SBD-3 production is wrong

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So, if japanese production can get out of hand (esp with PDU on), why not have a house rule that says something like,

"If PDUs are on, Japan can only ~convert~ production of factories, but not ~expand~ production."

I'm very interested in the thread, because I'd certainly like to play a full campaign at some point. But neither do wish to get into late '43 only to "discover" some of the fundamental flaws in the game. I'd rather y'all discover them for me, have several hotly debated threads on the forums, then some form of reasonable house rules surface, so I can enjoy my game when it finally time for it...

:^)

-F-

you lose production capability from switching production though. Or has this been changed?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

On average Japan produced something like 900 planes/month, total 42000 combat/recon/patrol planes. Why not make this HR? Japanese player can produce whatever he likes, but only 900-1000 planes per month.

that would make it pretty restrictive IMO as that would mean no matter how good or bad the Japanese are doing, they can´t ever produce more. I´m really more a fan of making it at least twice as expensive to ramp up production the longer I´m thinking about it. This would also tie it more to the succesful or unsuccesful conquests.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Puhis

On average Japan produced something like 900 planes/month, total 42000 combat/recon/patrol planes. Why not make this HR? Japanese player can produce whatever he likes, but only 900-1000 planes per month.

that would make it pretty restrictive IMO as that would mean no matter how good or bad the Japanese are doing, they can´t ever produce more. I´m really more a fan of making it at least twice as expensive to ramp up production the longer I´m thinking about it. This would also tie it more to the succesful or unsuccesful conquests.

My suggestion was just for those people who think Japan should not be able to produce more than x number of airplanes. I agree that if japanese player is playing a good game, he should be able to build more planes.

My suggestions are:
1) Factory repair should be slower, not one point/day
2) Factory expansion should cost more
3) Halting ships should only release 50 % of shipyard capacity (that's got nothing to do with planes, but come on, Shinano is not going to dissappear from the shipyard when construction is halted...)

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Puhis

On average Japan produced something like 900 planes/month, total 42000 combat/recon/patrol planes. Why not make this HR? Japanese player can produce whatever he likes, but only 900-1000 planes per month.

that would make it pretty restrictive IMO as that would mean no matter how good or bad the Japanese are doing, they can´t ever produce more. I´m really more a fan of making it at least twice as expensive to ramp up production the longer I´m thinking about it. This would also tie it more to the succesful or unsuccesful conquests.

My suggestion was just for those people who think Japan should not be able to produce more than x number of airplanes. I agree that if japanese player is playing a good game, he should be able to build more planes.

My suggestions are:
1) Factory repair should be slower, not one point/day
2) Factory expansion should cost more
3) Halting ships should only release 50 % of shipyard capacity (that's got nothing to do with planes, but come on, Shinano is not going to dissappear from the shipyard when construction is halted...)

some good points, especially the thinking about the relationship between the capacity of building ships and building aircraft.

[bilbow]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So, if japanese production can get out of hand (esp with PDU on), why not have a house rule that says something like,

"If PDUs are on, Japan can only ~convert~ production of factories, but not ~expand~ production."

I'm very interested in the thread, because I'd certainly like to play a full campaign at some point. But neither do wish to get into late '43 only to "discover" some of the fundamental flaws in the game. I'd rather y'all discover them for me, have several hotly debated threads on the forums, then some form of reasonable house rules surface, so I can enjoy my game when it finally time for it...

:^)

-F-

Hi Steve,

While it is true that Japan can produce whatever amount of planes it wants, all this ignores the fact that there are a limited number of squadrons to put them into. In my campaign it's still early, March 42, but I have already turned off Zero production because I've converted all my frontline IJN fighter groups, and have a pool in reserve, so producing more would be a waste. The limited number of groups makes the whole argument about Japanese production giving a huge advantage meaningless. PDU on gives some flexibility only, as it does for the allies.

[AcePylut]

What PDU does is allow the Japs to make "only" the best planes.  There's no amount of HI invested in building up some of the crap planes.
 

[Feinder]

Ack! You have revealed my real name to the internet! Now I shall have to send someone named Luigi to to hunt you down!

[:D]

Bilbow - but isn't the debate here that that "Yes, Japan can produce airfames to fill out their squadrons. And to your point that the number of squadrons limits the number of AC on map (so over-production do not imply that the map will suddenly be swimming in Tonys or whatever). However, in the case of heavy losses, Japan can replace those losses due to high production, whereas an Allied player may not be able to to do so, because he is limited to the number frames in the (historic) replacement rate".

