Attention Matrix Staff: Aircraft Upgrades

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines

If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side... Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.

We aren't asking for the ability to swap Nates for Tony's at the game start and you muddy the waters by suggesting things that just are not possible with the game as designed. Take examples that could reasonably occur in game, and base your objections on that. Unless you do, you are giving arguments that are just too silly to give any weight too. Comparing the gist of this discussion to us wanting to research F18's, to turning WitP into an RTS, or wanting to upgrade Nates to Tony's on day 1 are simply getting in the way of getting your point across.

If I change your question to "If you had the choice of flipping out your Nate's for Oscar's, Tonies, or Tojo's would you ever choose the Oscar?" might be a reasonable question. And my answer would be "Yes." I would want to continue to build Oscars for a while, actually. I just don't want 34 squadrons of them. The Oscar has one thing going for it, far and above the others - range. I would reserve some number of Oscars for escorting Betty's. Eventually, Oscar's and the escorted Betty's would take too much of a beating and I would convert all Oscar's to something else. In the meantime, Oscar's that I don't intend to use as LBA escorts would give way to fighters with shorter range but superior firepower, armor, durability, and speed. I would accept a certain greater number of losses in my Oscar squadrons for fewer losses in my LBA (up to a point). By the same token, I am not sure I would go all Tojo, or all Tony. I cannot recall very well the stats on those aircraft, but it seems to me I would want to have them both in different situations.

I think that proposing a "whole" solution is not something we should have to do. A "whole" solution ultimately is something that gets done when we establish the PBEM we play. If you and I are considering a game, we PM or post back and forth, deciding on rules. The options we are asking for are simply parameters. I could say to you:

Frag,

I want to play Japan, Scenario 15.
1. Charge PP for upgrades outside of the aircraft's historical upgrade path option on.
2. Increase the "charge" for plant conversions on
3. "Free" plant upgrades off.
4. No research will be conducted by me other than what is done at scenario start.
5. Increase airgroup upgrade delay on
6. Allow "upgrades" to be within aircraft type on
7. Aircraft upgrade cost: high
8. I will change no production of a plant until the aircraft is available and producing.
9. No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only.
10. Allied sub doctrine on
11. Japan sub doctrine on
12. Only 1 port attack on turn 1
13. etc.

And you would say, "No, I don't option X on, I's skeered of da uba Jap planes. etc." [:D] Eventually, we would decide on rules and start. The problem is that the tools (even the editor) are not flexible enough to play some of the games that we want to play.

[Top Cat]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I just can't downgrade.

Says you ... Disband the group ... aircraft are gone ... if you have older aircraft in stock, they will pull them.

Still don't get the downgrade concept though. Pilots are your most valuable item. Why on eatch would you want anything less then the best to put them in? Just do not see that logic at all. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on it.

Some would rather use a nate for a kamikaze as opposed to a frank.

If you had a particular factory/aircraft type taken out by bombing you might get desperate and want to provide alteranate suppply of replacement aircraft.

Mind you once you get to that stage you're probably toast.

Cheers
Top Cat

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
...
I have read Japanese accounts of the bombing of the Nagoya Mitsubishi plant. One raid by B29's and the plant was unable to produce for a week and after that NEVER made it back to full production. Or half production.

Lemurs!, Could you please give references to this bombing ? I am not trying to
dispute anything said, I in fact have been to that very (Komaki)MHI plant. I have walked the grounds.
I would love to read the account of that event!!!!

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Well of course you might want to actually get the Kamikazes past the CAP by using good plabes..... But for me the downgrade abilty is very imprtnat even if all rest stays same (don't hit me..)

I guess thats why I have problems grasping the concept ... if you are going to commit suicide, would it not make a heck of a lot more sense to use aircraft that at least have a chance of making it to the target?

There is no point throwing 200 Nates at a CV group, 200 Nates will all be shot down. Now sending 200 Franks in might actually get you a CV killed so it was *worth* loosing the 200 aircraft.

Japanese used a lot of obsolete a/c on kamikaze missions and they got through as often as anything else. This isn't CAP intercepting strike escorts where the escorts are engaging in dogfighting. Whether it is Franks or Nates, they are flying straight in doing no more evasive moves than a torpedo bomber or dive bomber might do. Most were not even armed with gun ammo. They are basically manned missles. That logic simply doesn't apply to a kamikaze attack.

[Mr.Frag]

Whether it is Franks or Nates, they are flying straight in doing no more evasive moves than a torpedo bomber or dive bomber might do. Most were not even armed with gun ammo. They are basically manned missles. That logic simply doesn't apply to a kamikaze attack.

[:D]

A lot simpler to shoot down a 200 mile an hour missile vs a 400 mile an hour missile. We are not talking Ohka's here, we are talking about aircraft that attempt to crash into their target instead of simply bomb it. Speed is everything.

[Lemurs!]

Sorry, i had not read this thread in quite a while.

The reference i can think of to the Nagoya Mistsubishi plant is a book called Zero which
is a fairly good book on the creation process behind the A6m1/2. It does not continue with the later model creation process which i would have liked to read about.

