine air force comes to mind there). While others were a match for the early fighters but soon fell far behind (A6M2/3 vs F4F-3/4, probably one of the most equal match ups of the war, whilst A6M5 vs F6F was a total mismatch with the F6F being a vastly better fighter).

As for naval combat, what made the Japanese horribly inferior was radar. I'm pretty sure they've toned it down now since it was far to effective in the early months when it wasn't that developed.

No, ability to change the production is not a bonus. It can reward Japanese for a good play, or it can punish them for not micromanaging like crazy. And, as current AARs prove beyond a shadow of doubt, the game actually is balanced about the assumption that a Japanese player will use the control of production to counter massive logistical and other advantagers it offers to Allies. It is almost impossible for Allies not to advance much faster than historical otherwise.

While I don't consider production a bonus as such, it is a severe advantage. The Japanese player gets to focus production on the few models that are most effective. What's the alternative? Instead of every squadron equipped with say Oscars or Tonys (which ever you decided to produce), you would still be using Nates in a number of squadrons simply because you're aren't producing enough of the others. This is an advantage.

Are the Allies advancing too fast in every game? I don't know I don't read AAR's.
Maybe Allied players are using hindsight with a combination of being able to ignore politics and leaving rear areas completely undefended and throwing everything into the offensive?
Maybe the Japanese players aren't as good as they think they are?
Maybe the Allies really do have too much?
Maybe the Allies are choosing only one Axis of attack and pouring all assets into it while the Japanese defending 3 or 4 or 5 potential axis'?

Again I don't read AARs I don't know, but if the game is designed around slowing this advance through control of production then what really needs to be changed here?
Image
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well the lack of carrier fighters and bombers is one issue. More critical to me is the inability to train naval fighter pilots and torpedo pilots for the reserve pool. As said before, you can easily train DB pilots with the kingfishers but with no extra shore based navy fighter or torpedo squadrons, my pools of American carrier pilots are zilch.  Meanwhile my Japanese opponent with plenty of land based Naval zero and kate squadrons, is able to keep his pilot pools very flush. Who came up with this idea? I can see giving Japan lots more planes and some pilots but the way training works now just blows for the Allies. Give us a way to train up Navy fighter pilots and torpedo pilots.

Once you get a few CVEs in late 1942 you can use the VR squadrons for training and that helps dramatically (but not for torpedo bombers). You can also swap out the wildcats in those squadrons for buffalos and the SBD3 for your left over SBD2s. This will help with the pools of aircraft.

However, get in a major scuffle with KB in mid 42 or use your navy planes to help defend an important base and you are just SOL as you will not have any fighter pilots in the pool for some time to come.



Whine bitch complain...did you ever think to set your Kingfisher Squadrons to traing with Sweep?
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Smeulders »

And if I may add to that, Catalinas have torpedoes.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
User avatar
Grit
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:34 pm

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Grit »

There always seems to be a theme that emerges in this type of thread.

If the Allied players have concerns and complain it's because they don't know how to play the game.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: Grit

There always seems to be a theme that emerges in this type of thread.

If the Allied players have concerns and complain it's because they don't know how to play the game.


There is always the editor... you can set Japanese pilot replacements to 2....and eliminate their factories giving then monthly pool allocations just like the Allied player.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:00 am
Location: West Yellowstone, Montana

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Nomad »

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well the lack of carrier fighters and bombers is one issue. More critical to me is the inability to train naval fighter pilots and torpedo pilots for the reserve pool. As said before, you can easily train DB pilots with the kingfishers but with no extra shore based navy fighter or torpedo squadrons, my pools of American carrier pilots are zilch.  Meanwhile my Japanese opponent with plenty of land based Naval zero and kate squadrons, is able to keep his pilot pools very flush. Who came up with this idea? I can see giving Japan lots more planes and some pilots but the way training works now just blows for the Allies. Give us a way to train up Navy fighter pilots and torpedo pilots.

Once you get a few CVEs in late 1942 you can use the VR squadrons for training and that helps dramatically (but not for torpedo bombers). You can also swap out the wildcats in those squadrons for buffalos and the SBD3 for your left over SBD2s. This will help with the pools of aircraft.

However, get in a major scuffle with KB in mid 42 or use your navy planes to help defend an important base and you are just SOL as you will not have any fighter pilots in the pool for some time to come.



Whine bitch complain...did you ever think to set your Kingfisher Squadrons to traing with Sweep?

Don't they take a skill and/or experience hit when they change from float plane to fighter?

I just take all the USN air units off of one CV and put Marines on board. That gives me USN trainers and USMC carrier trained air groups( takes a month or two).
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: Kadrin