-F-

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

have you got an AAR with combat reports running?

Air combat reports are practically meaningless, since losses are almost never reported accurately. Overall statistics are more reliable, but still are subject to later corrections. And simple comparison of the number of lost planes does not tell much. Again I should mention Q-Ball vs. Cuttlefish AAR, where they already ponder Japanese surrender in September of 1943, even though Allied plane losses are slightly heavier.

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Indefinite numbers of skill 70 pilots work just fine.

Too bad that Japan doesn't have them too. In stock you have just 60 planes worth of IJNAF fighter squadrons to be used for training at the start of the game. Assuming that IJAAF takes over the duties of actual air defence over Home Islands. Assuming a 2-month training cycle, and I believe that this might be way too generous under the latest patch, you produce just 30 half-trained (with subpar EXP and Defense) pilots per month. For the entire IJNAF. With bomber pilots situation is far, far worse, because 80% of them need NavT and NavS just to be minimally competent in their duties.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So, if japanese production can get out of hand (esp with PDU on), why not have a house rule that says something like,

"If PDUs are on, Japan can only ~convert~ production of factories, but not ~expand~ production."

Again, this is just asking the Japanese player to throw the game before it begins. Expect Japan to be pummeled into submission no later than the first half of 1944 if this houserule is in effect, baring a truly staggering difference in skill between players.

[bilbow]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Ack! You have revealed my real name to the internet! Now I shall have to send someone named Luigi to to hunt you down!

[:D]

Bilbow - but isn't the debate here that that "Yes, Japan can produce airfames to fill out their squadrons. And to your point that the number of squadrons limits the number of AC on map (so over-production do not imply that the map will suddenly be swimming in Tonys or whatever). However, in the case of heavy losses, Japan can replace those losses due to high production, whereas an Allied player may not be able to to do so, because he is limited to the number frames in the (historic) replacement rate".

-F-

Give me Luigi's contact info and I will email him my address. Maybe he's an AE player. [:D]

Japan can more easily relace the airframes, true, but the allies are far better able to take raw pilots from school and train them up to acceptable levels. More Tonies or whatever are worthless when flown by 40 air skill pilots. In my Jap campaign, early March 42 I have at the moment 3 IJN fighter pilots in my reserve pool with 70 air skill, 8 IJAAF. That includes retaining Taiyo and Ryuho airgroups in the HI as training squadrons. In my Allied game, early May 42 I have 95 USAAF pilots, 40 USN, same skill level. In the event of heavy losses building the airframes won't do me much good unless I train them for 2-3 months.

Bill

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Puhis

On average Japan produced something like 900 planes/month, total 42000 combat/recon/patrol planes. Why not make this HR? Japanese player can produce whatever he likes, but only 900-1000 planes per month.

that would make it pretty restrictive IMO as that would mean no matter how good or bad the Japanese are doing, they can´t ever produce more. I´m really more a fan of making it at least twice as expensive to ramp up production the longer I´m thinking about it. This would also tie it more to the succesful or unsuccesful conquests.

My suggestion was just for those people who think Japan should not be able to produce more than x number of airplanes. I agree that if japanese player is playing a good game, he should be able to build more planes.

My suggestions are:
1) Factory repair should be slower, not one point/day
2) Factory expansion should cost more
3) Halting ships should only release 50 % of shipyard capacity (that's got nothing to do with planes, but come on, Shinano is not going to dissappear from the shipyard when construction is halted...)

Yes most of these are good , but need some modification.

1) Repairs should be 1 point per day (from air attack) but expansions should be slower and BURSTY eg after 29 days + 0 but after 50 days +30%.
2) Prob correct , retooling which sometimes is needed is expensive.
3) Agreed but then you should also have a scrap option eg Shinanos sister ( hull 111) was in the yards at 30% complete it was scrapped when war broke out. A scrap option should release a significant amount of resources in 111's case it would be 20K tons of steel .

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Ack! You have revealed my real name to the internet! Now I shall have to send someone named Luigi to to hunt you down!

[:D]

Bilbow - but isn't the debate here that that "Yes, Japan can produce airfames to fill out their squadrons. And to your point that the number of squadrons limits the number of AC on map (so over-production do not imply that the map will suddenly be swimming in Tonys or whatever). However, in the case of heavy losses, Japan can replace those losses due to high production, whereas an Allied player may not be able to to do so, because he is limited to the number frames in the (historic) replacement rate".

