Unable to fight--NO Aircraft......

[JohnDillworth]

Lotsa books and lotsa conjecture on that. It's pretty clear that Gary went with the: "Nope, barring imminent loss of either India, OZ or NZ, nothing will be diverted". Hence, you have the additional forces that come into the game. Manpower would have been local, but all of the equipment that they magically arrive with represents diversion from Europe.

Here is a thought. When extra troops and pools are triggered when a Allied counties "line of death" is breached how about a tweak that would inject a large number of American aircraft into the pools? This is probably realistic in that the American's are the only Allied force that had the production capacity to do this. And chances are that if India, or Oz or NZ were really threatened aircraft and production can, and would have been diverted.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Shark7

In my experience, R&D to get the more advanced airframes early for Japan is far more important than churning out hundreds of A6M2s and Ki-43-Ic's.

This is something I sometimes wonder about also. Has the advancing of airframes via enhanced R&D been made to easy for the Japanese in this game?

Andrew

I'm not sure why advancing aircraft types was even added to the game. Or, why the Japanese player can advance or halt ship production.

Sure, I understand that in real life, Japan could have stopped production on Shinano and diverted the resources to other ships. But, if you allow one player to do it, allow the other. Same for planes. If one side can advance certain airframes, then the other side should be able to as well. I know the Allied player doesn't do production, but I'm sure some fair way could be figured out to allow the Allied player the benefits of research if he pays the cost for it. (I assume there's a significant cost to advancing an airframe by many months for the Japanese player.)

In my opinion, either make the game historical for both, or make it a-historical for both sides.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Shark7

In my experience, R&D to get the more advanced airframes early for Japan is far more important than churning out hundreds of A6M2s and Ki-43-Ic's.

This is something I sometimes wonder about also. Has the advancing of airframes via enhanced R&D been made to easy for the Japanese in this game?

Andrew

Yep, IMHO..Carriers too. But what are you going to do?

Quite frankly, I could live with it if somebody would just fix my subs and naval flak. My point is that the decision to give all these aircraft to my opponent is a-historical but not a fantasy. It is a game play balance that I am more than willing to conceed. However, the fact that my subs won't target merchant ships over escorts combined with the imbecilic ease with which is late war Es can sink my subs-now "that" is a fantasy.

OMG, I am becoming Castor Troy....Somebody please make me stop.[:D]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Shark7

In my experience, R&D to get the more advanced airframes early for Japan is far more important than churning out hundreds of A6M2s and Ki-43-Ic's.

This is something I sometimes wonder about also. Has the advancing of airframes via enhanced R&D been made to easy for the Japanese in this game?

Andrew

You are kidding right?

Getting Japan to accelerate properly is a very tough road due to the limatations involved. IMHO it is not the acceleration that is the issue, it is the fact that all Japanese AC become available on the historical dates REGARDLESS of having a single R&D factory researching them. I am sure that this was done so that with PDU off, squadrons would still be able to be upgraded. Otherwise the Japanese player might be stuck using Nates in '45 [X(]

One way to balance this would be to de-accelerate planes that were NOT being researched so that they may never show up. This may not matter too much with PDU on but it sure would make a difference with PDU off.

I am in early'43 and my AC pools are pathic as Japan. Of course I have lost a total of 8,700 planes compared to 5,800 for the Allies so that may have something to do with it [:@]

However, I have saved most of my pilots and put most of the good ones in reserve. I have been able to do this is that almost every squadron from the beginning of the game has had some percent of its squadron on training missions. When they get to level 70 or higher I put them in reserve to wait for better planes. My IJN pilots come out of training at aroung low 40's while my IJA pilots are in the high 30's. I prob have over 300 pilots in Training command or reserve.

As far as accleration goes, I have gotten about 2 months of acceleration so far. However, I can definetly can see how I could have done better, so maybe I could have gotten 4 months instead of 2.

I should also point out that my total production is balanced so I have not excessively build up my industry to the point where I will run out of fuel/resources anytime soon. So that may be why I do not have an overabundance of AC that some here think I should.

