PP for Production Changes?

[Gridley380]

Might adding a requirement to pay PP to change production/research open the door to allowing a player-controlled US production system, as well as curb the Japanese ability to radically alter their production based on hindsight?

So sure, you want to cancel Shinano... but do you want to/can you pay 1,000PP (random large number) to do so?

On the US side, I'd imagine you would still be restricted to the Historical US OOB, just with the option to 'buy' units away from the ETO/MTO, or perhaps some of the ships whose construction was slowed down or canceled during the war.

Thoughts anyone? I realize this would be a major change to the game.

[CaptBeefheart]

Somebody needs to answer... Sure, I'd like to see such options. I understand the devs want to keep things as they are for the vanilla, so it would be great if mods could include some tradeoffs, especially for the Allies, representing "borrowing" from ETO or the Russian Front. Of course PP costs are pretty straightforward, but another possibility would be to reflect that Russia would then face more pressure from Germany and therefore would be less likely to invade Manchuria. Thus, the Manchurian garrison requirement could be lowered as a trade-off to more P-39s and Spits being directed to the Pacific, for instance.

Cheers,
CC

[Alfred]

There is zero, nada, zilch chance of ever seeing total Allied control of its production in an officially sanctioned scenario. As the overwhelming majority of widely played mods have also been produced by the AE devs, the same situation will largely apply there. To my knowledge the only potential modder who might go down this path is Nemo, and if you play his mods you have to take the entire package which he presents.

For well over a decade now, the BTR/UV/WITP family has encapsulated the Gary Grigsby/Joel Billings philosopy that Allied production was generally quite effective but Axis production wasn't. Therefore the greatest value came in allowing Axis production to be manipulated. To have meddled with this fundamental game philosophy was completely out of scope for the AE developers and frankly, I don't even know if 2by3 would have allowed such a fundamental change in AE.

Alfred

[Banzan]

Allied plane production is mostly done by "creating" them (build rate), not by building them in factorys. Only a small amount is produced. To change this, you would have to turn the entire build rate into factorys (planes and engines), calculate the needed ressources, fuel (oil) and HI, and, most important, bring factory upgrades in line with the build rates. A build rate of 30 for model A  and a build rate of 45 for model B have to be a production of 30 (A), upgrade to B and add +15 prodution for a different factory. But the problem begins when the production (or better: Availability) ends  or is reduced. For example, B17F ends in 42/09, Version G starts in 45/09. If you are allowed to change factorys, this will give the allied player a major advance, but if not, it wouldn't be any difference to the current build system.

I left out the different engines deliberately, just used the planes to show the different problems.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

For well over a decade now, the BTR/UV/WITP family has encapsulated the Gary Grigsby/Joel Billings philosopy that Allied production was generally quite effective but Axis production wasn't. Therefore the greatest value came in allowing Axis production to be manipulated. To have meddled with this fundamental game philosophy was completely out of scope for the AE developers and frankly, I don't even know if 2by3 would have allowed such a fundamental change in AE.

Alfred

I think the already decided that the player modified production can lead to serious balance problems, as WitE already has fixed production for both sides. While this leads to many discussions, i think the approach is the correct one, even if it lead to items hording up in the pools due being less used from players then it was used/lost in real.

[elcid]

One approach was demonstrated in the RHS family of scenarios for WITP. There the method employed was mainly to allow the players to make the "political decisions" ahead of time - by chosing which scenario to play? Thus - "CVO" (carrier oriented) was the war as it was fought - the historical planning scrapped early in favor of carriers, less gunships, more land based bombers, fewer flying boats, etc. "BBO" (battleship oriented) was the war as it was planned - which is more or less the reverse. Then there were "Japan enhansed scenarios" - with progressively greater and longer term Japanese prepartion for war (vice the six months from July to December 1941 of history). But the Japanese building did not take place in a vacuum - so the Allies compensated in part - and built more stuff - both before and during the war.