-F-

Correct in AARs with quite games the allies are completely dominant a year ahead of historic. In active games the reverse happens . But the allies did pursue a Europe first policy so as long as Japan doesnt take Hawaii or Alaska the US would not have diverted production.

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So, if japanese production can get out of hand (esp with PDU on), why not have a house rule that says something like,

"If PDUs are on, Japan can only ~convert~ production of factories, but not ~expand~ production."

I'm very interested in the thread, because I'd certainly like to play a full campaign at some point. But neither do wish to get into late '43 only to "discover" some of the fundamental flaws in the game. I'd rather y'all discover them for me, have several hotly debated threads on the forums, then some form of reasonable house rules surface, so I can enjoy my game when it finally time for it...

:^)

-F-

I dont think the game is much out of line.
- In a lot of games the allies are destroying the Japanese air much earlier than historic
- To date no one has reached Japanese 44 levels of production ( despit better convoying and less ships lost to subs) .
- The main reaons Japan does better here is 20/20 knowledge they are not going to fight Hell cats and Mustangs in Nates or A6M2s thats a lot of pilots saved...In turn the allies dont risk their CVs in 41-42.
- Most players make hard decisions EARLIER which gives Japan some bonuses in mid 42 , esp in active air war games ( eg spending the supplies to restart Kates , building Mabels etc)
- Japanese non trainer Fighter production in 41 was 1080 , 42 2935 .... 44 13,811. Which would make any option not to expand production be very siilly / a historic.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Feinder
So, if japanese production can get out of hand (esp with PDU on), why not have a house rule that says something like,
"If PDUs are on, Japan can only ~convert~ production of factories, but not ~expand~ production.

The vast majority of this post is not directed at those I quote or anyone in particular ...

I assume because of PDU you're only talking about aircraft factories and not engine (or any other production) and I assume you realise as soon as you manually convert a factory it reduces in size.

While an interesting proposition, I certainly think it would have to be nutted out much more than a broad statement cause it assumes that Japan never increased its production of any airframes and detailed research of the capacity for each month of the war would have to be undertaken... or of course alternatively the max no built of each model during the war be adhered to.
... & what do you know Puhis has chimed in to give the numbers

ORIGINAL: Puhis
On average Japan produced something like 900 planes/month, total 42000 combat/recon/patrol planes. Why not make this HR? Japanese player can produce whatever he likes, but only 900-1000 planes per month.

This seems like a reasonable proposition, except for the auditing and management of that. Still if you guys want to go further why not scrap all airframe and engine production and up the requirements for HI/LI resource-oil use. Have the a/c numbers static (by build numbers) and play as it stands ... I'm sure this will appeal to your sense of historical accuracy and will ensure there are no overly damaged ego's out there.

I agree that the Japanese economy could be made a little more difficult, but there are boundaries on how much a player can absorb and has time to manipulate the production side ... I understand the economy pretty well, many Japanese players don't (and a few well known players come to mind) and it can still be a hard slog for me at times. You forget that the Japanese economy can be run off the rails and damage to critical raw material production can put a very nasty spanner in the works... should we model this adequately and accurately too ... scrap production all together ? or just realise this is not completely historical ... And IMO what a boring game that would be if it were ...

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Puhis
My suggestion was just for those people who think Japan should not be able to produce more than x number of airplanes. I agree that if japanese player is playing a good game, he should be able to build more planes.

My suggestions are:
1) Factory repair should be slower, not one point/day
2) Factory expansion should cost more
3) Halting ships should only release 50 % of shipyard capacity (that's got nothing to do with planes, but come on, Shinano is not going to dissappear from the shipyard when construction is halted...)

Yes most of these are good , but need some modification.

1) Repairs should be 1 point per day (from air attack) but expansions should be slower and BURSTY eg after 29 days + 0 but after 50 days +30%.
2) Prob correct , retooling which sometimes is needed is expensive.
3) Agreed but then you should also have a scrap option eg Shinanos sister ( hull 111) was in the yards at 30% complete it was scrapped when war broke out. A scrap option should release a significant amount of resources in 111's case it would be 20K tons of steel .

