P-38G, B-25C, B-24D not being produced

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Ftroop6

Thanks everyone for the info and explanations. Not sure why the production was turned off; don't remember ever opening the windows, figuring they would all be turned on from the start. Thanks again!

Sometimes Allied players panic at game start when they see LA not getting enough fuel to fill tankers, so they turn off the HI to keep the fuel for shipment. If they just waited a couple of days LA would get more fuel than they can load in one day and all would be well.

[crsutton]

Yep, it is just something you should really never have to look at. Unless the Japanese are in Los Angeles. But then you have bigger problems to worry about...

Thanks for clarifying Alfred.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Zorch


Should this 'engine' thing be addressed in a future patch? Without affecting play balance, of course.

Not really.

There is no such thing as altering design parameters without impacting on play balance. Any reputable game designer will tell you that even the smallest change needs extensive testing to avoid unintended consequences. Altering the Allied HI points consumption ratio is far too risky a task for a simple "patch".

Here are some figures to show the potential impact which can result. Actual realised figures depend on the game situation which of course is dependent on how well the Allied player has conducted his operations but most Allied players will have similar figures.

Allied on map aircraft production ramps up considerably during the course of the war. In early 1942 few Allied aircraft are produced on map and the HI production from just a couple of West Coast bases will probably suffice. By January 1944 Allied on map airframe production will have ramped up to about 33% of the eventual total on map airframe production. By that date the adverse consequences of turning off all HI production except for North America should start to be noticed.

By January 1944, if all HI factories are in production (not just the North American factories) the Allied player will be looking at generating about 9,850 HI points daily. This figure can be considerably less if Japan has captured, damaged or managed to prevent the importation of the necessary feedstock for some HI factories. A successful Japanese campaign against Indian, Australian or New Zealand HI factories, all of which are heavily dependent on the substantial importation of fuel feedstock will substantially reduce the daily HI points production.

This daily (best case) 9,850 HI points production comes to about 295k HI points for the entire month of January 1944. In January 1944 Allied monthly on map airframe production will be approximately 276 plus eventually an additional 556 monthly airframes which are still in R&D. At a fixed consumption rate of 18 HI points per airframe, the current HI points consumption would be 4,926 with eventually an additional 10,008 as R&D models enter production.

At first glance this would suggest that there will never be shortage of HI points but there are two significant factors not immediately visible. The first factor is that this is a best case scenario for Allied HI points production. In PBEM games there will be Allied players who will be generating fewer HI points as at this date. The second factor is that the monthly HI consumption is somewhat misleading in that while aircraft factories with a monthly production rate of less than 30 airframes will on average (subject to randoms) not produce daily, the Industry screen shows that all active aircraft factories consume HI points daily even if no airframe was actually produced that day. IOW the real effective daily HI points consumption would be 9,850 (HI points) - 4,926 (airframes @ 18), leaving a daily surplus of 4,924. That daily surplus will not cover the 10,008 R&D when it enters production. Provided the Allied player has been maximising their HI production from day 1, the pooled amount together with any late war capture of enemy HI factories should see him through without any decrease in airframe production.

However the picture is not so positive if the code were changed to require Allied on map airframe production to reflect a consumption rate of 18 per "engine". Using the multiple engine consumption rate sees the January 1944 figures revised to:

• 9,702 for current airframe production (instead of 4926 for the fixed rate)
• 22,032 which will eventually be required for the R&D as production status is attained (instead of 10,008 for the fixed rate)

At a multiple consumption rate the daily surplus would be only about 150 (9,850 - 9,702) an amount which clearly does not come close to meeting the eventual R&D daily amount of 22k.

AE is chock full of abstractions. If one were to advocate for changing the code to more closely align Allied HI points consumption to the number of "engines" then one could easily advocate that the number of pilots and aircrew should also be altered from the current abstraction of 1 pilot per aircraft to the actual number of pilots plus aircrew which were required to fly the Mavis, Betty, Superfortress and Liberator aircraft. That in turn would require a fundamental reassessment of the current "pilot" replacement rates for each nationality.

Alfred

[traskott]

Great post!! Thanks Alfred!!

Humm.. May be the allied player should be able to expand factories?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: traskott

Great post!! Thanks Alfred!!

Humm.. May be the allied player should be able to expand factories?

Then you get into an even greater game design divergence as you would be opening up to player control Allied aircraft production. Starting from mid 1942 just how many Allied players do you believe would not then (a) ramp up all their 4E factories and then (b) equip every USA bomber unit only with 4E models. The existing game code cost for factory expansion would be a mere trifle for an Allied player unlike the Japanese player who has to carefully weigh up whether the cost to expand any industrial facility is warranted. A different cost base for the Allied player compared to the Japanese player could not be time justified either in coding terms or in fending off the avalanche of player complaints regarding unequal treatment.

It is a Pandoras Box. It is never an easy task to alter game design parameters and definitely never suitable for a simple patch.

Alfred

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: traskott

Great post!! Thanks Alfred!!

Humm.. May be the allied player should be able to expand factories?

Then you get into an even greater game design divergence as you would be opening up to player control Allied aircraft production. Starting from mid 1942 just how many Allied players do you believe would not then (a) ramp up all their 4E factories and then (b) equip every USA bomber unit only with 4E models. The existing game code cost for factory expansion would be a mere trifle for an Allied player unlike the Japanese player who has to carefully weigh up whether the cost to expand any industrial facility is warranted. A different cost base for the Allied player compared to the Japanese player could not be time justified either in coding terms or in fending off the avalanche of player complaints regarding unequal treatment.

It is a Pandoras Box. It is never an easy task to alter game design parameters and definitely never suitable for a simple patch.

Alfred

+1
That's kinda what I meant.

[traskott]

Thanks for the answer Alfred.