Production options

[iceboy105]

For an interesting aspect on production in Pacific Theatre war games try playing PTO II. This game gives you all the historical ships and planes but also gives you the option of building and designing whatever else you feel you might need, an extra carrier, sub, whatever, but only at the expense of your supplies.
These take months and years to build anyway so in the end they dont really affect the historical gameplay unless you start building really early. If you do start early the cost of this is so immense on your early strategy though as you run out of supplies. So it really is a give and take situation without huge changes in history. It is kind of an interesting model to look at if you are going to think about putting production in War in the Pacific.

[Piiska]

Shame that PTOII doesn't work in my computer, I would like to try it. However, it seems that the focus and the nature of the game is very different to WITP as the system of trading supplies to ships seems to be striving more for the balance of the play rather than for the historical realism.

A supply is a supply and an aircraft carrier is a ship. There lies a world of difference. No matter how balanced the PTO II system makes the game, it simply is not realistic. You can’t convert 100.000 rifles; underpants and SPAM cans to an aircraft carrier unless you have some weird gadget that has not yet been invented.

Perhaps if you really could alter your R&D you could order your small arms, textile and food industry to develop such a gadget and by ordering also the metallurgists, petrol-chemists, literature critics and postmodernist to do the same, you might get the gadget three months into the war. Of course this would mean that the troops in the Pacific and Europe would have to suffer from starvation and lack of weaponry, but when you get your 100” Guns (the obligatory exaggeration ) they’ll be kicking some ***.

This system would be balanced, no question about it, but I believe it is at odds with the historical spirit of the WITP. If the game aims to simulate and reproduce the historical reality in the Pacific, then the production should be presented historically as well.

I believe that the player should have some options to alter production within realistic constrains. If the need rises, such as too many lost carriers, the Japanese player should be able to convert Shinano from a battleship to a carrier. The player should also be free not to do the conversion and have 3 Yamato class BB instead -if the BBs are the ones most needed. The American player should also be able to adjust the production in accordance to how the war is going –again within historical constrains.

It is my belief, that trigger events would be the most realistic and bug free option to simulate this important aspect of historical war game, at least on the part of ship production. What comes to aircrafts, I have no better suggestion than the system used in Pac War with some modifications.

[mdiehl]

literature critics and postmodernist to do the same, you might get the gadget three months into the war

You'd be months just reading the 1st page of their repsonse to the RFP.

I can just see it: "Your claim to a so-called objective standard to evaluate the transmogrifying electrotransporter is informed or shall we say misinformed by a western-male-domanated anti-heterarchy that subbordinates conceptualizationness to the anti-Foucaultian state of beingness, in which, the manifest absence of Dadaist influence manifestly proves the pervasiveness of Dadaist thought, qua, sine qua non, the anti-actualized world claims to exist."

[Piiska]

A postmodernist could also argue that even though the postmodern discourse didn’t emerge before 60’s, the history is just a social construction and a sum of negotiation and agreement based on subjective experiences of multiple individuals. Hence, if the individuals re-negotiate their experiences, the reality will change as well, and the postmodernists can exist 1942; invent the transmogrifying electrotransporter, thus ending the 4th world war late 1941.

[Chiteng]

Why must we assume that BBs MUST be converted into CV?
I happen to LIKE battleships. Given a choice, I would lay down
the keel of four Montana class JUST because I like Battleships.

Same with the Shinano.

I am unconcerned that it is a far from optimal use of resources.

I WANT THEM.

Its not like the USA is gonna be running short on Essex CVs.

Imagine the flak a Montana could put up!