How so? Most of the allied units on the map start 25-75% disabled, in bad positions. If you're refering to the Artillery Deathstars, that's just a broken game mechanic that both sides can abuse until it's hopefully fixed.
Artillery is nerfed into being only good for fire intelligence shells under the last patch. Here I mostly referred to the fact that with minimally adequate management Allies very soon easily will be able to provide several times of the historical troop concentration in the active theaters, and launch more planes in a single raid than they, again, historically had in the entire theater at the time. I don't remember Allies being able to commit 150 planes (including 50 Lightnings and 50 Fortresses) to a single airbase attack in SWPac on August 3, 1942, yet that's what I just did. As about Allied ground forces, they are significantly more powerful than in RL at the beginning of the game, as evidenced by the fact that Japanese simply cannot take what they took historically using the same forces against a minimally competent opponent.
ORIGINAL: Kadrin
Logistics are a 2-way street, it's easier for both sides. The only way it benefits the allies more, that I can see, is they have more ships and engineers to speed up repairs/transportation, which they did have vastly more of than the Japanese.
No, it is not. Because Allies are supposed to spend as much as four times more turns on the offensive, easier logistics, resulting in much faster operational tempo and ability to pull stunts, that would have been crazy in RL, rewards them disproportionally.
ORIGINAL: Kadrin
If I'm not mistaken, the Japanese do get few bonus', one of which being their invasion bonus which minimizes disruption and fatigue for land units for the first 4 months.
This is a mechanics that serves to compensate for the fact that fighting ability of early-game Allied troops is boosted, compared to RL (I dare you to try taking Palembang by paradrop, even against the initial garrizon), and both of them are probably in the game to allow for a greater degree of deviation from history in operation planning, while still preserving the balance of power, to an extent.
ORIGINAL: Kadrin
Your game experience may vary depending on what you and your opponent do, but from what I've seen Japanese fighters are not nerfed. Most of them were worse than contemporary Allied fighters and only attained success through numbers and surprise
No, they weren't. Ki-43 was equal or better and Zero was generally better than Allied fighters that opposed them in 1942. It is impossible to argue that IJAAF fighters are perform as they did historically, because it is obvious that they don't. Take, for example, Ki-27. Read, say, this
http://www.warbirdforum.com/lucky.htm
and try telling me with a straight face that exchange ratios like mentioned there are at all possible against AVG in the game. Even I-15s generally fight Ki-27s to a draw in air combat, despite being operated by incredibly poor pilots, while in RL Ki-27 dominated I-15 completely. Also, just try shooting down even Chinese bombers with them, and you'll start to wonder, why they have such problems taking down SB-3s, if they hadn't at Nomonhan.

Same argument can be made for Ki-43s and so on, just with Ki-27 the problem is most salient and easiest to identify.

And I can don't really mind stuff like this, by the way, as Allied equipment has its own gameplay quirks. Just don't tell me, that Allies are shafted exlusively, because that's pretty clearly not true.
ORIGINAL: Kadrin
As for naval combat, what made the Japanese horribly inferior was radar. I'm pretty sure they've toned it down now since it was far to effective in the early months when it wasn't that developed.
Except, where is that horrible inferiority you're talking about? If you're talking about the increse in Allied night fighting successes in Solomons, keep in mind, that Allies had a massive tactical advantage by the very nature of their missions (intercepting fast troop convoys in the area where Allies had air superiority by daylight) in nearly all battles there, and still their record, although improved, wasn't exactly a string of victories. (As about radar, Japanese had it in widespread use by the middle of 1943.) The only daylight artillery battle of 1943 was won by Japanese. And in 1944 Japanese lost one surface battle where they weren't doomed from the beginning by not having sufficient forces - and there they were costantly plastered from the air.
ORIGINAL: Kadrin
Are the Allies advancing too fast in every game?
We don't know, because due to very nature of PBEM play most games are still in 1942, so we can just tell that it is very possible to rout Japan in 1942, because this happened in at least three AARs and is going to happen in the fourth. On the opposite side, there was one example of Japanese point victory in the beginning of 1943. Once more games go through 1943, we'll be able to say for sure.




The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: FatR

I'm a bit tired of hearing this mantra, because it is untrue. This game, by its very nature (giving the player a God's eye view of the entire theater, full operational and political control and pixeltruppen you can sacrifice as part of your plans all you want) cannot be 100% realistic. Ever. This is an impossible demand. And note, that this nature of the game alone will make Allied forces on the frontline several times stronger than they were in RL, unless the Allied doesn't known how to play.

And here people just thought Joe and I suck because we are experiencing 1944 as Japan in Oct of 42. [:'(]
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus



And here people just thought Joe and I suck because we are experiencing 1944 as Japan in Oct of 42. [:'(]


Your not the only sucky Japanese players...in my game with Przemek I just took Batavia on April 15, 42 with three divisions, an IMB and two tank regiments....after a 2-3 week siege...and Singapore still stands even though I used an extra division in its siege...hopefully the Kwantung Army will turn the tide at Singapore...

In the meantime Burma apparently will remain Allied as Przemek brought in the kitchen sink...maybe I'll just try an end run for Karachi.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Nikademus »

we're investing in atomic bombs delivered by nuclear powered rockets.

Those silly Aussies will never know what him em....
Big B
Posts: 4633
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Cali
Contact:

RE: Anemic SBD Production

Post by Big B »

To get to the point of it all - all Kadrin is saying is simply that 'Historical' should always be the baseline, and then create what-if scenario options...as my friend Mike Scholl points out below.

Feinder once summed it up nicely "all I want is to have the forces that historically were available, and unit capabilities that can be expected to perform as they historically did under like circumstances".

That is all one can ask for - THEN let the rest follow as interesting possibilities (and much power to it for other possibilities).

As for "stop the bitching and use the editor" - well, it's great that at least we have an editor...true?

Bye...
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Kadrin
The baseline game should be as historically realistic as possible, there should be options and scenarios that allow Japanese capabilities beyond what they historically had, AND there should be options and scenarios that allow the Allies to do the same (maybe a Pacific first policy scenario). But that all comes AFTER the base game is set.

Game sales aside, I played AE for its historical realism, if it's going to be balanced I might as well play a game that isn't trying to be historically realistic, then I won't be as disappointed every time I see something that isn't historical or realistic.


Kadrin..., you hit the nail right on the head. "Historically Accurate" should ALWAYS be the baseline for a simulation game. Then the designers and the modders can dish up all the "options" their little hearts desire. But if it isn't "right" to begin with, it never will be.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”