[mc3744]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Shark7

In my experience, R&D to get the more advanced airframes early for Japan is far more important than churning out hundreds of A6M2s and Ki-43-Ic's.

This is something I sometimes wonder about also. Has the advancing of airframes via enhanced R&D been made to easy for the Japanese in this game?

Andrew

Yep, IMHO..Carriers too. But what are you going to do?

Quite frankly, I could live with it if somebody would just fix my subs and naval flak. My point is that the decision to give all these aircraft to my opponent is a-historical but not a fantasy. It is a game play balance that I am more than willing to conceed. However, the fact that my subs won't target merchant ships over escorts combined with the imbecilic ease with which is late war Es can sink my subs-now "that" is a fantasy.

OMG, I am becoming Castor Troy....Somebody please make me stop.[:D]

I totally agree.
I completely understand the issue on the political what ifs.

There are two different matters in play: 1) where to send the available historical production? (Pacific vs. Europe) 2) How to manage the existing production (which is what Japan is allowed to do)? In this last instance the Allies get the short stick.
1) relates to the political what ifs, 2) relates to a better/different management of manufacturing and R&D. Japan can improve it, the US cannot, despite the potential they had to do so on a much greater scale then Japan.
Point 1) remains open in case of catastrophes (India, West coast, ...), point 2) is only available to Japan. I understand gameplay balance, but as we alter it in some scenarios for Japan, couldn't a scenario be available where the options are balanced? Maybe no JFB would agree to play it, maybe not.

I have the feeling that we are confusing the two points.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
It isn't that the capacity isn't there, its that the political decision had been made to send to Europe. To give the allies more in 1942 than they have in game, you have to "bend" that premise. It's a pretty fundamental one.

So were more B-17's available and being built? Heck yes! hundreds. Fighters? Lots! All going to England. If Coral Sea/Midway doesn't happen and the IJ juggernaut continues (as in many games), would the decision to support England/Soviet first change? That's the point you have to get past to give any more into the Pacific.

Lotsa books and lotsa conjecture on that. It's pretty clear that Gary went with the: "Nope, barring imminent loss of either India, OZ or NZ, nothing will be diverted". Hence, you have the additional forces that come into the game. Manpower would have been local, but all of the equipment that they magically arrive with represents diversion from Europe.

I tend to support that. Everything I have read is that Roosevelt was prepared for MUCH worse than what happened in the Pacific. Coral Sea/Midway made his decision far easier to live with than he expected. MacArthur was his biggest problem, but he was safely ensconced 10,000 miles away. He sounded a lot better from that distance. [;)]

Sound points, and for Scenario 1 in historical fashion (without PDU etc) Gary's concept is solid. Yet when you enable the IJ to bump up production and training, and allow for higher operational tempo, there should also be a compensation for the Allied side. Just imagine that the IJN had won Midway decisively and taken Port Moresby, leading to attrition air war over NE Oz. Maybe even gone a step further and taken Nomuea, and threatened Hawai'i or NZ (as now possible in game).

Quite surely, if there had been a plane shortage (at least in AAF types) in such a situation, the "Germany 1st" decision would not have been reversed, but given the numbers of AAF planes send to Europe, perhaps a small percentage (say 10% for that matter) of the new airframes would have been diverted to PAC for a couple of months until the situation were stabilized. 10% less to Europe for 4 months wouldn't have made a huge difference there, but 10% of the production in actual numbers compared to the numbers we presently get would mean a significant boost of the pools.
Take for example the B-17G production alone between 4/43 and 7/45: >8600 units. That is basically an average of 400 monthly, and getting 10% of that number over 4 months would boost the pools by 160 4EB's. The same probably holds true for B-24, P-51, P-38 and the P-47. That makes a total of some 320 4EB and a good 500 additional 1st line fighters. Now perhaps add a skewed Gaussian for the peaking production profile, which would mean that in spring 43 the 10% perhaps would be only 100/150 units, which would still be a good number when faced with empty pools. Finally, perhaps the situation would grow more dire (like threatening of OZ, or India, or taking Hawai'i as seen in some AAR), and it could be more like 20% for 6 months, or so. Anyway, still that number would be digestible for Europe, but would make a difference for the Allies.