The other mechanism - which is to some degree in all RHS scenarios and could be used by any modder - is mainly in re ship production. It is merely an amplification of the mechanisms built into stock for upgrading ships. Design your classes such that a player can convert a cruiser to a carrier, etc - giving the player the option (which is very historical - both in practice and also in designs considered but not implemented). This can extent to other kinds of ships - e.g. submarines can convert to transports, kaiten carriers, etc - and (already partially in the stock system) various kinds of transports to auxiliaries or (at least theoretically) amphibs.

A proposal not attempted is to give the Allies plane production on the map (or off map locations) which isn't strictly intended to be completely used - letting the player "turn off" types not wanted - and "repair up" types wanted instead. A variation of this is in the RHS system - but does not extend to things like "the Lone Ranger" ( a massive program of flying boats reduced to a single prototype - for which the biggest building in the world was built - Boeing Renton - converted in the event to B-29 construction - that factory has a gigantic ramp to Lake Washington to this day - for the never built flying boats ).
One could put a lot of work into making such options available to the Allies - in less than strictly historical scenarios.

For the moment, RHS AE is nearing the end of creation of the basic historical scenarios. It now appears there will be two basic flavors - "Strategic" with a focus on economics and production - and "Operational" with the ability to ignore both substantially - both for computer opponent play and for players who want faster turn processing. These may be followed by two similar mid war scenarios - mainly to permit testing of late war devices, ships, planes etc. - but some players may like to play with the late war toys - and the strategic situation that does not start with a gigantic if temporary Japanese advantage.
Only after that will consideration be given to developing something like EEO, EOS, etc - the ahistorical scenarios. But in that case, a lot of options will be built in to the system.

The concept that the Allies should be able to make strategic choices is valid. The game wars are fictional after they beging - and the Allies may have very different problems from history in them. For that reason, I tend to not force production of Allied planes to end when they are not replaced by a later type. End of production would not happen if the war was not going well. This concept can be extended to production of ships, land units, etc. in any mod. But as interesting as end of war options is - it isn't going to be played often. Much more important is what is available early in the game - since that is what most players get to use.

In general, I don't think political points are the way to go. For one thing, it requires code changes that are not going to happen. For another, management of production is possible without it. Granted a theater commander for the Allies does not get to decide what happens in toto - the worse the situation is - the more he would be given to work with. I like to do things like throw in B-34s - ASW armed precursors to the PV-1 - which were available - and if a player does not need them - then simply ignore them. If one has to face a player who is very aggressive it is probably better than pretending there is nothing much to defend the West Coast. And there political points DO matter - if you restrict the units - it costs pp to send them to distant places.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

Might adding a requirement to pay PP to change production/research open the door to allowing a player-controlled US production system, as well as curb the Japanese ability to radically alter their production based on hindsight?

So sure, you want to cancel Shinano... but do you want to/can you pay 1,000PP (random large number) to do so?

On the US side, I'd imagine you would still be restricted to the Historical US OOB, just with the option to 'buy' units away from the ETO/MTO, or perhaps some of the ships whose construction was slowed down or canceled during the war.

Thoughts anyone? I realize this would be a major change to the game.

Actually paying for halting production is great idea. I find it outrageos, since WITP, that Japan players turn off submarines production, by default. I was actually thinking, that there should not be Naval, and Merchant points, which are actually identical, but more like HEAVY, and LIGHT ships points, where LIGHT will use less HI, so player would not find some ships so expensive.

I am all after possibility for moving forces from ETO, but at a cost for war with Germany. Up to the point, where there are not enough forces there, and Soviets would decide they can easily take Western Allies, so they will never declare war on Japan (and there will be no western troops returning from ETO).

[Cavalry Corp]

Yes good idea - I find it not possible to believe thet the Japs would halt the Shinano - they complete it as a BB or CV but complete it they were intent on doing.