This is all a mute point cause there is no way to modify this anyway with the existing editor functionality... but
1)I'd agree repairs should be 1 point per day, not sure how the strategic bombing model is in AE, but it was too strong in witp. To wipe out almost the whole productive capacity of a city in one day multiple raids was just wrong (well if you play Nemo121[;)])
2)1000 supplies per point is adequate IMO, but would be nice if it were editable.
3)What about ships that just click over to building, shouldn't I be able to halt them for no cost... I'm just saying there are more variables here. And then again if you were going for such build options then system based on what you want to build with design options would be great but a pipe-dream in this current version of witp. But something that PTOII did quite well.

As a sidebar it would have been a nice inclusion in the editor to be able to edit the values of HI use for all the industries which produce different war materials (arm/veh/eng/naval/merch/airframes), this would allow better modelling of the economy by outputs not just inputs. And allow less fiddling with cargo requirements and ship capacity to balance the economy... Aircraft production would have been a good area for some tweaking here to assuage the fears of being able to do too much as Japan. (And yes I know different no of engines can change the cost). Also exposing to the editor the cost for pilot training and repair cost and rates would make for some interesting mod development.

Back to the original argument ... Some of the enjoyment I gain from & despite knowing I'm most likely going to lose is to manipulate Japanese production and play such 'what if's'. Similarly, but I concede not a great argument is that being rewarded for my good logistical management surely is some recompense for having to deal with the beast.

Furthermore, as soon as you start entering orders the game no longer is a historical simulation... Insisting that the whole war economy must be played exactly as it was, with exactly as was given, when it was available, thereby rail-roading a forgone conclusion as the second A-Bomb lands exactly on schedule - is a game I'll not be quick to sign up for.

Still, I understand Allied players are somewhat annoyed by the numbers of a/c they are given, cause PBEM games are possibly more bloody than the actual war (and this is a 2 way streak). And as Bklooste has stated in AAR's there is evidence that the Allies are doing well. So eventually you are given much more than enough to get the job done. Yes ... much more ... Use it well and you'll have a stranglehold on Japan early; not and you'll be languishing and looking for excuses... Good play wins the day...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bilbow

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So, if japanese production can get out of hand (esp with PDU on), why not have a house rule that says something like,

"If PDUs are on, Japan can only ~convert~ production of factories, but not ~expand~ production."

I'm very interested in the thread, because I'd certainly like to play a full campaign at some point. But neither do wish to get into late '43 only to "discover" some of the fundamental flaws in the game. I'd rather y'all discover them for me, have several hotly debated threads on the forums, then some form of reasonable house rules surface, so I can enjoy my game when it finally time for it...

:^)

-F-

Hi Steve,

While it is true that Japan can produce whatever amount of planes it wants, all this ignores the fact that there are a limited number of squadrons to put them into. In my campaign it's still early, March 42, but I have already turned off Zero production because I've converted all my frontline IJN fighter groups, and have a pool in reserve, so producing more would be a waste. The limited number of groups makes the whole argument about Japanese production giving a huge advantage meaningless. PDU on gives some flexibility only, as it does for the allies.

what do you preferre? Aircraft and lots of pilots in the pool and fewer squadrons all being filled up that can be refilled from 0-100% in two weeks (you can´t draw all aircraft at once) or lots of squadrons sitting still empty on the West Coast at the end of 43 because there are no aircraft (e.g. bombers) in the pool?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: castor troy

have you got an AAR with combat reports running?

Air combat reports are practically meaningless, since losses are almost never reported accurately. Overall statistics are more reliable, but still are subject to later corrections. And simple comparison of the number of lost planes does not tell much. Again I should mention Q-Ball vs. Cuttlefish AAR, where they already ponder Japanese surrender in September of 1943, even though Allied plane losses are slightly heavier.

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Indefinite numbers of skill 70 pilots work just fine.

Too bad that Japan doesn't have them too. In stock you have just 60 planes worth of IJNAF fighter squadrons to be used for training at the start of the game. Assuming that IJAAF takes over the duties of actual air defence over Home Islands. Assuming a 2-month training cycle, and I believe that this might be way too generous under the latest patch, you produce just 30 half-trained (with subpar EXP and Defense) pilots per month. For the entire IJNAF. With bomber pilots situation is far, far worse, because 80% of them need NavT and NavS just to be minimally competent in their duties.

air combat reports aren´t useless, ever heard about posting the loss list with them? meaningless (while for sure more interesting to read) are the fairy tale style reporting that says, "my fighters shot down some of his bombers"...