http://yellowairplane.com/Book_Reviews/ ... sonWW2.JPG
(note the graphic represents monthly B-24 and B-17 production of just a single plant -- unfortunately can't find anything more detailed so quickly)

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

players do tend to maintain an operational pace far higher than in real life. That and the urge to to go on the counteroffensive as early as possible as player two tends to exaserbate issues of aircraft shortages. I recall in Joe and mine's game with the terrible two from Oz that the one biggest constraint they had which made them cautious was low aircraft pools.....not that they didn't do a bang up job of maximizing what they had. We never benefited from it as player one, though i suppose we could have been more aggressive.

Bingo!

Most players will try to fly strike missions daily, when in the war, it might be a weekly occurrence at best.

This can be especially seen when you compare how long it took USAAF crews to hit the magic 25 missions (the point at which they could rotate back stateside) during the actual war as compared to how soon they can do it in game (less than a month).

Now here are my suggestions to Allied Players concerning your plane pools.

The answer is to rotate bomber and fighter groups so you don't have the same group attacking more than 3 days in a row, this will cut fatigue and ops losses. Also, as allies is it very important not to use newer fighter types as trainer squadrons, use the oldest, most obsolete airframes you have for that duty...take the stress off of your front line fighter pools.

Here is a good tactic suggestion for you. Make sure your forward base is not out of ferry range of other bases, then you can move in a fighter group for a week, and when it gets fatigued, move it out and a new one in. IE rotate them, and move the resting group out of line of fire from airfield attacks.

The Japanese player has to do this to preserve his pilots, as ops losses and fatigue are our bane. Allied players don't have such small pools of good pilots, but your early plane production forces the same preservation tactics.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
It isn't that the capacity isn't there, its that the political decision had been made to send to Europe. To give the allies more in 1942 than they have in game, you have to "bend" that premise. It's a pretty fundamental one.

So were more B-17's available and being built? Heck yes! hundreds. Fighters? Lots! All going to England. If Coral Sea/Midway doesn't happen and the IJ juggernaut continues (as in many games), would the decision to support England/Soviet first change? That's the point you have to get past to give any more into the Pacific.

Lotsa books and lotsa conjecture on that. It's pretty clear that Gary went with the: "Nope, barring imminent loss of either India, OZ or NZ, nothing will be diverted". Hence, you have the additional forces that come into the game. Manpower would have been local, but all of the equipment that they magically arrive with represents diversion from Europe.

I tend to support that. Everything I have read is that Roosevelt was prepared for MUCH worse than what happened in the Pacific. Coral Sea/Midway made his decision far easier to live with than he expected. MacArthur was his biggest problem, but he was safely ensconced 10,000 miles away. He sounded a lot better from that distance. [;)]

Sound points, and for Scenario 1 in historical fashion (without PDU etc) Gary's concept is solid. Yet when you enable the IJ to bump up production and training, and allow for higher operational tempo, there should also be a compensation for the Allied side. Just imagine that the IJN had won Midway decisively and taken Port Moresby, leading to attrition air war over NE Oz. Maybe even gone a step further and taken Nomuea, and threatened Hawai'i or NZ (as now possible in game).

Quite surely, if there had been a plane shortage (at least in AAF types) in such a situation, the "Germany 1st" decision would not have been reversed, but given the numbers of AAF planes send to Europe, perhaps a small percentage (say 10% for that matter) of the new airframes would have been diverted to PAC for a couple of months until the situation were stabilized. 10% less to Europe for 4 months wouldn't have made a huge difference there, but 10% of the production in actual numbers compared to the numbers we presently get would mean a significant boost of the pools.
Take for example the B-17G production alone between 4/43 and 7/45: >8600 units. That is basically an average of 400 monthly, and getting 10% of that number over 4 months would boost the pools by 160 4EB's. The same probably holds true for B-24, P-51, P-38 and the P-47. That makes a total of some 320 4EB and a good 500 additional 1st line fighters. Now perhaps add a skewed Gaussian for the peaking production profile, which would mean that in spring 43 the 10% perhaps would be only 100/150 units, which would still be a good number when faced with empty pools. Finally, perhaps the situation would grow more dire (like threatening of OZ, or India, or taking Hawai'i as seen in some AAR), and it could be more like 20% for 6 months, or so. Anyway, still that number would be digestible for Europe, but would make a difference for the Allies.