[Piiska]

I believe that after my silly remark about postmodernism, the discussion about the production options has moved on to a thread called "Realism, historical, and weapon R&D/Production"

Perhaps this new thread is slightly less confusing than this one

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by U2


Hi

I know that winning as the Japanese is not historical but thats OK with me but fictional shipbuilding and to research future technologies is not so much fun. If I win as the Japanese I want historical forces against historical American forces. Thats what these games are about although "what if" scenarios can be entertaining. The result of a wargame will never be historical but I want to achive that with historical forces. I not only enjoy wargames but also reading about the Second World War and thats why these types of games are special to me. Let us control ship conversions during the war and aircraft production but no more please.
Dan

i think IN ANY CASE production and research should be included. that would make it much more interesting for me personnaly. but there should be a switch to turn to "historic production" handled after history,real word that would be handled by the AI.

please include at least SOME design/research/production function, dear martix+2 by 3 games teams!!!!

THANX in advance and go on with your good work!

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Why must we assume that BBs MUST be converted into CV?
I happen to LIKE battleships. Given a choice, I would lay down
the keel of four Montana class JUST because I like Battleships.

Same with the Shinano.

I am unconcerned that it is a far from optimal use of resources.

I WANT THEM.

Its not like the USA is gonna be running short on Essex CVs.

Imagine the flak a Montana could put up!

yes, I WANT them, too

i like battleships, but more the cruisers and destroyers....

even if carriers decide the outcome of the war, i like above
types more...

silly?

[Jeremy Pritchard]

You guys forget that R&D and production will only show the fruits of labour when the war is basically done. Most ships that you see were ordered before the war. Virtually all of those that you see that you would order in production would appear in late 1944-45-46. It is an option that really does not offer as much as you might think. For all the work and effort that Matrix has to put into it to make it work, I don't feel it is an efficient way to spend valuable time. They are a relatively new organization, and cannot spend months working on complicated side issues, that really offer less then what one might assume.

I would rather see enhancements that would be felt from 1941-45, instead of creating a complicated system that only shows realistic limited changes that would detract from the system as a whole.

Leave it up to modders to create scenarios where you have Montana and Shiano Battleships, not create an entire system that takes away from gameplay as a whole just to get a few different ships.

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
You guys forget that R&D and production will only show the fruits of labour when the war is basically done. Most ships that you see were ordered before the war. Virtually all of those that you see that you would order in production would appear in late 1944-45-46. It is an option that really does not offer as much as you might think. For all the work and effort that Matrix has to put into it to make it work, I don't feel it is an efficient way to spend valuable time. They are a relatively new organization, and cannot spend months working on complicated side issues, that really offer less then what one might assume.

I would rather see enhancements that would be felt from 1941-45, instead of creating a complicated system that only shows realistic limited changes that would detract from the system as a whole.

Leave it up to modders to create scenarios where you have Montana and Shiano Battleships, not create an entire system that takes away from gameplay as a whole just to get a few different ships.

i agree to that point in case of large ships like carrier and BB´s. but in case of DD,SS,PT-boats,MS,frigates and so on it would not so silly to have an option for a production change. and for aircraft of course,too. for players (like you) who don´t like that shoulb be as mentioned before a switch to turn all this stuff OFF.

i would completly satysfied w/ above options. if i can´t change any of the BIG ships production that would be okay, as like you said for loooong building time.

thx.

frank

[Chiteng]

I totally disagree. First it isnt a side issue. The Montana was blueprinted. Second if layed down on Dec. 8, 1941

The Montana would be ready for operational use in October
1944. Not quite the end of the war. Possibly be ready even earlier.

Now as for coding:

If you use a production point system, The Montana represents
just another purchase. One of MANY you will be making that turn.
You pay for ir, and you forget it. This doesnt represent some
VAST coding issue. Just an ordinal flag being set.

