Airplanes are relatively quick. Battleships take years. The first planning sketches for Montana class ships appear in 1939 (12 16-inch, 48,000 tons). The final drawings (New York Navy Yard) appear in early 1941. By then, the penetration power of the 16"-50 (armor-piercing, 2500 lbs.)had been realized and the ship's displacement has gone up dramatically. The final design was 890 feet long, 60,500 tons, 12 16"-50 main guns. Generally, the admirals were not particularly happy with this design. Particularly, they wondered why a ship so much bigger than the 45,000 ton Iowa's would have so little improvement in secondary armament. The first of these was to be layed down (New York Navy Yard) in 1941, but was cancelled due to a shortage of steel. The plan was to have 3 built in New York, 1 in Philadelphia and 1 in Norfolk. These ships were continuously postponed, first in April, 1942 (steel shortage) and finally cancelled in July, 1943. Of primary importance in all of this is Pres. Roosevelt's quick grasp of the superiority of the aircraft carrier. This would suggest a period of at least five years from concept to commissioning and at least another six months for crew work-up and transfer to the Pacific Fleet. It should also be noted that as late as January, 1945, Iowa's were still being laid down (Illinois).
Basically, I think this game should be played with the historical tools that were available.
Paul
Production: A Simple Approach
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
madflava13
- Posts: 1501
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Alexandria, VA
I question the historical aspect brought up here...
for example the P-51A & B models were created with the Allison engine, (same one as the P-40C) some were exported to the British as "Apache" models. The British were so disdainful of the underpowered Allison and the performance of the Apache they were going to cancel the order. The Brit's got the bright idea of sticking the Merlin Rolls Royce engine in it and Presto! the War's greatest single engine fighter was born. Thats historical... Now why cant I have that opportunity with other aircraft if its ok to change a few CA/BB hulls into CVL's to spice up the game? :p
for example the P-51A & B models were created with the Allison engine, (same one as the P-40C) some were exported to the British as "Apache" models. The British were so disdainful of the underpowered Allison and the performance of the Apache they were going to cancel the order. The Brit's got the bright idea of sticking the Merlin Rolls Royce engine in it and Presto! the War's greatest single engine fighter was born. Thats historical... Now why cant I have that opportunity with other aircraft if its ok to change a few CA/BB hulls into CVL's to spice up the game? :p
I certainly dont agree with the last two posters.
The reality is that the US president had
already rammed thru a naval appropriation
bill that most of congress flat out thought
immpossible. In addition he had 'privately'
taken the major aircraft manufacturers aside
and told them that he wanted a target first
year production of all types of 50k airframes.
Many of them told him it wasnt possible BUT
in the end they surpassed that target.
I suggest that if the 'objective' is to find
reasons to 'not' do things, then you can easily do that. It doesnt mean they cant be
done. It means you dont want to do them(or try).
Any US mother of a 7 year old child likely
can tell you this is a common behavioral trait.
So I assert to you all that a mere minor modification of any of the pre-war bills
could have easily removed the 'bottlenecks'
that you seem so comfortable with.
I suggest to you that they could have just as easily NOT signed the Naval Armaments treaty and indulged in a intense build up
of battleships. Along with this, they could
easily have de-emphasized aircraft carriers.
If you intend to produce a game that straight-jackets the players into the historical mode, that is your choice.
BUT do not make rationalizations for
doing so. That merely offends. Admit what you are doing and leave it. That is MUCH less offensive. I am a historian and well
capable of recognizing cheap rationalizations.
This all falls into the same category as:
The game ends in October 1914 because
all sides ran out of shells.
Oddly the war didnt end in October 1914.
Strange isnt it.
It isnt a stretch to imagine four Montana
class being build...even if doing so would
actually HURT the war effort.
Ok so 'YOU' dont want them. Fine, I am a big
proponent of free-will. However I DO want them. I will try just as hard to convince
that it should be allowed.
My opinion is no less valid that yours.
That is why I suggest to the designers
of this game, take a LOOK at the production
system for SPI's 'War in the Pacific'
Take a GOOD look. It isnt a bad system,
and it truely gives you a feel for the
OVERWHELMING might of the United States.