http://yellowairplane.com/Book_Reviews/ ... sonWW2.JPG
(note the graphic represents monthly B-24 and B-17 production of just a single plant -- unfortunately can't find anything more detailed so quickly)

Janh,

nothing wrong with your interpretation, it is well supported, and not surprisingly almost identical to what I am sure MacArthur stated every memo that he sent to Marshall and Roosevelt. Mine is different. I just think that Roosevelt was prepared for much worse than the threat of NZ, OZ, or Hawaii. It would have taken actual invasion to shift support.

Remember, every time a single gun or plane was diverted from Europe, poor Harriman was on a plane for Moscow. The Africa invasion first was a VERY tough sell to Stalin who wanted a Normandy in '43. Stalin was a key component for the Allies. If not for the millions lost on the Eastern Front, the war would have gone on for several more years. Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes: what are you willing to give up to prevent 2 - 3 years of war? And the millions of US casualties that would have resulted? You know that IJ has no capability to hold anything they take, unlike Germany.

My opinion (as stated above) is that it would have taken very, very much. And what would have been diverted is largely already in the game. Sure, I might have thrown in a few bolt air groups (not sure why Gary did not include those in addition to the divisions), but the reality is the divisions are worth far more than a few air groups.

Again, just my opinion and I respect yours. Suffice to say the game is the game and the nice thing is that anyone can mod it to whatever they want.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Janh,

nothing wrong with your interpretation, it is well supported, and not surprisingly almost identical to what I am sure MacArthur stated every memo that he sent to Marshall and Roosevelt. Mine is different. I just think that Roosevelt was prepared for much worse than the threat of NZ, OZ, or Hawaii. It would have taken actual invasion to shift support.

Remember, every time a single gun or plane was diverted from Europe, poor Harriman was on a plane for Moscow. The Africa invasion first was a VERY tough sell to Stalin who wanted a Normandy in '43. Stalin was a key component for the Allies. If not for the millions lost on the Eastern Front, the war would have gone on for several more years. Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes: what are you willing to give up to prevent 2 - 3 years of war? And the millions of US casualties that would have resulted? You know that IJ has no capability to hold anything they take, unlike Germany.

My opinion (as stated above) is that it would have taken very, very much. And what would have been diverted is largely already in the game. Sure, I might have thrown in a few bolt air groups (not sure why Gary did not include those in addition to the divisions), but the reality is the divisions are worth far more than a few air groups.

Again, just my opinion and I respect yours. Suffice to say the game is the game and the nice thing is that anyone can mod it to whatever they want.

Agreed, a few airframes extra are worth less than the additional LCU's, for sure. Your point is well taken, and I guess you are right in that little Mac probably argued along the same lines. How much "disaster" it would have really taken for any compromise is pure speculation. For any games with fixed Japanese R&D and production I would not suggest any changes, but especially for Scen 2 I would be happy to see the Allied side to be a little more dynamic in that regard. Perhaps an idea for WitP2...

[crsutton]

But the evidence is already there. With the naval disasters at the Canal and the threat of losing that campaign, the US "did" divert warships and resources to the Pacific. That alone demonstrates that Europe first was a very loose and flexible policy. War powers asides, domestic politics played a key factor in decision making and the threat of losing 15,000 more US soldiers in the Pacific certainly had an effect and Europe first was set aside for that crisis. It is all speculation but I can only imagine the political pressure within the Commonwealth if Japanese troops were moving into Australia.

Europe first is a myth of sorts. Yes, Europe got the bulk of men and equipment but MacArthur and King were able to get a lot more stuff diverted to the Pacific than originally planned-ironically enough more due to the sucesses of the campaign than to the failures.