[mdiehl]

Part of the problem with all this is that Montana's cancellation had nothing to do with the need to divert capacity from Montana to some other ship, or Montana's builders to other tasks (although they were assigned to other projects one supposes). Montana class, and (IIRC) 3 other Iowas, was cancelled because it cost alot and seemed inconsistant with modern naval warfare.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

It is not quite as simple as you state, and the Montanas would probaly not have arrived as quickly as you ay. Sure, the hulls could have been completed by 1944, but their guns would not. Each montana would require 12 16" guns, and these take YEARS and YEARS to complete. So, you not only have to worry about each ship requiring certain ponts, but then determining for production what guns are avalible, and what engines (as in the Japanese navy) along with allowable manpower and manpower specialties (you cannot simply have a pool of 1 000 000 workers and assign them to build carriers or battleships at your whim, as these each require specialists). Production will end up being too generic and prone to abuses. The manpower used to build Essex carriers could not immediately be switched to build Montana battleships, as they were different specialists and vastly different material and equipment.

The USS Montana was cancelled even before it was layed down (July 21, 1943). The USS Iowa had its hull layed down in July 1940 and was ready for action in August 1943. That was 3 years to build an Iowa class battleship, which had 1 less turret (which was the most time consuming article of a warship) and was smaller in displacement. So, the USS Montana, the first of the class, would be ready in July 1946, by that time the war would either be won or lost. The US did not have the avalible shipyards to build the Montana class in December 1941, as these were taken up by the Iowa class already under construction in 1940 (and the important Essex Carriers). So, unless you want to scrap the Iowa's (already a year+ under construction), and build Montanas, which would take longer to build (extra turrets), expect the first one probably in mid-late 1945. Of course, the USN would be missing the very important Iowas in the very critical battles of 1944 which required their flak. Scrapping the Essex class carriers will cause major delays not only in American carrier forces, but drain the battleship production as well, as heavy armour and guns had to be distributed between not just 4 Iowa battleships, but a number of larger and more resource draining Montanas. If the US could have built the Montanas in 1941 they would have. They couldn't so they didn't.

If production is implemented you will end up with major abuses ocurring. The Shiano should probably have been completed in early 1944, possibly late 1943, however, due to shortages as well as an insecure high command, the production was delayed, paused and switched to a carrier. This was a very uneconomical use of materials, drydock space and manpower hours.

A typical abuse/misconception about production is that if I build X many less of ship type A, I should be able to build Y amount of ship type B. That is not so. Different requirements might state that not constructing one type of vessel will not allow you to be able to construct another vessel of different type within reasonable timeframes. It is a lot easier to build aircraft carriers then it is to build battleships. Had the Shiano been built as a carrier, then changed to become a battleship it probably would have been completed sometime in 1947.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Should production be implemented, it should be very detailed.

1 production point for a carrier would be completely different then 1 production point for a battleship.

You simply could not have a pool of, say 1000 points, and use this toward a 1000 point battleship or a 1000 point Carrier. These points represent skilled labour and materials. The 1000 points for a battleship would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT 1000 ponts for a carrier. They are not interchangeable.

Also, 1000 points for a CVL would be a lot differen then 1000 points for a CV. Many factors are to be taken into account. 1000 points for a carrier is not the same as 1000 points for a CVL. 1 carrier would require different points then 2 CVL, even though the total NUMBER and AMOUNT of labour and materials might weight in as the same. 2 CVL's will require more materials for engine parts then 1 CV. 1 CV might need more elevators then 2 CVL. Their total value might equal 1 CV = 1000 and 2 CVL = 1000, but these points are different. It might be as follows...

1 CV
70 = Armour Points
100 = Engine Points
50 = Small weapons
230 total

2 CVL
50 = Armour Points (less workers required for armour facilitation)
150 = Engine Points (more workers required to build ship turbines)
30 = Small weapons
230 total

So the point totals may be different, but the requirements of detailed material and specialized labour are vastly different. To simply say that 1000 production points, or whatever, could be used to construct 1000 points worth of shipping is not very accurate. An entire detailed engine will have to be created to manage and calculate labour, different materials, possible shortages and delays, political occurrances such as strikes or accidents or disasters (the IJN Amagi was wrecked by an earthquake in the 1920's, resulting in the Kaga being used for the 2nd IJN CV), a boatload of realistic factors that hampered actual construction.