The reality is that the US president had
already rammed thru a naval appropriation
bill that most of congress flat out thought
immpossible. In addition he had 'privately'
taken the major aircraft manufacturers aside
and told them that he wanted a target first
year production of all types of 50k airframes.
Many of them told him it wasnt possible BUT
in the end they surpassed that target.
I suggest that if the 'objective' is to find
reasons to 'not' do things, then you can easily do that. It doesnt mean they cant be
done. It means you dont want to do them(or try).
Any US mother of a 7 year old child likely
can tell you this is a common behavioral trait.
So I assert to you all that a mere minor modification of any of the pre-war bills
could have easily removed the 'bottlenecks'
that you seem so comfortable with.
I suggest to you that they could have just as easily NOT signed the Naval Armaments treaty and indulged in a intense build up
of battleships. Along with this, they could
easily have de-emphasized aircraft carriers.
If you intend to produce a game that straight-jackets the players into the historical mode, that is your choice.
BUT do not make rationalizations for
doing so. That merely offends. Admit what you are doing and leave it. That is MUCH less offensive. I am a historian and well
capable of recognizing cheap rationalizations.
This all falls into the same category as:
The game ends in October 1914 because
all sides ran out of shells.
Oddly the war didnt end in October 1914.
Strange isnt it.
It isnt a stretch to imagine four Montana
class being build...even if doing so would
actually HURT the war effort.
Ok so 'YOU' dont want them. Fine, I am a big
proponent of free-will. However I DO want them. I will try just as hard to convince
that it should be allowed.
My opinion is no less valid that yours.
That is why I suggest to the designers
of this game, take a LOOK at the production
system for SPI's 'War in the Pacific'
Take a GOOD look. It isnt a bad system,
and it truely gives you a feel for the
OVERWHELMING might of the United States.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Chiteng,
What do you disagree with my post about?
All I stated was that if it was "historical" game then changing over a few hulls to CVL's for the Japanese would be the equivalent to changing aircraft production (that had a dramatic effect on the war) on airframes. This was pointed out by Paul Goodman that it was much easier to do than changing hulls!
I dont deny Roosevelt got what he wanted the first year, Try saying that about year 2 planning! he eventually wanted over 100k airframes in year 2 & 3. (now that WAS impossible) I also submit that if NO Pearl Harbor happens, leave the Phillipines alone and go after the weakly defended Dutch and British oil in the Indies, the Japanese would of kept the USA out of the war at least another year and that creates a myriad of possibilites where the IJN has the time to build more CV's/CVL's and get more steel/products/goods for thier warmaking machine. Now thats a political effect on the war not production, but deny it would'nt change production orders & schedules if IJN is sporting 9 fully stocked & fueled CV's in the Pacific to start a war with...and to be honest I really dont care if the USA made 10 Montana's then, WWII is negotiated and over that much sooner with no defeated Japan-imho.
As far as "historical" gaming goes, no one will ever be completely happy with what is done with WitP, I will buy it and play it and enjoy it for what it, is a good game.
I respect your right and opinions voiced and hope you will consider mine also.
Thank you
Jim
[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]
What do you disagree with my post about?
All I stated was that if it was "historical" game then changing over a few hulls to CVL's for the Japanese would be the equivalent to changing aircraft production (that had a dramatic effect on the war) on airframes. This was pointed out by Paul Goodman that it was much easier to do than changing hulls!
I dont deny Roosevelt got what he wanted the first year, Try saying that about year 2 planning! he eventually wanted over 100k airframes in year 2 & 3. (now that WAS impossible) I also submit that if NO Pearl Harbor happens, leave the Phillipines alone and go after the weakly defended Dutch and British oil in the Indies, the Japanese would of kept the USA out of the war at least another year and that creates a myriad of possibilites where the IJN has the time to build more CV's/CVL's and get more steel/products/goods for thier warmaking machine. Now thats a political effect on the war not production, but deny it would'nt change production orders & schedules if IJN is sporting 9 fully stocked & fueled CV's in the Pacific to start a war with...and to be honest I really dont care if the USA made 10 Montana's then, WWII is negotiated and over that much sooner with no defeated Japan-imho.
As far as "historical" gaming goes, no one will ever be completely happy with what is done with WitP, I will buy it and play it and enjoy it for what it, is a good game.
