Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?

[Mr.Frag]

So why not address this?

How Ron? Do I take your dice away if you act too aggressive? [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

So why not address this?

How Ron? Do I take your dice away if you act too aggressive? [:D]

There has to be some way to abstractly simulate outside forces and pressures which existed during the context of the game. Why does everything have to be so one dimensional. Hell, even build games have slider meters which show a players current popularity etc. Too bad the AI is incapable, I've always thought players could run the risk of losing command in a theatre if he/she stinks, requiring massive PP to reestablish human control

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

There has to be some way to abstractly simulate outside forces and pressures which existed during the context of the game.

Hire somebody to stand behind you with a TASER. [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[witpqs]

Mr. Frag,

What about the allied groups whose normal upgrade path is between plane types? For example, some allied bomber types go to Hurricane II fighters. I think there are other examples. How will these cases be handled?

[Mr.Frag]

What about the allied groups whose normal upgrade path is between plane types? For example, some allied bomber types go to Hurricane II fighters. I think there are other examples. How will these cases be handled?

All normal paths have not been touched. If the path exists, it is available for choice. This does lead one in some strange directions for some groups but overall, they balance out as both sides have these situations.

case in point:

Various Brit fighter groups convert to transports (or you could override and go with other fighter types).

Various Japanese Recon groups can convert to fighter groups due to one of the Recon planes also being a fighter.

There are a handfull of these on either side. It is not worth special code to deal with these as it would just limit what scenario designers could do in the future.

[witpqs]

Thanks.

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

odds are that the automatic upgrade will go away to balance out the choice aspect. The two don't really fit well together.

I think that this would make production changes way too expensive.
Perhaps 1000 supply for single repair point is too high, there are dozens of factories producing hundreds of aircraft, changing them just to match historical upgrades would then cost millions of supply for Japan, and we all know that Japan player should be happy if he can see a few bases out of Japan with more than 20 000 supplies...
Not to mention resources being hit by bombers (off the topic, but related to supply issue which will be affected if autoconversions are kicked out of the game), it is not worth repairing anything, as for one point of resources to be repaired you have to invest 1000 supplies, so it will take slightly less than 3 years to pay the supplies you have invested in it's repair. If you transport those resources to Japan and make your HI work with it you get another supply point, but that's still year and a half after repairs for it to pay off...
Back to the topic, if autoconversions go into history, then perhaps supply cost for repairs could be lowered, to let's say 500 supplies?

[testarossa]

No. 1000 is about right. In RL retooling is very expensive idea. Sometimes it is cheaper to build new plant when the new techprocesses are involved.

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

No. 1000 is about right. In RL retooling is very expensive idea. Sometimes it is cheaper to build new plant when the new techprocesses are involved.

Retooling is very expensive, I agree. But I am concerned with game balance. Currently, Japan is modelled quite good, with all those choices and limited ability to go after them. But if you take out autoconversion that was happening for free, that's more than million supplies needed for Japan than before, while their supply production remains the same. For Japan, million supplies is a dream...
That is why I suggested decreased repair cost, keep the game balanced.

[Zeta16]

ORIGINAL: Djordje

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

odds are that the automatic upgrade will go away to balance out the choice aspect. The two don't really fit well together.

I think that this would make production changes way too expensive.
Perhaps 1000 supply for single repair point is too high, there are dozens of factories producing hundreds of aircraft, changing them just to match historical upgrades would then cost millions of supply for Japan, and we all know that Japan player should be happy if he can see a few bases out of Japan with more than 20 000 supplies...
Not to mention resources being hit by bombers (off the topic, but related to supply issue which will be affected if autoconversions are kicked out of the game), it is not worth repairing anything, as for one point of resources to be repaired you have to invest 1000 supplies, so it will take slightly less than 3 years to pay the supplies you have invested in it's repair. If you transport those resources to Japan and make your HI work with it you get another supply point, but that's still year and a half after repairs for it to pay off...
Back to the topic, if autoconversions go into history, then perhaps supply cost for repairs could be lowered, to let's say 500 supplies?

Are people really having that many problems with japanese supply. In my PBEM in 3/43 I seem to have no trouble with supply yet. I guess I don't over do aircraft changes or expanding factories. I do a little here or there and never have had a supply problem.