War in the Pacific is going to be a VERY complex and detailed game. To add a sub-par construction and R&D element to the game, that just reaks of abuse and impossibilities, would serve to detract time, effort and quality from the game. Should they spend enough time to create an entire production engine within the system (independent even from a required R&D engine), a lot of resources and effort will be put toward this limited system, as when you really look at the requirement of building different types of vessels, does NOT give you the leeway as is assumed.

[Chiteng]

First, when I said 'production points' I mean something like this:

The USA this month get 147 'production points'

From that they build 1 Montana == 12 points
1 Essex == 8 points
1 Midway == 11 points
1 Infantry division == 1.5 points
160 Fighters == 6 points

And so on.

Now this system would be VERY easy to implement. In fact
it has been many times for many games.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

Your reality based objections ignore a few thing:

First the (Original)Montana was layed down in 1921 but scrapped in the Naval Limitation treaty.

All four of the Iowa class Battleships were layed down before
the war started, they ALL exceeded the treaty tonnage.
(so much for USA morality, those naughty Japs and the Yamato)

It isnt that hard to postualte that the guns ordered in 1921
were actually completed and stored. Along with that
there is no reason to assume they retain the
'OLD ENGLISH 16"' guns. They could switch to a bigger caliber
or smaller.

Only when you assume, that you are LOCKED into the way
things stood at 12/7/1941 does your argument materialize.

However, why could they not simply buy 15" guns from the british
(for example) The Brits were using them and they were in
production. Myself I find the idea distatefull but its an option.

I would argue that your objections mirror the type of arguments
that people made about expanding the plane production.
They said it would not be possible to produce 50,000?
that year (or was it 150,000 I forget) everyone showed up
at the meeting to raise objections. The Pres just signed an order saying it had to be done. They stopped complaining and in the
end, they beat the target number.

If you argue to prevent something you dont want to see from happening, you will always find objections. That is the nature
of humans.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

The problem is, is that your system is WAY to simple, and most of the games that have these systems are very simple themselves. War in the Pacific is VERY complicated, and will have such a large scale and variety of units and items that a simple production system will not work.

The difference between 1 Montana and 1 Essex is more then just points. As I said, they both required completely different resources and manpower to build. It is not like those 147 production points represent labour that has the ability to master any trade, as well as raw resources that are cabable of being formed into ANYTHING (armour quality steel takes a long time to forge, battleships use a lot more of this then carriers, but carriers also use other resources that battleships don't). You cannot have a simple point value to represent such a complicated production system as WWII Japan and the United States or else you will end up with a lot of incorrect and gamey results. Who is to say that an Essex is worth 8 and Montana 11? You could built a single Essex carrier or raise 3 Infantry Divisions? According to what? Gun value, armour, carrying capacity, tonnage, resource usage, rare resource usage, and so on.

If you use this simple form of production, people will end up with VERY unrealistic production values. According to your system, it would be very possible for the player to build 10 Japanese carriers, when due to realistic limitations (notably avalible shipyards) 10 carriers being built at one time is impossible (even though point values would allow it).

This is NOT how production works. A certain number of aircraft were built, due to individual plant limitations. You simply could not instantly decide to give resources to your naval yards, leaving your aircraft factories with nothing (they would go bankrupt, destroying your war economy). You cannot assume that building ships (even different types of ships), aircraft and infantry (including tanks, artillery, HMG's, MG's, rifles, grenades, uniforms, training, etc..) to be equated into some magic formula to make appear from some sort of raw material that can be formed into anything.


Actually, the Washington and London treaties were generally revoked by 1940, so the US did not cheat them (the British planned a series of 16" 'treaty busting' Battleships before they went to war as well).