Anyways as the Allied player, I am looking over my unit and air group withdrawals coming due around the time of the Normandy invasion and there are quite a few. Replacements are just one aspect of it all. It is pretty clear that priorites in Europe are a serious factor for the Allies in the game, as it should be. However, I am not convinced that the Allies would not have reacted in a big way to greater Japanese sucesses. Nor were the game designers who have designed trip wire reinforcements into certain situations. The problem is that the trips are easily gamed by a smart Japanese player.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
Janh,

nothing wrong with your interpretation, it is well supported, and not surprisingly almost identical to what I am sure MacArthur stated every memo that he sent to Marshall and Roosevelt. Mine is different. I just think that Roosevelt was prepared for much worse than the threat of NZ, OZ, or Hawaii. It would have taken actual invasion to shift support.

Remember, every time a single gun or plane was diverted from Europe, poor Harriman was on a plane for Moscow. The Africa invasion first was a VERY tough sell to Stalin who wanted a Normandy in '43. Stalin was a key component for the Allies. If not for the millions lost on the Eastern Front, the war would have gone on for several more years. Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes: what are you willing to give up to prevent 2 - 3 years of war? And the millions of US casualties that would have resulted? You know that IJ has no capability to hold anything they take, unlike Germany.

My opinion (as stated above) is that it would have taken very, very much. And what would have been diverted is largely already in the game. Sure, I might have thrown in a few bolt air groups (not sure why Gary did not include those in addition to the divisions), but the reality is the divisions are worth far more than a few air groups.

Again, just my opinion and I respect yours. Suffice to say the game is the game and the nice thing is that anyone can mod it to whatever they want.

Agreed, a few airframes extra are worth less than the additional LCU's, for sure. Your point is well taken, and I guess you are right in that little Mac probably argued along the same lines. How much "disaster" it would have really taken for any compromise is pure speculation. For any games with fixed Japanese R&D and production I would not suggest any changes, but especially for Scen 2 I would be happy to see the Allied side to be a little more dynamic in that regard. Perhaps an idea for WitP2...

I'm pretty sure that Scen 2 is a "bone" thrown to the JFB's. Face it, there are FAR more players for the allies than IJ. Just look at the players wanted.

[zuluhour]

I believe some of the imbalance in regards to Allied players over Jap players lays in the complexion of the game more than anything else.

[zuluhour]

To take it one step further, I have played close to 1000 turns vs the AI as the allies and I have no illusions as the allied player in my ability to play a canoe, sprior, Mandrake. (well maybe mandrake, he never read the manual, lol, i get a kick out of that) without succumbing to an AV in short order (at this point). The game is very encompassing.

[zuluhour]

Sorry, can't stop now. As I try to conceive a "flexible" strategy as the Allies for my first PBEM, AAR comments by many (Nemo comes to mind first) have me wondering if I cant be beaten handily by game mechanics alone. There are so many layers of the game to understand to implement a successful strategy. Excepting some editor searching, I have not opened the game as Japanese. It seems like the difference between the back tees and the ladies tees.

[JeffroK]

Its common for any mod to have a better OOB for the JFB, they got smashed IRL so we "have to make them more competitive"

Problem is the player has the ability to optimize both production and deployment of his units, look at history and wonder why substantial forces were garrisoning places no reasonable player would deploy to.

Andy did a great Downfall scenario, it can be a real challenge at the start to suppres what should be an already smashed IJAAF. But only japan gets their wonder weapons, the USAAF only gets the P80 in Nov 45, 12 mths after trials in the MTO. No thought that if the war went in the direction postulated the US & UK might have changed their strategy.

Maybe its time for an "Allied Wet Dream" scenario based on Scen 2 where the Allies have a bit more preperation for the outbreak of war (they werent totally surprised by the attack) and aircraft and ship types were made available a bit sooner and in larger numbers.
(I did this for WITP, I might wait for the next patch to work on it for AE, and because I dont know how the AI editor works I avoid too many new units)

Nothing fantasy, just a higher priority to the PTO (Maybe call it the Admiral King Scenario)

IMHO, the JFB are playing Scen 2 more as it gives them more toys a bit sooner,  how about a counter for the AFB.