You always mention one AAR that has the Allied being in the Philipines in mid 43 (not that surprising given the Japanese lost all their carriers long before), but I seriously doubt that this is the norm, especially when going through lots of the AARs. Well Aussies vs Amis is going the same way but no offense to any of the players, both of those PBEM are either overwhelmed by the god like Allied players or the (in these cases) not that god like Japanese players. Things like these have happened the same way in WITP when people succesfully invaded the home islands in 43.

As I don´t find it fair to my opponent I haven´t even looked at the Japanese side in AE so I can only take what you say about Japanese pilot training and what I hear and am told on the forum on the other hand. You say 2 months isn´t enough (I know it´s enough for Allied pilots to reach 70 skill and there is no "Japanese pilot training routine" so I wonder why it shouldn´t be enough for Japanese pilots) and you say you don´t have enough units. Other people say they are swimming in pilots while I´m swimming in trained pilots as the Allied player too. It doesn´t matter if the Allied player is swimming in a thousand pilots in the pool if that´s twice as many as the Japanese, especially when I don´t have AIRCRAFT to put them into. I´m in 1/43 now, haven´t lost a single carrier, am on the offense, am playing very conservative and if I sum my USAAF bomber pool up (with all the crappy early bombers) then perhaps I´ve got some 40-50 bombers in the pool. In total, I´ve got perhaps a dozen bombers in the pool for the USAAF that I actually use on the frontline and if I would fill up my frontline squadrons I guess after going through the first three or four squadrons, I would have used up the dozen "usable" bomber types from the pool. And it´s highly doubtful that this is true for the Japanese.

[bklooste]

Castor I wouldnt crit skill levels- sure in Nemos game that is the case but Joe and Cuttlefish are not beginners i think your one of the few  ( only) 43 game where its even and you have had some unlucky engadgements.

Japan has a limited capacity due to onboard resources ( eg x * 4 years - shipping losses )  . The thing is Japan can prob ramp up to her end 42- mid 43 level in 6 months with the starting supply & oil pool which makes it difficult for the allies  in 41 but those resources spent do not show till late 43 . Look at Cuttlefish after the resources were cut of he had no stockpile and was down to 3 planes a day  in mid 43 , part of the reason for this is burning through the stockpile in 41-42.

I really liked how in some AARs ( Mike and Seydliz) they kept building Nates, Sallies etc due to engines in the pool and supply costs or turn of light industry these players will be better of in 43-44.

I used to think the best option for Japan was to really force the allied air to battle so the veterans at start exact a maximum toll ,  force the allies to commit badly trained troops and replacements have the most time to train. However this helps the late 42 -early 43 situation it creates huge issues in 44 due to extra supplies used in building new factories and air.   So i think it is a fine balance with little experience in 44 most players have gone with the have lots of planes in 41 strategy which means the allies with a Europe first policy wont have enough to challenge Japan in 42.

IMHO your really need to play Japan against a competent allied player. You cant jusge an AAR from combat reports since you have FOW and the fact the player does not list all air combat only unusual / interesting ones and prob a slight skew to favourable results ( though obv most disasters will be reported) .

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

With PDU off, the dutch get only one squadron that upgrades to the Hurri IIbTrop. That's hardly a war winner. 

You only get about a dozen of these planes produced at best so the ability to assign them to more than one squadron is meaningless. You can save the Dutch Hurricanes and actually assign them to a RAAF fighter squadron. However, since you get so few they are not that useful.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

With PDU off, the dutch get only one squadron that upgrades to the Hurri IIbTrop. That's hardly a war winner. 

You only get about a dozen of these planese produced at best so the ability to assign them to more than one squadron is meaningless. You can save the Dutch Hurricanes and actually assign them to a RAAF fighter squadron. However, since you get so few they are not that useful.

I used them for the defense of Java. So far, I've lost four of the twelve.

[crsutton]

Yeah, I kept them too. They got slaughtered but the Dutch pilots were only average. You can't save the P40s either. However, the Dutch B25s and version of the A20 can be used in one American squadron and two Australian, so I save them as they are two valuable to get shot up in a hopeless cause.

[bradfordkay]

I used twelve of the B25s and six of the DB-7s for the Dutch and have "diverted" the rest to the new squadrons. I was hoping that maybe they would help in the defense of Java but so far they've only helped to give Chez' pilots more kills... [:(]