75 Political Points for 1E LB -> 2E LB

[hades1001]

I'm just trying to make point that in the game Allied may spend many time more PP than Japan to switch type of planes. Since Allied have to change plane type more frequently.

And Michael's argument is not solid since it's totally reasonable that Allied upgrade all it's bombers to 4E bombers if they have the stock. The problem is Allied are always short of 4E bombers.

[JeffroK]

What does the PP represent.
In game, we change an aircraft type and its able to fly in a couple of days. (I'm going through Bloody Shambles v3 and one of the IJAAF Sentai was withdrawn for a few weeks to upgrade its Hayabusa)

IRL, pilots need to go to a conversion unit to learn how to fly the new aircraft, especially when going from 1E to 2E or 2E to 4E.
If its a 2-3-4 seater there has to be new crews trained up and shipped to the unit.
New engines means training for the mechanics.
New weapons means training for the armourers.
If the airfield has revetments for a 1E, you have to build revetments for a 2E.
And more.

We pay a few PP.

Given that there is more to a change of aircraft type than we have to manage, IMHO every change of type should cost PP, per aircraft and increasing depending on number of engine increase.

[hades1001]

Then how about 100PP for USMC to upgrade from F4F-4 to F4U1 and cost another 100PP to downgrade?

And, next time, I have to another 100P to upgrade to F4U1 again? Didn't you dumbasses(the pilots I mean of course) just learned to fly a corsair last time?

[Nemo121]

Hmm, I just spent 360 PP to switch a Netty unit to flying B7A2 Graces... That's 10 PP per plane.

So I wouldn't go assuming that this is going to hurt the Allies more than Japan. I certainly never found it necessary to engage in multiple changes of fighter type if I planned things right. Instead I just used squadron rotation and didn't have to engage in upgrade/downgrade cycles.

It seems to me that it puts a useful brake on unfettered upgrading to utterly change the capabilities of units for BOTH sides. Often, however, we only see the cost to ourselves in our current game and feel this is unfair instead of considering how it applies ( and can be avoided ) to both sides.

[SeethingErmine]

Thanks for the replies michaelm and all. I'm not familiar with the allied side but I can see how costs associated with upgrades to 4E bombers makes sense. I do appreciate the flexibility the whole system now has for changing between types when you want to and the tradeoff is worth it.

Regarding the specific upgrade of 1E level bombers to 2E level bombers, I am still not convinced the cost is really appropriate or well-balanced for IJAAF. From a rough survey, about 100 unrestricted and 60 china-area level bombers (scen 1) that formerly could be switched from 1E to 2E if air frames were available now cost 750 political points to do so. I imagine this is something that was widely done until now, at least for a large number of the unrestricted ones, but with the new rule it pretty much makes no sense compared to paying the political point cost of releasing a larger Kwangtun Army air group that can upgrade to 2E for free. Having 100+ active/usable 1E level bomber groups for duration of the war that cannot be phased out with 2E also affects factory planning (although I will admit that a potential shortage of Sonias at some point is unlikely to bring imperial plans of conquest crashing to a halt). Was this extent of a balance change intended for IJA air groups intended when the cost was set?

And, naturally, I didn't figure all this out until after I tore down my Sonia factory... [:)]

[Puhis]

750 political point is just 15 days of points. Also there's no point to convert all 1Es, you do need training sentais and Sonias work fine...

[PaxMondo]

I fully support this change.  It helps limit some of what I think are "gamey" early war tactics by both sides ...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Being able to change a group's upgrade path goes against what the OOB designer's originally intended in trying to show historical upgrades.

Putting some cost behind the LBA upgrades helped to alleviate their concerns.
We are trying to balance allowing players to change the upgrades against what could be considered reasonable.

I remember looking at one save where almost every second land-based air group for Allies was a 4E bomber.[:D]
If the carriers could carry them, I am sure the VS/B groups would have had 18 B-29/B-17[:@].

I am still working on a way to pull this off.. Give me time.....[;)]

I think it is a great idea. Long as it is play for both sides I have no problem with it.

[bilbow]

I like this change as well, as it puts a cost on varying from the historical path.

[Puhis]

Like they said. Frankly it was ridiculous how easily japanese player could upgrade all close support 1E bomber squadrons to Sallies. Eventually player can do it anyway, but IMO there really is more urgent use of PPs in 1942...

[medicff]

I agree with the PP cost for changing upgrade path and I like its function.

Question I have is that you pay PP to change the path once should be enough. You shouldn't have to pay again once you switch and want the newer version of 2E or 4E bombers on the new path the next time you change the same group.

[SuluSea]

It took me a little time to warm up to this but I've come to the conclusion that this is a great idea. There will be less planes in the air on the Japanese side in '42 then I had earmarked for upgrade in the past because of PP restrictions but it's the right thing to do. I don't think it hampers or helps either side , the prepared player will reap the benefits and that's how it should be.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: medicff

I agree with the PP cost for changing upgrade path and I like its function.

Question I have is that you pay PP to change the path once should be enough. You shouldn't have to pay again once you switch and want the newer version of 2E or 4E bombers on the new path the next time you change the same group.

When you switch and pay, you are asked if you want to retain the old opgrade path. If you switch fro 2E to 4E and keep the old path, you can change back to 2E without charge but changing to a new 4E will cost you again. Generally I switch to the new path.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: medicff

I agree with the PP cost for changing upgrade path and I like its function.

Question I have is that you pay PP to change the path once should be enough. You shouldn't have to pay again once you switch and want the newer version of 2E or 4E bombers on the new path the next time you change the same group.

When you switch and pay, you are asked if you want to retain the old opgrade path. If you switch fro 2E to 4E and keep the old path, you can change back to 2E without charge but changing to a new 4E will cost you again. Generally I switch to the new path.

That makes good sense. Thanks I will need to select in future.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Michael, how about basing the PP cost on something like
2 * [max # of a/c in unit] * [# of eng of the new a/c] / [# of eng of the old a/c]?

Based on the above formula upgrading from

16 max a/c Banshee Group (1 eng) to B17 (4 eng) would cost
2 * 16 * 4 / 1 = 128PP

16 max a/c Marauder Group (2 eng) to B17 (4 eng)
2 * 16 * 4 / 2 = 64PP

27 max a/c Susie Group (1 eng) to Helen (2 eng)
2 * 27 * 2 / 1 = 108PP

and so on.

Would make upgrading to an airframe with more engines more expensive than
upgrades to same number of engines, while taking number of a/c to be upgraded into account.

I think I could live with that. As an Allied player I try to keep the type of planes a squadron flew the same.

[Omat]

Hello

Maybe the formula should be change because I could abuse it by the resizing function.

e.g.:

27 max a/c Susie Group (1 eng) to Helen (2 eng)
2 * 27 * 2 / 1 = 108PP

now I am resizing the unit to 9 a/c

2 * 9 *2 / 1 = 36pp

now I can resize the unit again to 27.

Omat

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Michael, how about basing the PP cost on something like
2 * [max # of a/c in unit] * [# of eng of the new a/c] / [# of eng of the old a/c]?

Based on the above formula upgrading from

16 max a/c Banshee Group (1 eng) to B17 (4 eng) would cost
2 * 16 * 4 / 1 = 128PP

16 max a/c Marauder Group (2 eng) to B17 (4 eng)
2 * 16 * 4 / 2 = 64PP

27 max a/c Susie Group (1 eng) to Helen (2 eng)
2 * 27 * 2 / 1 = 108PP

and so on.

Would make upgrading to an airframe with more engines more expensive than
upgrades to same number of engines, while taking number of a/c to be upgraded into account.