Managing factories

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Originally posted by Snigbert
Although if I recall correctly in the battle of the Coral Sea the Shokaku and Zuikaku were in a separate task force from the Shoho.

Which proved to be a very successful choice for the Shoho...

The Zuiho spent a lot of its post-Midway life as a part of the main battlefleet. The Japanese learned their lesson after Coral Sea/Midway that Light Carriers on their own are just bait, in the face of strong LBA or Carrier Aircraft. They got away with it earlier because Allied Air Power was very limited.

[Mike Scholl]

About the only thing the designers COULD do in WitP to make
actual Production choices a meaningful matter to players would
be to allow the Japanese Player to have a few "pre-war"
choices. Perhaps the more modern thinkers in the navy won
out over the battleship gang in 1936, and Japan laid down 4
Shokaku's instead of utilizing the resources for the Yamato's.
(I know the extra 2 CV's would have been much cheaper and
faster to build---but they would also need air groups, which
would eat up the additional resources.)

Or perhaps instead of shoveling resources into the Shinano
from 1940 to 1944 only to have her sunk on her first sea trial,
the 70-odd thousand tons of steal and other resources could
have been used to turn out one 1350 ton "Escort" per month
from 1941 through 1944 to deal with submarines.

Here's an interesting thought. In 1936, the Japanese appoint
"Aberitu Speerakaku" Minister of Armaments, and he joins
with the Industrialists and the Emperor to force the Military
to accept "rationalization" of their equipment. Little things..,
like getting the Army and the Navy to agree on a common
voltage for aircraft electrical systems so that ALL production
effort can go into building and improving ONE line of parts
instead of two completely different ones! Simple elimination
of stupidity could have improved Japanese Production by 20%
at a time before Japan could be bombed to bits.

I'm not talking about changes that would make an actual
Japanese victory possible---just ones which would make the
Japanese more interesting to play and keep them "in the fight"
for a longer period. Maybe provide a suprise or two for the US
player when he finds more AWS forces than he was expecting
this time. Or the Japanese Army scaling down Oscar produc-
tion in favor of having Nakajima produce Zero's for them. I
am talking about variables that would make a second game of WitP different from a first.

[Snigbert]

I read (Costello's Pacific War 1941-1945) that the reason the Mutsu was built in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty was because the Japanese pleaded that they had already taken material donations from schoolchildren and housewives in Tokyo to complete it's construction. That is how poor their resources were even before the war started.

Also, I think it was the Unryu which Japanese housewives donated pots and pans to melt down for steel to complete it's construction. Sad state of affairs.

Perhaps if there is an option for Japan to begin with a superior armaments minister their output could be increased slightly, but it is more a lack of materiel than resourcefulness on the part of the Japanese that handicapped them.

[bradfordkay]

My hope is for us to be able to have the ability to make those decisions on setup. Because of the lead time involved, cancelling the Shinano project in Dec '41 would still mean a huge amount of resources would have been wasted. Thus these main decisions would have to be made in the setup phase of the game (okay, so you can tell that I come from a boardgame background). Having the ability to change pre-war production philosophies would go a very long ways in increasing the replayability of the campaign game.

I am also hoping that if the Japanese player can import more strategic resources than happened IRL, he will receive increased production capability over the historical schedule.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by bradfordkay
My hope is for us to be able to have the ability to make those decisions on setup. Because of the lead time involved, cancelling the Shinano project in Dec '41 would still mean a huge amount of resources would have been wasted. Thus these main decisions would have to be made in the setup phase of the game (okay, so you can tell that I come from a boardgame background). Having the ability to change pre-war production philosophies would go a very long ways in increasing the replayability of the campaign game.

I am also hoping that if the Japanese player can import more strategic resources than happened IRL, he will receive increased production capability over the historical schedule.

Did you notice the descriptive term "Pre-War" in my proposal?
That would seem to me to refer to events taking place BEFORE
Dec. 1941. And if you read the portion concerning cancelling
construction of the Shinano in favor of ASW Escorts you would
have noticed I suggested recieving 1 per month from 1941 thru
1944---which would have at least 11 of them built when the
War began.

[bradfordkay]

Oh, Mike, I'm sorry... I was posting in support of your comments but worded it poorly.

I was trying to point out that the system would have to include your idea of pre-war refinements in order for any major changes in naval production to take effect within the game's time scale.

My apologies for not having made this more plain to see. Some nights my ramblings are less coherent than on others....

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Snigbert
I read (Costello's Pacific War 1941-1945) that the reason the Mutsu was built in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty was because the Japanese pleaded that they had already taken material donations from schoolchildren and housewives in Tokyo to complete it's construction. That is how poor their resources were even before the war started.