I respect your right and opinions voiced and hope you will consider mine also.
Thank you
Jim
[ June 09, 2001: Message edited by: moore4807 ]
Of course, My opinion is no better than anyone elses.
Sorry I didnt mean to be polemical.
I just feel that a re-run of PacWar
will be a disaster.
Gary coded a GREAT game in BOTR
and yet the sales bombed.
That is making me think that maybe
wargamming as a hobby is over.
That in turn depresses me.
People like my wife simply buy more and more
first person shooters and clones of
Dune et al.
No one wants to learn.
All that matters is glitz and chrome.
Sorry I didnt mean to be polemical.
I just feel that a re-run of PacWar
will be a disaster.
Gary coded a GREAT game in BOTR
and yet the sales bombed.
That is making me think that maybe
wargamming as a hobby is over.
That in turn depresses me.
People like my wife simply buy more and more
first person shooters and clones of
Dune et al.
No one wants to learn.
All that matters is glitz and chrome.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
Not so sure wargames are dead. Check out the enthusiasm over "Combat Mission" and "Europa Universalis." I've read some positive reviews of other wargames in Computer Games, which I subscribe too, but these two really stand out. The second, EU, might be something you would classify as "strategy" rather than a wargame, but it's not glitz that's driving the popularity of the game. :rolleyes:
PITTY STOP that Yankee Idea of Germans Scientist working on developping a nuclear design !! The american was the only one that works on using nuclear energy has a bomb ! The germans tryed to use it to make nuclear submarine engine ; what, if you look at the first US nuclear subs thay were somewhat successfull at :pOriginally posted by Talorgan:
Victory over Japan and Italy might always have been a foregone conclusion but the if they had fought long and hard enough they might have bought enough time for Germany to develope nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them!
The germans never thought about an aerian strategic warfare , thats why they had to ressort to V2 and V3 to some extend and not to B17, B24, B29 , B.. but the Atomic bomb IS a strategic aerial warfare so basically useless for them.
More than this Germans scientist refused to work for a bomb and implemented the idea that this wasn't feasible in Germany.
Chiteng,
No apology necessary, but thank you all the same...
I understand your feelings however, having seen some good coders at the local college-all is not lost! Many of these computer grads today are finding the bubble has burst, no millionaire jobs and competing with dot-com refugees for the steady jobs that are out there. So I think you will see over an 18 month period some of these folks will start gravitiating to games and updates because its all that is left for them (and what they love doing). I am getting my feet wet just now and already have a career so this is more enjoyment than anything else.
No apology necessary, but thank you all the same...
I understand your feelings however, having seen some good coders at the local college-all is not lost! Many of these computer grads today are finding the bubble has burst, no millionaire jobs and competing with dot-com refugees for the steady jobs that are out there. So I think you will see over an 18 month period some of these folks will start gravitiating to games and updates because its all that is left for them (and what they love doing). I am getting my feet wet just now and already have a career so this is more enjoyment than anything else.
-
Dan in Toledo
- Posts: 45
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Toledo,oh
We should be able to choose what we produce. Every country had ships on the drawing board. We don't need to replicate that since none of us are experts in the design on ships. There were so many designs that were not used (US Montana class, UK Vanguard--built but never fired guns in anger), German 100k ton monster BB with 20" guns). If in the course of our games a need arises in certain areas (need more CVs, DDs, CAs, CLs, whatever) then we should be able to build them.
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Actually, most of us are experts on the design of ships. And you can be an expert too! Get yourself a copy of Norman Friedman's book "Battleship Design and Development" and you'll be designing super-dreadnoughts in no time!Originally posted by Dan in Toledo:
We should be able to choose what we produce. Every country had ships on the drawing board. We don't need to replicate that since none of us are experts in the design on ships. There were so many designs that were not used (US Montana class, UK Vanguard--built but never fired guns in anger), German 100k ton monster BB with 20" guns). If in the course of our games a need arises in certain areas (need more CVs, DDs, CAs, CLs, whatever) then we should be able to build them.