The thing is, the guns were not stored in 1921, they were not even built (not even the USS Washington had her guns built). So this would be a part of a VERY hypothetical scenario, not something we assume happened (that did not). We are locked into the HISTORICAL pre-war scenario because that what this is, a battle in the Pacific because of the historic reasons and situations (otherwize the war would not have happened). Heck, according to your argument it sounds logical to have 6 Montana's (1940 versions) in the fleet in 1941! The fact is, a lot of what you said DID NOT happen, so why postulate that it did in a HISTORICAL WARGAME? The only things I ignored were things that didn't happen, things that did not exist or were possible to happen to ignore in the first place.

Alternate history variation scenarios are for what you are talking about. Something that the editor can take care of.


The US could not buy any British 15" guns to fit out their Montana class for many reasons.

#1. The British would not give them up (they were in greater need for gun barrels then the US, hence the Vanguard that used the remaining 15" guns and turrets).

#2. Should the US get the guns, from any source, they would still have to create turrets that take almost as long to build as the barrels themselves (unless you want these to also magically survive the wreckings of the 1920's).

#3. This would really weaken the power of the Montana class (the 15" was good, but was not as good as late war US 16" guns).


Your statement that you can argue against something as much as you want to prevent something works both ways. You can argue all you want to try and push something as well. Most of your arguments for the Montana class revolve around things happening 20 years before the game that did not even happen. You continually ignore realities and push "what if's". There are infinite numbers of what if's. What if the Confederacy won the Civil War? Should this be included as a what if for the War in the Pacific game?

[pasternakski]

The primary point to be made, as far as I am concerned, is that this is not Sid Meier's Civilization. When I play WWII simulations, I understand that there is a historical context in which the game's mechanics must exist. Yes, some reasonable variation is good, if based in historical reality, but I want to be faced with the strategic, operational, and tactical factors that influenced the decisions of people like Yamamoto, Nimitz, MacArthur, and the rest of the prime movers who emerged during this period, based on the historical realities of the time.

You want a game that allows you to alter history to the extent that many posters to this thread want? Go design a new game. WITP is not the place for it.

Excoriate me as you wish, but I think that this thread is WAY out of hand.

[Chiteng]

No I think I will continue to request what I would like to see.
I dont like people that tell me when to leave, it makes me angry.
Its also rude.

What your really saying is that you dont like what I have to say.
I say I dont like what YOU have to say. Ok now we are even.

You cant convince me that subtracting 4 Essex and giving me
four Montana, is going to do ANYTHING except prolong the war.

However, allowing me to have TWO more Akagi/Kaga class CV
would greatly effect the war. (unless they had no planes)

My fondness for Battleships is a harmless ideology, in the context
of the war as a whole.

It is your sensibilities that is the obstacle.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, here we have the stupid situation that some guys want that the game follows EXACTLY their wishes....

1.) We want the production features in the game
2.) we want to change the real history (hell, why should we play, if not)
3.) we want to achieve improvements in these scenarios... so we solve YOUR problem with ahistorical produciton... fine for me, if you want it this way... but, why playing this game ???

If we had a game with only scenarios, if you succsessfully have won one, you come to the next, your cries would be understandable... but hell, with the first second of this game, everything is ahistorical...
let´s say it is the midway trap... if i play the japanese, i don´t invade the midways as long as i don´t know for real that the american side has lost really 3 carriers, not only one.... but your fraction wants me to attack and loose this carriers... err, why ?

Or vice versa, as the american, things went bad, i need urgently a lot cruisers to defend my carriers, because i need a lot flak ships... so why shouldn´t i not change my production ?

Sure, ships rebuilding is a long time job, but if you see it in 1942, you should have the chance to change things...

for planes, well, here we have an even larger problem. If i have a lot surplus planes of typ a) then i want to force production for typ b)...

or why can´t we adopt the "forced, but then eventually changed plane system, like i want the p51 now (in 1942), but if i push everything in the R&D, the chance for beeing a worser plane as historically, is high... so you have a lot fog of war in it...

in such games, we allways know, what happened (hell, it isn´t a real scenario, because knowing that your essex carriers are great and you will have a lot more of them as the japanes player can have even without one loss, you can act fully different to the historical americans... you know, that the japanes economy can´t produce a lot things, so a one to one ratio is great, you even know exactly how many ships of one class the enemy has, so if you sunk all of them, you can achive knowledge and advantage out of it...

so, don´t talk about "unhistorical game" or "historical accurate game". The thruth is, that most players want in a game like witp production and r&d to change the historical events.... only a few didn´t want to...