Also, I think it was the Unryu which Japanese housewives donated pots and pans to melt down for steel to complete it's construction. Sad state of affairs.

Perhaps if there is an option for Japan to begin with a superior armaments minister their output could be increased slightly, but it is more a lack of materiel than resourcefulness on the part of the Japanese that handicapped them.

I think you may be confusing propaganda with production.
Japan was limited in resources, and even more limited in money
during most of the 23 years between the wars---but she spent
a much higher percentage of her income and resources on her
military. "Pennies from schoolchildren" is a great publicity ploy
for whatever project a nation choses---makes the population
feel good about "doing their part" and shows the rest of the
world you have broad national support for your project.

The "improvement" I suggested would be from making more
intelligent use of the resources and industrial capacity already
available---not from getting more resources. Like Germany,
Japan's highest production totals during the War came in 1944.
At a time when her access to resources was decreasing as her
Merchant Marine evaporated under the Allied onslaught. Most
of the improvement came from eliminating waste and improving
production efficiency. Like finally forcing the Army and the Navy
to agree on commonality of aircraft systems and designs. In
Germany, Speer discovered that they were using twice as much
aluminium as the British to produce aircraft of similar weight and
performance---the "extra" was waste (and often being sold as
scrap.) The Japanese found the same problems, and as they
eliminated them their output went up. If they had started at
an earlier date, the improvement would have as well.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by bradfordkay
Oh, Mike, I'm sorry... I was posting in support of your comments but worded it poorly.

I was trying to point out that the system would have to include your idea of pre-war refinements in order for any major changes in naval production to take effect within the game's time scale.

My apologies for not having made this more plain to see. Some nights my ramblings are less coherent than on others....

Sorry if it seemed I was jumping on you. I've managed some
late night incoherancies myself. Mostly I wanted to be sure
this particular "thread" wasn't starting to wobble off into a
sideshow of miss-reading and miss-understanding. It seems
with so many of these threads that by the third page you can't
even tell what the subject of the 1st page was...

[MemoryLeak]

Perhaps production could be tied into conquests. The more the Japanese player can take and hold onto the more raw materials become available for war production. Not just number of bases/countries invaded, but countries designated as having oil or raw materials that could be shipped back to Japan. If the base/country is retaken by the Allies, Japanese war production would be adjusted accordingly.

[mogami]

Hi, I've always thought it very interesting that the "poor" nations of Germany, Japan and Italy could afford to build their military while the democracies struggled through a depression.

(before anyone jumps on me about Italy, I'll only say she was the first europeon nation to moderize. By the time the war began in earnest much of her equipment was obsolete)

Of the three Italy was by far the poorest in both resource and industry. Both Germany and Japan could have been powers without resorting to conquest.
"We have to expand, we need room, we need material"
were just excuses to cover their real agendas.

I do not really think there is any need to tamper with the Japanese starting OOB. (Or anything under construction)
You won't find a solution in production changes.
Victory (if possible) will be obtained with what is in commision on Dec 7 1941. ( with the limited arrivals thereafter )

In the end Germany and Japan have been described as
Germany:Industial strength with no resource
Japan: Resources with no industry

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by MemoryLeak
Perhaps production could be tied into conquests. The more the Japanese player can take and hold onto the more raw materials become available for war production. Not just number of bases/countries invaded, but countries designated as having oil or raw materials that could be shipped back to Japan. If the base/country is retaken by the Allies, Japanese war production would be adjusted accordingly.

This was the actual Japanese Strategy going into the war---and
to a great extent they succeeded in conquering all the resources
they went after. They then discovered just how far up their
backsides their heads had been when they did the economic
planning. Even before the war, Japan had utilized over a million
tons of foriegn shipping to meet her needs. Almost all of this
was lost as soon as the War started. Then the demands of the
military had to be met as the fronts expanded, taking more
shipping. And finally, Japan's Marine Engine production proved
woefully inadequate to meet the needs of what shipping she
did have---leaving almost a million tons "deadlined" for engine
repair and replacement by 1944. When you add in the Allied
Anti-Shipping efforts it's easy to see why having conquered the
raw materials wasn't doing the Japanese War effort all that much
good. They didn't have the means to move it to the factories.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, I've always thought it very interesting that the "poor" nations of Germany, Japan and Italy could afford to build their military while the democracies struggled through a depression.

(before anyone jumps on me about Italy, I'll only say she was the first europeon nation to moderize. By the time the war began in earnest much of her equipment was obsolete)

Of the three Italy was by far the poorest in both resource and industry. Both Germany and Japan could have been powers without resorting to conquest.
"We have to expand, we need room, we need material"
were just excuses to cover their real agendas.