The more i think about this upgrade process the more it bothers me; This part of the game is just broken and in more ways then most of you have figured out.
Working on my scenario i have found big problems here and there that will screw up Japanese production.

I am going to rework this in my scenario quite a bit more but i am not sure how much can be fixed.

I don't know any other way to put this except that this 'feature' is one of the worst design decisions i have ever seen in a game ever. BTR handled this much better. Didn't Grigsby design that? WTF? This is nothing but a step back to the worst parts of DOS. There is NO excuse for an upgrade tree that is linear like this. There should probably not be any tree other than basics of no Army/Navy crosses, no bombers to fighters, etc.

I have a couple of friends who are thinking of buying this game and i am almost to the point of saying 'wait for WitP2, the search for a real upgrade path'.

Mike

[Lemurs!]

Quote from Ron Saueracker:

Just nix the whole production issue regarding aircraft models and screw research as it is causing more problems than any playability benefits. If this is done, I have no problem with allowing upgrades to "change on the fly" as it will only allow more flexible management of the aircraft the players have (ie. will alow players to easily ready squadrons with obsolete a/c for kamikaze duty).


Sorry Ron, but if this game had not been made with production controls I and essentially everyone I know would have had no interest in buying it.
I think you would have lost 1/3 to 1/2 of your sales.

Mike

[Mr.Frag]

Mike, instead of complaining why don't you suggest something that will actually work taking into account the realities of Japan's abilities AND the fact that 75%+ of the games being played are against the computer, not another player where it would be very simple to have a pick list with no controls needed.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Sorry Ron, but if this game had not been made with production controls I and essentially everyone I know would have had no interest in buying it.
I think you would have lost 1/3 to 1/2 of your sales.

Oh come on...

There are many like me who don't care all that much about production, research, whatever... They'd realistically lose like 5% sales max. Perhaps they would even get some new sales.

O.

[Tankerace]

You guys have the Kamikaze thing all wrong. You don't use a 3 ton, 200 mile an hour plane, you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship![:D]

Gotta love the Yamato, the biggest (and worst) kamikaze in history.

Sorry, thought this topic needed some comic relief.

[Mr.Frag]

You guys have the Kamikaze thing all wrong. You don't use a 3 ton, 200 mile an hour plane, you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship!

[:D]

Now *that* was a good one! Lets see your AA guns stop that! [:'(]

[DrewMatrix]

you use a 68,000 ton, 28 knot battleship

I want enough flexibility in the IJ aircraft production to let me save up 8,000 engines and put them all on one huge cargo plane. Then I can use that neat parachute pallette extraction system to drop the Kamikaze-Yamato right on top of Halsey's fleet.

I mean, the Japanese could have saved up all their engines for one big plane and I think the player should have that flexibility too.

[tsimmonds]

I mean, the Japanese could have saved up all their engines for one big plane and I think the player should have that flexibility too.

I agree with that.....in some other game.[;)]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Whether it is Franks or Nates, they are flying straight in doing no more evasive moves than a torpedo bomber or dive bomber might do. Most were not even armed with gun ammo. They are basically manned missles. That logic simply doesn't apply to a kamikaze attack.

[:D]

A lot simpler to shoot down a 200 mile an hour missile vs a 400 mile an hour missile. We are not talking Ohka's here, we are talking about aircraft that attempt to crash into their target instead of simply bomb it. Speed is everything.

The point being you use what you have. If you have gone wild and have mostly Shindens and Reppu's now, but still have a lot of older a/c going unused on pools, you run out or very low on Shindens and Reppus you start using Franks, and A6M5's, and then Oscars and A6M2's if they are still around in pools and then A5M and Nates until you are out of everything....without having to disband units and wait 2 or 3 months for them to reappear.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Sorry Ron, but if this game had not been made with production controls I and essentially everyone I know would have had no interest in buying it.
I think you would have lost 1/3 to 1/2 of your sales.

Oh come on...

There are many like me who don't care all that much about production, research, whatever... They'd realistically lose like 5% sales max. Perhaps they would even get some new sales.

O.

One of the games real selling points for me was the Japanese production system. I too, thought it would be a lot like that BTR system or along the lines of the old USAAFE game from GG back in the 80's. Not a show-stopper by any means, but a point of excitement, none-the-less. What I do know is that no one has any idea how the absense of this one feature would have impacted sales, on way or the other. But it is CLEAR that a SIGNIFICANT number of users think that this feature is an important part of the game for them, and among almost ALL of those people, they consider it to be essentially broken.

I have no idea what the ultimate answer is or should be but I DO know what the answer is NOT. Specifically, to just blow it off and ignore it. If it could be fixed to where the historical purests could continue to play their historically "pure" game, then the purests have no case at all against it and should just shut their pie-holes. If it can't be fixed because of the amount of work involved or some internal technical reason, then fine, that's the way it is, end of story. We will have to live with partial solutions like Lemur #26. But at least the development staff should say so and put this issue to bed one way or another.

[ZOOMIE1980]

Mike, instead of complaining why don't you suggest something that will actually work....

Then have Matrix or 2X3 give him the source code so he can offer something of substance within context of the design... Can't really offer a fix without knowing, from a detailed technical level, how it actually works. I thought someone has already mentioned it is "unfixable", technically.....