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I don't think you are right, and even if they did, it is really up to Matrix games as to the extent of control over possible R&D and production. Sure there may be demand, but there is also a lot of demand for the game to start in 1931, but I am sure that is not going to happen.

There is only so much you can listen to from a pre-production forum. The problem arises when you listen too much, and try to incorporate too much additional options in a game. Ever hear of Master of Orion 3? That game had to have a virtual rewrite because a lot of the options desired in the game by the forum (including the Points system) made it very buggy and virtually unplayable. There can be an infinite number of extra's that Matrix can add, with support of a significant part of the population, but they simply cannot add it all.

I guess it is a matter of priority. Some people want the priority to be toward making WitP as interesting as possible through making the wargame engine as detailed as possible at the expesne of general options. Others would rather have more general options at the expense of wargame options.

They could add a simple R&D and production formula into the game, however this simplicity thrown in to a complex game will result in problems.

Production is not simply a mix of numbers. If you have these raw numbers as factors of any production you will end up in many problems arising. Blending resources and manpower into a number really does not represent what the game is. Show me a detalied game of a massive theatre of war the WitP will cover with VERY high detail along with R&D and/or Production that works.

Building a ship is different then building an airplane or a Land Unit. They all require different amounts of different stuff, that is not really interchangeable. You simply cannot look at the United States and figure out that instead of building a battleship, you will use the resources to raise an infantry division, and if the system works that way, then it does not work.

Both Pacific War and War in Russia had manipulative production for aircraft and (in WIR) tanks. However, it was highly recommended to not interfere with this production, as you simply could not micromanage it better then the AI, or else you will end up with severe shortages.


Realistically, from what I have seen, the vast majority of the WitP population could care less about R&D and production's inclusion or not. They might see it as interesting, but would not be seen as a critical addition, or else support for it would be much greater. It does seem that the same people are supporting and fighting R&D and production, so neither of us can really say that we are fighting for the general consensus, and this featrue, included or not, would not matter much to the general population. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my Empire building games, but I love my wargames as well. Wargames have a complicated battle system, while empire games have a much simpler one, but with added interest in R&D and developing an entire empire. I don't beleive that anyone has yet to successfully merge the two, without going way beyond their planned release date.

Aircraft production, even by the Japanese, outstripped or equalled that of airplane loss even up to 1945. Japan had more aircraft in the skies in 1945 then it did in 1941. Production was able to keep ahead of losses, however, the United States was capable of not only to cover their losses, but to go above and beyond them. In a game like WitP you will not experience the same lack of material and equipment that you will find in UV, because you get everything in the Pacific. It will also be very hard to lose a vast amount of a single class of ship, like in UV. I think that a lot of concern regarding the desire for produciton stems from experience gained with UV. However, UV and WitP are complarable, but not the same. A lot of problems in UV will be solved, mainly by the scale of WitP, and the vast amount of war material avalible.


Should R&D and production be done correct, and without sacrificing any Wargame aspect of WitP then I am all for it. However, in working with games, I know that there is a limitation on what can be done within specific time limits. It would be extremely difficult and time consuming to put in what is desired and have it work properly. I am all for some manipulation in the areas of production, such as sending ships in for modification (Shiano, Ise class, Independence class, etc...) to other types vs. their appearance as their original vessel. Choices like this, limited and fairly easy to implement, would not take as much time to do as a complete system to affect the development pushing of every new aircraft, every new ship, every new land unit.