I do not really think there is any need to tamper with the Japanese starting OOB. (Or anything under construction)
You won't find a solution in production changes.
Victory (if possible) will be obtained with what is in commision on Dec 7 1941. ( with the limited arrivals thereafter )

In the end Germany and Japan have been described as
Germany:Industial strength with no resource
Japan: Resources with no industry

I wasn't suggesting that the opportunity to play the game with
"strictly historical" OOB's be abandoned---just that for those
who will play more than once it might be nice to have some
historically based "optional OOB's" that would allow the Japanese
some flexibility in their attempts to expand and hold on. Make
for a somewhat different challenge for both sides and improve
the replay value of the game. The US economy is SO much
larger than the Japanese economy that the end result will never
be in doubt. General Motors produced as much military
equipment (by dollar value) as Japan did during the War (Ford
out-produced Italy), so when the full weight of American
Production began to make itself felt in 1944 it became a pretty
lop-sided fight. Giving Japan a bit more to play with in 1942-43
won't change the outcome---but might change the process.
Just to keep things interesting on all sides.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I don't know about you guys, but the historic scenarios provided in PacWar really were all that you needed for 10 years. Once you start the game, you have innumerable choices ahead of you (even in the restraints of certain limitations). Having a few different ships really won't change the course of the battle that much, as NUMBERS will be the same (i.e., Japan will outnumber allies until mid 1942, then Japan will get more and more outnumbered by the allies). Wether you have an extra Shokaku or two instead of a Yamato is not going to change the fact that you will rule the seas until mid 1942, then face Essex after Essex.

You also have to take into account the fact that with a carrier (or two) you have to create an entire air group for it, with reserve pilots, etc., etc., etc.

In December 1941 the IJNAF had pilots and aircraft for their 6 CV's and 3 CVLs, as well as for an equivalent of 4 Groups of Fighter Aircraft (bomber aircraft cannot be included in this equation, as they are 2 engine bombers), and maybe up to 2 Groups of Torpedo Bombers.

For every IJN CV you would get, you would draw that many pilots/aircraft away from the active LBA pools. The IJNAF had only around 400 A6M's in 1942 (total). This would be barely enough to equip 2 extra CV's (if you remove all LBA A6M groups). This would really weaken the IJNAF LBA contingent, leaving absolutely no fighter with the range to escort G3/4M's.

While it is an interesting idea, the consequences of changing historic pre-war production would result in innumerable reactions and counter-reactions. More carriers = less IJNAF LBA. Less IJNAF LBA, slower advances and more bomber losses during the 1st 6 months. If you remove the power of the Battleship Admirals from power, you also remove the influence of the Navy (these Admirals had A LOT of influence on the Emperor) on the Imperial GHQ for a war in the Pacific, and influence goes toward the Army, aimed toward war with Russia (when they were busy with Germany).

[Mike Scholl]

Did you READ my original post on this subject from Monday AM?
I specifically mentioned that "swapping" the Yamato's for an
additional pair of Shokaku's would INCLUDE the air groups in
the cost. As a unique design the Yamato's were enormously expensive as compared to expanding a Carrier Class from 2 to
4, and the "savings" could easily finance an increase in both
pilot training and aircraft production to fill the decks. It is a good
deal cheeper to expand existing programs than to start new
ones from the ground up.

If you are completely happy playing nothing but scenarios using the the "historical" OOB's...., great. But why insist that every
other player must live with your preferences? Some people like
to look at other possibilities---and it's far easier to get an
opponant for an "official" scenario than a self- designed one.
Why not make them available if 2by3 is willing to put them in?
That's all that was being asked.

[bradfordkay]

I'm with Mike on this one. I know that playing the historical OOB will lead to many years of playing enjoyment. But since this is a strategic game, it lends itself to more of the "what if?" type scenarios. Of course the final outcome won't be any different, but the flow of play could be very different with a shift in production emphasis. If it doesn't take too many resources away from important parts of the game, having this as an option would be nice.

[pasternakski]

Swapping the Yamatos for a couple of Shokakus ... when do you want the game to begin? 1935? 1920? How many historical realities leading up to the decision of what fleet elements to begin building in anticipation of a war in the 1940s do you want to ignore?

I have said it before, and I will say it again (and probably get skewered for my efforts): if you want to change the historical reality that dictated how WWII in the Pacific was fought, fine. Go design, produce, and play that game (and I would love to see it, buy it, and play it myself). WITP is not that game. WITP will begin either at the historical beginning of WWII in the Pacific or, if a scenario alternative or two is provided, shortly before or after that time. I have seen nothing to indicate that wholesale revision of history within that concept is even a remote possibility.

From what I understand, you will have to live pretty much within the historical production constraints presented to the historical commanders. I suspect that some deviation will be possible, as it was in Grigsby's earlier Pacific War release, but nothing as wholesale as many have suggested.