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well the whole solution is "houserules" [:D]
what about:
you are allways ONLY allowed to change to the next plane in the row ? but you can circle your planes (indirect downgrade) - even if this means you will "loose" a few type of plane variations (nate to ki43I to ki43II toki61 to ki84a to ki84c to ki100 to nate will loose the ki44, but this is only a 3second path...

also, you have x planes of all new types allways in the pool (the same as the allied) but you are not allowed to use em (no auto upgrades !)

with this, i think everything should be fine - or, you delay the japanese planes in a way that the jap player need to research em to recive em at the actual date...

what about this idea ?

for the "best planes for your pilots"... just think about the zeros... example:
you have in the pool 500 zero2, 200 zero3 but nil zero5... cause you had heavy losses, your airgroups are low at planes... if i have enough pilots (say the allied player got my planes by airfield bombing but my pilots survived...) i want them to use the second best planes....

also, i do not know about training so well.... does an airgroup with say 10 planes and 36 pilots train the unit as good as a unit with 36/36 ?


For the control of the use... as i wrote, the houserules should be enough, any other restrictions are "silly"... like so many said, if the war went different, you have different needs.... and the btr-system is the "best" method to increase gameplay... i think BOTH sides need here improvement - even if i see the difference between allied research (only certain planes that were ONLY usefull for the pacific war should be able to speed up) and japanese research.

If the game force me to redo the same failures the japanese did historically (and to a lesser part as the allied did) why should anyone PLAY ?

It is like a eastern front game... you can play as the german but you are forced to do the same mistakes hitler ordered.... why should you do ? Or a game about the american civil war.... if i play the "rebs" at gettysburg, i will conquer that little round top and bring in my art... and then bye-bye yankee-army why should i play the game if i only can redo exact the things they did in history ?
I think, this is the most important thing "we" (the people who want to change the actual system and replace it by a more btr-like system) critizise... this "it could bring in nonhistorical results"... well, yes.. my intention as the japanese player is to bring in ahistorical results... i want 20-30 killed american carriers (if i can handle it)... i will loose the game in the end (i do not care about points and such things, for me the only disadvantage of Gary-Grisby-Games, these victory conditions.... i fight it out - untill the end. Make points so we can see who was better, but not to end the game...If i as the german won btr... it was so frustrating... i had to allow the allies to bombard cities cause the computer needes his points (and all i wanted to do was to use the R4M.... one time i managed to kill 900 Bombers with em... [:)]) but to reach this point i had to play 200 turns with "allied" support.... that was silly....only because of the points))
No, some people would cry this is ahistorically (and they will be right if i can do it easily) but with luck in the important situations (like kb kill at coral sea both carriers with nil losses and kick enterprise and hornet and saratoga at midway and after this i eat up some of his heavies... and so the allied player is in serious troubles and he make an essex-get-lost-error-so-he-need-even-more-time-to strike-seriously) i should be allowed to fight it out with the best i can use...

[Mr.Frag]

Then have Matrix or 2X3 give him the source code so he can offer something of substance within context of the design... Can't really offer a fix without knowing, from a detailed technical level, how it actually works. I thought someone has already mentioned it is "unfixable", technically.....

Zoomie, as always you come back with useless answers. Thought you were a *designer*. [8|]

The war happened. There is tons of information of what happened and what Japan could realistically do. There is absolutely no reason at all to discuss any aspect of coding to talk about a concept. It is up to 2BY3 to decide if the concept can be converted to actuals and deliver code should they choose to.

A lot of stuff in WitP came from people proposing things in the forums. Right now, we have this monster thread yet in the whole thread, there are no proposals for a workable system at a concept level, there is just a bunch of complaints.

The old line ... "you can be part of the solution or part of the problem" ... the choice as always rests with you.

Mike seems to have a great deal of knowledge and could probably propose something that was playable yet kept the historic realities in check hence my comment to him.

[Mr.Frag]

Well the whole solution is "houserules"

House Rules don't work in a Player vs Computer game hence while addressing some aspects, they do not actually fix anything. A large portion of the players are not PBEM'r types so fixes in that area only help a select few.

If one simply neglected that part of the user community, this could be done in a heartbeat as it is trivial.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well - sure. But why get so many so upset (even want to not buy the game) if they "only" want to play it vers. the ai ?
honestly, even i can change any scenario in 10 minutes so i can update what i want. And if i want to cheat myself, well, then everything is lost.

For me the "problem" are the pbems with noncertificated scenarios....

i would love to see some "minor" problems fixed and still can play a pbem... without the accusement of "cheating", cause everybody knows this scenario and accept it. So i have no need to care about the offical opinion of matrix about this aspects...

sure, to change the code or the game in a way that the ai does not "cheat" is not possible in this state of the game. I allways spoke about the "problem" of trustworthy scenarios against other humans.

Because if i dislike the offical scenarios with the offical upgrade path, i need only 10 minutes[X(] to solve this problem.

So sorry for misunderstanding. But then i can´t understand the people getting so upset about this. Really.

People, just use the editor, it IS simple... [;)]