[testarossa]

I do run out of supplies all the time too. Now if they remove autoupgrade to prevent us from abusing the game, they should allow changing upgrade paths to Japan only, as Allies don't have any problems with Air Forces at all.

[Zeta16]

What do people think a lot of supply for Japan is, or should I say what not enough is?

[2ndACR]

Depends on what you mean. If I can keep 40,000 supply at Palau, 60,000 at Kwajalain, 100,000 at Truk, 40,000 at Rangoon, 60,000 at Singapore then I am doing alright.

I can usually keep these numbers easily with another 400,000 in Japan proper.

That does not include the other 7,000 I try and maintain on all frontline bases with troops and a/c. I would have even more in locations if I could control what base gets what and when. I hate seeing all those bases along the New Georgia coastline getting 500-1000 supplies when they are empty.

Also makes repairing damage to oil/resources hard to do when the base needing repairs does not suck enough supplies to it unless I stick 3 divisons in it for the duration.

[Zeta16]

I have over 4,500,00 total in 3/43 PBEM. I have over 300,000 in Truk, for games reasons more than enough in Rabaul. Palau 250,000, Kendari 70,000. Manila 75,000, Sinapore 40,000, rangoon 30,000 and Hong Kong 30,000. Most combat bases have 15,00 to 25,000 and more moved there all the time. Are these numbers good. I never seem to run low unless I forget a base or the Allied bombers and bombardment forces make a call several times to a base.

[2ndACR]

Those numbers look great to me. My longest game got to Aug 42 before being killed by a bug.

Really the only time I am seriously sweating my supply situation is around Feb 42. All my industry changes are basically done, I have moved a bunch of supply to restock my forward hub bases. Supply starts to really climb in March 42 though.

[Djordje]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Depends on what you mean. If I can keep 40,000 supply at Palau, 60,000 at Kwajalain, 100,000 at Truk, 40,000 at Rangoon, 60,000 at Singapore then I am doing alright.

I can usually keep these numbers easily with another 400,000 in Japan proper.

I don't run out of supplies too, but it takes some effort to supply everything in time. Now if you add the figures above the sum is about 700 000 supplies. There are 677 aircraft factories in Japan at the start of the game. Since most of them convert to something else in the future, and lots of them are changing to couple of aircraft types (A6M2-A6M3a-A6M5-A6M8-A7M? Reppu) those changes are going to cost several millions supplies if free autoconversions are removed from the game, so one can forget about those 700 000 supplies that are on those bases 2ndACR mentioned.
In 1942 there are only couple of new plane types, but this would really become a problem in 1943 and 1944 when all the plane types Japan has will have at least one new plane to upgrade to... And Japan will be in supply trouble in 1944 even without having to spend several millions supplies to convert old aircraft factories to new ones.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
It you are voting yes, you need to qualify your vote with how much and should it vary by type.

Keep in mind that *both* sides have this ability, it is not a Japan only thing. Japan already has a rather large penality imposed for changing production (1000 supply per point + time + instant convert price) for each point of aircraft production shifted off the default track. Explain why you feel an even larger penalty is needed.

I would prefer to see limitations built into the production system, but if the only limitation being considered are political points… then the cost should be high. Why?

Japan had limited ability to make massive changes in production historically, yet they did have some abitility.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Personally, I look at it as a free for all ... thats what you guys wanted ... thats what was built.

I never wanted a free for all… just the a little choice in which group got which aircraft type. Limitations should be in production… not fielding.

However, I can put self-limitations on myself regarding upgrades if it is changed to a free for all… so I can work with it.

[Gen.Hoepner]

I voted yes. Probably the exp loss would be better, but i do think that you must pay something for switching.
I do also agree with those who think that this new feature should not be allowed to allies. Their Airwarfare situation is already good enough. It's just Japan that has problems with nates and oscars in the first months of war.

[mlees]

I do also agree with those who think that this new feature should not be allowed to allies. Their Airwarfare situation is already good enough. It's just Japan that has problems with nates and oscars in the first months of war.

So let me get this straight... you are in favor of allowing the Japanese to alter the historical build path's in order to give the player the most freedom in running the war, but the Allied may not, because, in your opinion, the air Allied OOB is "good enough"? Why not afford both players the same options?

[Tankerace]

I say give both players the options, and then let PBEMers have houserules to the extent the Allied player can go. With about 50 thousand house rules already, one more won't matter.