Hello,
Ringbolt
My only disagreement is the Washington Treaty WAS signed, and IMO, far too early to be a part of this games scope. Even in a non-historic scenario I think you should be resticted to historical conditions at least from 1937, but probably 1939 would be better. I dont see any reason you should not be allowed to build Montanas since they were cancelled far after the start of the war and therefore you should have some control over that. If you ignore what actually did happen before the scope of this game, then as I see it, there is no point in it even being a historically based game. If there are not some historic restictions, even on a non-historic scenario, then it might as well be a space game.Originally posted by Chiteng:
So I assert to you all that a mere minor modification of any of the pre-war bills
could have easily removed the 'bottlenecks'
that you seem so comfortable with.
I suggest to you that they could have just as easily NOT signed the Naval Armaments treaty and indulged in a intense build up
of battleships. Along with this, they could
easily have de-emphasized aircraft carriers.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Ringbolt,
you comment is mostly agreeable until you go onto say about it not being historical, then it might as well be a space game...
Well YES, and no-
First yes- you could ignore all physics laws and have superdreadnought flying ships assigned to Bull Halsey, or perhaps someone could make a game of the movie where the USS Nimitz goes back in time with Martin Sheen- youd probably find buyers for that market.
Now NO!- the actual impression I get is the USA, Japan, Britain, and Germany along with the other WWII combatants were not expertly guiding the production and path of the war as though it was coreographed (bad misspelling -but you get the picture) It was build/try this and we think and pray to god it works... I understand how hard it is to try to model what-if into a game, but that is exactly why we havent stopped trying to improve computer gaming from Pong 20 years later, is it?
Not trying to criticize, we just have to keep trying to expand the boundries to prevent stagnation
Jim
you comment is mostly agreeable until you go onto say about it not being historical, then it might as well be a space game...
Well YES, and no-
First yes- you could ignore all physics laws and have superdreadnought flying ships assigned to Bull Halsey, or perhaps someone could make a game of the movie where the USS Nimitz goes back in time with Martin Sheen- youd probably find buyers for that market.
Now NO!- the actual impression I get is the USA, Japan, Britain, and Germany along with the other WWII combatants were not expertly guiding the production and path of the war as though it was coreographed (bad misspelling -but you get the picture) It was build/try this and we think and pray to god it works... I understand how hard it is to try to model what-if into a game, but that is exactly why we havent stopped trying to improve computer gaming from Pong 20 years later, is it?
Not trying to criticize, we just have to keep trying to expand the boundries to prevent stagnation
Jim
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Actually, the Australian company SSG did make a game out of it! It was a scenario to their Carriers at War computer game.Originally posted by moore4807:
. . . or perhaps someone could make a game of the movie where the USS Nimitz goes back in time with Martin Sheen- youd probably find buyers for that market.
Hello,Originally posted by moore4807:
Ringbolt,
you comment is mostly agreeable until you go onto say about it not being historical, then it might as well be a space game...
Looks like we agree, because I was trying to be funny, and well, sarcasim doesn't come across in type well.
On the "No" portion, I agree again. I think we as players should have adjustable degrees of control on what and when ships are built, my point is you have to draw the line somewhere where even the "loosest" scenario has to start. Otherwise you can say "IF Germany hadn't lost WWI they would have been in the Solomans with the Bizmark and the Tirpiz instead of the Japanese". IMO that should be '37 at the earliest and probably '39, after that you can build nothing but Liberty ships if you want.
Ringbolt
LtCom: "Sgt. Lee, is that a Navy
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
Cross I see you wearing?"
Sgt. Lee: "No Sir, it's three."
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
The level of realism is the first decision that has to be made, and hopefully already has so the game is delivered on time.
If War in the Pacific is to be historically based then the plane and ship types chosen by each government and available should be the only types used. For me the fun is figuring out how to make the most out of what you have.
Maybe an "alternative history" scenario could be included where some of the ideas mentioned here are used.
But my best suggestion is a game editor that allows the players to start the game with different troop and ship dispositions. Japan could bring the entire Combined Fleet to Pearly along with 10 divisions of infantry. The US could put the 24th and 25th Divisions into the Philipines, etc.
What needs to be included are conditions, under which, the Japanese can be considered winners.
If War in the Pacific is to be historically based then the plane and ship types chosen by each government and available should be the only types used. For me the fun is figuring out how to make the most out of what you have.