Look forward to the game that is going to be released, not the one you wish someone else would design.

[Hoplosternum]

Bradfordkay,

I think that any significant changes in the OOB should be reserved for edited scenarios. Because the period of decision in the pacific was so early on (Midway, Coral Sea and Guadalcanal all occuring within the first year) I doubt that any realistic production model will really have much of a difference on the outcome. I would hate to see the standard historical game completely skewed so that in '44 the Japanese can pump out a few extra (and irrelevent) CVEs.

What I do hope is that they make the editor fairly easy to use and capable of producing all the fantasy scenarios that people require. I want scenarios where the IJN are stronger than they were historically. I cannot think of any real life scenarios where that was especially likely but I want them anyway. In UV most people play, especially PBEM, the fantasy scenarios #17 and #19. Everyone wants a challenging game where both sides have a chance. I want a historical scenario that is pretty much historical but I suspect that, just as in UV, it is not the scenario that will be most often played at least by email.

[showboat1]

I haven't bothered to read most of the posts here since this is simply rehashing an OLD arguement. I have but one thing to say.

I WANT CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING!!!!!

I waat to pick ships, planes, form new air groups, new commands, new land units... EVERYTHING

To make me happy, just give me a great editor

[bradfordkay]

Okay guys, let's ease up a little here. No one is talking about changing WITP into a fantasy game. I have no idea as to how production will be handled. If the factory production remains exactly as historical, I will still be as happy as a pig in ****.

In fact, I know that it is an old argument, and that the decision on this has probably already been made long ago. While waiting to see the game, it is only natural to speculate about the aspects of the game that are not included in UV.

If we are able to change production after the game starts, such as cancelling a major project, then the possiblity exists to change the production of any ship still being built at the start of the game. No, I wouldn't expect to go back to '35 or '20 - though if someone releases an edited ahistorical scenario, I'll take a look at it. But to be able to make a decision to never have started a project that you're going to cancel as soon as the game starts, that would be a nice addition.

Do I consider it a necessity? By no means, but I do feel that it is an addition that I would consider were I a member of the 2by3 crew. I'm sure most of the gang on this forum are forum are quite glad that I'm not...

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Snigbert
I read (Costello's Pacific War 1941-1945) that the reason the Mutsu was built in violation of the Washington Naval Treaty was because the Japanese pleaded that they had already taken material donations from schoolchildren and housewives in Tokyo to complete it's construction. That is how poor their resources were even before the war started.

Before the war started, indeed - some twenty years before. But that wasn't the reason she was spared. Mutsu survived because she had very good timing - she was commissioned on October 24, 1921, and the Washington Naval Limitation Conference of 1921 didn't kick off until November. So she couldn't have been built in violation of the Treaty, because there was no Treaty until months after she commissioned. That's why she was counted in the ships and tonnage Japan was allowed to retain under (NOT "in violation of") the terms of the Treaty. Don't get me wrong - Japan cheated on the treaty like crazy (Can you say "Mogami class"? I knew you could.), and very nearly from Day One. But in fairness, Mutsu wasn't "cheated in," she was part of the process.

This is just another one of Costello's errors - I got the book as a Christmas gift last month and I'm having a great time with it, but I'd strongly suggest looking for independent confirmation of any supposedly "factual" information in that book. For example, check out the raid count for the first wave of the Pearl Harbor attack in Chapter 7 (page 132 in my copy). Somehow Costello got 49 Vals (level bombing Vals with 800kg armor-piercing bombs, no less!), 40 Kates, and 43 Zekes to add up to a total of 183 attackers. The total is correct - but the 49 level bombers were Kates (NOT Vals), the 51 (NOT 49) Vals were dive (NOT level) bombing, were tasked for airfield suppression (NOT anti-ship), and so were armed with HE bombs (NOT armor piercing).

The most charitable explanation I can think of is that Costello "lost" a column in his notes and tried to BS his way through regardless ("Let me see, I know they had Vals, and Kates, and Zekes, and Kates carried torpedos, and Zekes were fighters, so the ones with bombs must have been Vals...") - but the glaring mathematical error still should have been a dead giveaway. (The least charitable explanation is that Costello is an idiot and/or a fraud, but I don't think either of those titles are justified. Yet. I still haven't finished the book...) It's not like this is some obscure bit of military arcana, either - this is basic, factual information that is widely known and readily available. Nor is this the only example, though it is the one that springs most immediately to mind, because it's so blatantly wrong that no amount of "interpretation" or "subjective judgement" can save it. Seriously - if you can't rely on the author to get very basic, very well-known facts straight, if you can't even trust him to add up a column of numbers on a calculator and get the correct result, why would you depend on him for anything more than entertainment value?