[House Stark]

I wonder how an addition for the allies to expand aircraft production with PP would work. That would allow the allied player to use adapt somewhat to increased Japanese production, and it would make sense that politically, commanders might be able to squeeze a few more aircraft out of their leadership if they were truly being overwhelmed. Political points are so valuable that this would probably not be imbalanced if done right, since there are many things AFBs would rather use points for unless they absolutely needed more planes. As others have said, the problem is in assuming that Allied aircraft production of models for the Pacific wouldn't deviate from historical amounts even if Australia/India/Hawaii were being invaded and Allied air forces swept from the skies by sheer numbers. If things got really bad, it would make sense that the Allies would divert a little more resources to the Pacific.

[erstad]

Here's a different look at USAAF fighter pools at the beginning of 1944 (also had 750 hellcats in the pool, 600 wildcats, and over a thousand other non-soviet fighters, although the non-USAAF fighters tend to be second-tier in quality)

[erstad]

And USAAF bombers (Non-USA, non-Soviet is around 700 planes ignoring wirraways and the like

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: House Stark

I wonder how an addition for the allies to expand aircraft production with PP would work.

To quote another threadster (Ron) not seen for a while in a thread from ages ago, it would serve no purpose to create Warcraft XXIII 'Revenge of the Kimono' by allowing both sides to spiral off into fantasy land.

I believe the problem arises by the skill some players have developed in "taking advantage" of the game systems (if you ain't getting the results, you ain't doing it right) and the tendency of the game system to swing to extremes (10 Corsairs vs 150 Zeros - care to place a wager on the outcome anyone??).

At least the fixed Allied production provides some sort of anchor to reality and keeps the game tracking to some semblance of plausible history.

AE has made great progress in toning down this effect compared to WITP but personally I feel that to be competitive the Japanese player is still being encouraged to engage in game function micromanagement practices (such as pilot training & extensive economic tweaking) which aren't really a core function of the game and can allow historically improbable results. If wish to explore the effects of alternative recruitment/training/doctrines etc go for it but that is the domain of Mods and should be left out of the baseline game.

I feel a far more productive strategy would to be to further tone down the effectiveness of the micromanagement which should have the added bonus of making the Japanese side less daunting to play and be less disadvantageous if you chose not to micromanagement so much. Making the game mechanics even less susceptible to extreme results would also be a bonus in my opinion. (Law of diminishing returns??)

By the way this is no criticism of the developers, they have done a fantastic job. It's just that you can't underestimate the ingenuity of the players in finding loopholes....

Just my 2c.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


Lotsa books and lotsa conjecture on that. It's pretty clear that Gary went with the: "Nope, barring imminent loss of either India, OZ or NZ, nothing will be diverted". Hence, you have the additional forces that come into the game. Manpower would have been local, but all of the equipment that they magically arrive with represents diversion from Europe.

I tend to support that. Everything I have read is that Roosevelt was prepared for MUCH worse than what happened in the Pacific. Coral Sea/Midway made his decision far easier to live with than he expected. MacArthur was his biggest problem, but he was safely ensconced 10,000 miles away. He sounded a lot better from that distance. [;)]

As can be gleaned from the constant debate on these boards about the game's imbalance resulting from the Japanese player's ability to alter historical commitments and the virtual hand tieing of the Allied player, there are many here who strongly believe Gary got it wrong.

Everyone who tries using the "America was politically committed to Europe first" as some sort of uber trump card in the argument seem to conveniently forget about Ernie King. He saw to it that the Pacific got what it needed. He saw to it that an offensive campaign got started by August '42. If the war had taken the course that many games take with an overstrength Japan rampaging King WOULD have convinced Roosevelt to send what the Pacific needed.

They also forget that the "committment" to Europe was not nearly as solid as they portray it. When the US military leaders thought the Brits were going to shy from the commitment to land in France and divert US assets to the Med to "regain the lost British Empire" they didn't hesitate to threaten to alter the US focus to the Pacific. While Roosevelt did quash this stance, he also didn't hesitate to order that the struggling offensive campaign in the Solomons receive every resource it needed, proving that need can, and did alter priorities.