Maybe an "alternative history" scenario could be included where some of the ideas mentioned here are used.
But my best suggestion is a game editor that allows the players to start the game with different troop and ship dispositions. Japan could bring the entire Combined Fleet to Pearly along with 10 divisions of infantry. The US could put the 24th and 25th Divisions into the Philipines, etc.
What needs to be included are conditions, under which, the Japanese can be considered winners.
I have to throw in my two cents worth since I'd love to see a worthy replacement for PacWar.
I've played PacWar a number of times, and I find that, as the American anyway, your strategies tend to be dictated by geography, Japanese AI, and available resources. The game got old as a result. You can't change geography, but you can design the game to be replayable. I hope Matrix is doing that.
Variability is important to replayability. I would like to see some designs that were fairly final and ready for production - like the Montana. Certainly designing hulls from the bottom up like someone suggested is out of the question. But provide just a little bit of "what if" that isn't too far out of line and would have/could have come into existence but for one person's decision that was made based on one accurate/inaccurate conversation. Maybe you could select one or two hulls for each side and one or two airframes for each side that were real (final blueprints or prototype built) but not built. You could also throw in a little randomness in effectiveness so that, just as in reality, there may be an unnoticed flaw in the design. For example, if you decide to build the X-100 superfighter, there could be a maneuverability bell curve. Darn, just retooled all of my plants for this thing, and it isn't any better that a P-40! This isn't too complicated and easy to design in.
You should also be able to speed up development of designs to a small extent. But provide a hefty penalty in resources or production for doing so.
The biggest argument seems to be over the extent to which a person should be able to alter production. I side with Chiteng on this. Build 100,000 C-47's if you want. But the game has to be designed so that there are penalties for going to extremes. I don't know what is realistic, but if the Japanese want to convert cruisers to carriers, they should be allowed to - if they are willing to suffer the hopefully huge game-imposed delays for design and refit, the cost in materials, and tying up ship production/repair. And he also has to provide the planes and pilots to outfit the ship. Provide sufficient reality-based penalties for being extreme, and let me take it from there.
Another possible solution for extreme production may be the AI's responses to production. I know AI is terribly time intensive, and no one is ever satisfied. But, for example, if the Allies produce only carriers and no destoyers, the Japanese AI produces more submarines. Allies concentrate on bombers? Fine, the AI builds more fighters. Or the AI could follow one of several possible "master plans" of production where it emphasizes a certain kind of production and fighting strategy. Wouldn't it be a shocker if the Japanese focused on submarines? Or long range bombers? Keeps you on your toes and also requires you to at least prepare for that eventuality by building sufficient numbers of everything to counter a potential threat.
And that is not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is re-fighting the war perfect hindsight knowledge we now have. I don't like playing a game where I know the aircraft carrier will be king, and that Japan will produce only X number after the war starts but that I will Essex class carriers coming out of my arse. It's too predictable. I think a simulation should at least provide the option for me to play under the same uncertainties as my real life counterparts. Provide enough uncertainty that I'm not willing to put all of my eggs into one basket.
Anyway, I'm in favor of being able to alter production within the classes of materiel provided. Being able to put Merlins in P-40's is a little too micro-detailed, but if there's a class of ship available, I should be able to produce as much as I want/can. Just make sure that I'm realistically penalized in time and resources for doing it. Even design in random delays for unforeseen problems when retooling a production line or converting a hull. Kaiser pulled off a great trick with the jeep carriers, but what if there was an inherent flaw in the design that addes six months to production? I'd like that kind of uncertainty to enter into my calculations and provide a "bird in the hand, two in the bush" dilemma.
Bottom line: risk v. reward. Provide enough risk that extreme production may be punished and provides incentive for us as gamers, as we do in real life, to avoid placing all of our eggs in one basket.
As for variable set up, I'm for that too. The Japanese should absolutely be able to do so since they have the initiative and should be able to tailor their force mix and disposition to match any strategy. As the Allies, I'd like to be able to do that too just to provide some "what if" potential. Personally, I would stick to the historical set-up so that I am dealt the same cards as in real life. You won't find me bragging online about how I placed everything in the Philippines and beat the Japanese in two months. But it may be someone else's cup of tea.
Actually, in thinking about it, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to satisfy both sides. Simply provide a choice for either historical or optional production and set-up. Optional production would certainly be easy to do.
Does anyone at Matrix listen to us anyway?
I've played PacWar a number of times, and I find that, as the American anyway, your strategies tend to be dictated by geography, Japanese AI, and available resources. The game got old as a result. You can't change geography, but you can design the game to be replayable. I hope Matrix is doing that.
Variability is important to replayability. I would like to see some designs that were fairly final and ready for production - like the Montana. Certainly designing hulls from the bottom up like someone suggested is out of the question. But provide just a little bit of "what if" that isn't too far out of line and would have/could have come into existence but for one person's decision that was made based on one accurate/inaccurate conversation. Maybe you could select one or two hulls for each side and one or two airframes for each side that were real (final blueprints or prototype built) but not built. You could also throw in a little randomness in effectiveness so that, just as in reality, there may be an unnoticed flaw in the design. For example, if you decide to build the X-100 superfighter, there could be a maneuverability bell curve. Darn, just retooled all of my plants for this thing, and it isn't any better that a P-40! This isn't too complicated and easy to design in.
You should also be able to speed up development of designs to a small extent. But provide a hefty penalty in resources or production for doing so.
The biggest argument seems to be over the extent to which a person should be able to alter production. I side with Chiteng on this. Build 100,000 C-47's if you want. But the game has to be designed so that there are penalties for going to extremes. I don't know what is realistic, but if the Japanese want to convert cruisers to carriers, they should be allowed to - if they are willing to suffer the hopefully huge game-imposed delays for design and refit, the cost in materials, and tying up ship production/repair. And he also has to provide the planes and pilots to outfit the ship. Provide sufficient reality-based penalties for being extreme, and let me take it from there.
Another possible solution for extreme production may be the AI's responses to production. I know AI is terribly time intensive, and no one is ever satisfied. But, for example, if the Allies produce only carriers and no destoyers, the Japanese AI produces more submarines. Allies concentrate on bombers? Fine, the AI builds more fighters. Or the AI could follow one of several possible "master plans" of production where it emphasizes a certain kind of production and fighting strategy. Wouldn't it be a shocker if the Japanese focused on submarines? Or long range bombers? Keeps you on your toes and also requires you to at least prepare for that eventuality by building sufficient numbers of everything to counter a potential threat.
And that is not unrealistic. What is unrealistic is re-fighting the war perfect hindsight knowledge we now have. I don't like playing a game where I know the aircraft carrier will be king, and that Japan will produce only X number after the war starts but that I will Essex class carriers coming out of my arse. It's too predictable. I think a simulation should at least provide the option for me to play under the same uncertainties as my real life counterparts. Provide enough uncertainty that I'm not willing to put all of my eggs into one basket.
Anyway, I'm in favor of being able to alter production within the classes of materiel provided. Being able to put Merlins in P-40's is a little too micro-detailed, but if there's a class of ship available, I should be able to produce as much as I want/can. Just make sure that I'm realistically penalized in time and resources for doing it. Even design in random delays for unforeseen problems when retooling a production line or converting a hull. Kaiser pulled off a great trick with the jeep carriers, but what if there was an inherent flaw in the design that addes six months to production? I'd like that kind of uncertainty to enter into my calculations and provide a "bird in the hand, two in the bush" dilemma.
Bottom line: risk v. reward. Provide enough risk that extreme production may be punished and provides incentive for us as gamers, as we do in real life, to avoid placing all of our eggs in one basket.
As for variable set up, I'm for that too. The Japanese should absolutely be able to do so since they have the initiative and should be able to tailor their force mix and disposition to match any strategy. As the Allies, I'd like to be able to do that too just to provide some "what if" potential. Personally, I would stick to the historical set-up so that I am dealt the same cards as in real life. You won't find me bragging online about how I placed everything in the Philippines and beat the Japanese in two months. But it may be someone else's cup of tea.
Actually, in thinking about it, it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to satisfy both sides. Simply provide a choice for either historical or optional production and set-up. Optional production would certainly be easy to do.
Does anyone at Matrix listen to us anyway?
