Matrix Games Forums

Patsernakski -- No harm in people discussing ideas, IMO. The thread may have some way out there ideas but Matrix is free to ignore them .

 Sure, the hulls could have been completed by 1944, but their guns

I was not aware that the ships were cancelled for lack of guns. But, as you mentioned later, the war would be won or lost by 1946. IMO had there been a need for BBs and insufficient number been available to "win" (unlikely that BBs would make a difference), the Montanas and the other Iowas would have been built. There was no way after 1942 that the Allies were stoppiing short of an unconditional surrender, even if it had to wait until 1947. Most games don't take it that far, however, because the economic imbalance of a prolongued war makes 1946 and 1947 (with the US technological, qualitative, doctrinal, and quantitative superiority) about as much fun as pulling the legs off a mosquito (for the Allied player) or *being* the mosquito (for the Japan player).

Anyhow, I digress. Cancellation of the Montanas or other ships for lack of big guns and turrets is a good example of your point and mine. Building the BBs did not substantially affect other kinds of naval construction. They were cancelled primarily because they cost a buttload of money and had no purpose.

Chiteng says:

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

The system you describe is used, for example, by the board games "WW2:PTO," and Empire of the Rising Sun." I agree that the choice between a complex model as described by Jeremy and a simple model as you describe is largely a matter of taste and the game designer's development fund. *But* there should be limitations. The pace at which the IJN can crank out, say, CVs is limited, regardless of the number of "production points" or whatever are available. Both of the above mentioned games limit the pace of construction of vessels.

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

This vessel has nothing to do with the Montana class in design during WW2. Completely different ships. The case does not seem to apply to this thread.

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

This really seems to have nothing to do with the thread except to indicate that decisions made before the war were highly deterministic regarding BB production. It would seem to imply that changing *during* the war the BB production priorities is an unreasonable request for a simulation (unless you want the ships you order in 1942 to be available should the war still be in progress in 1947).

The other crack about USA morality is non sequitur. But I will point out that the Iowa class were laid down well after Japan withdrew from the Wash-London Naval Treaty. Moreover, the US and UK faithfully followed the treaty limitations with respect to CAs, whereas Japan clearly did not (ex: Mogami class). The US Baltimores were treaty violations, but again these were built long after Japan withdrew from the Treaty. Not sure what "morality" has to do with it, since it seems to me to be politics and international gunboat diplomacy as usual per pre-Cold War era. "Morality" comes into it when you consider how Japan treated prisoners and occupied nations, but that thread belongs elsewhere.

AM [anyone recall Harlan Ellison?] says:

let ìs say it is the midway trap... but your fraction wants me to attack and loose this carriers... err, why ? .

What *are* you talking about, fellow? No one has suggested that any player must choose the exact same strategic target and use the same force structure to achieve the objective.

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

In the words of Pa Grape, "You just don't get it."

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.
****************************************************

Hmm at one time (I think 1908 I dont recall for sure) a British
naval attache was visiting the USA. He was taken for a tour
of the ship yards, and was totally shaken to learn that the USA
had TEN capital ships under construction at the same time.

If any country could do it, the USA could do it. But in any case
I digress.

Show you a detailed game: Sure 'War in the Pacific' 1976 SPI.
It uses the exact approach I was talking about and does it quite well.

It avoids 'gamey' situations by very simple implementations.
First you buy 'fighters' not P-51's (not my choice anyway)
You buy 'bombers' not B-17
You buy Medium Bombers not A-26
You buy specific TYPES of planes, NOT a specific plane.
If you insist on buying 1000 'fighters' on the first turn,
You will get 700 P-39 and 300 P-40 (is that what you wanted?)

The Japanese are NOT able to build an ahistorical fleet BECAUSE
They can only lay down ONE major keel a month. PERIOD.
They DONT get to choose the design. It WILL be what was actually available. That means I dont get to build another Kaga.
I will get the Chinyo or whatever. (dissapointing isnt it)

For the USA you must 'gear up' your production. You 'cant'
order 21 gato class subs on 12/7/41
You can order 4 TOPS.

Each major class of ships has to start at ONE and ramp up production.

That means (for the pure wargamer) that it simply isnt possible
to build a completely ahistorical fleet. It cant happen.
The original desgns and such are locked into the production model. However, I AM still able to build 4 Montana should I wish to do so. They will arrive, maybe in time to support Okinawa.

You cant flood the skies with P-51 and swamp the Japs.
You wont get P-51s You will get P-39. Not very usefull.

The more planes you deploy, the more expensive operations become. There is a very real risk that if you deploy too many planes, your supply for those planes will eat up your operational reserves. Leaving you unable to do anything but watch the
planes fly.

I dont advocate an exact copy of the original WarPac,
however I offer to you this example to show you that
the abuses you fear, are easily dealt with. VERY easily dealt with.
Without damaging the design.
*************************************************

On a side note: Morality is a hell of alot more than just treatment
of PoWs. If the Japs are starving, the prisoners will starve TOO.
War isnt an exercise in morality. However to delibretly misrepresent the actions of the enemy, to gain the 'appearance'
of morality, is decietfull. That (in my opinion) IS immoral.

Originally posted by 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.

Jeremy,

at last here is a possibility...

i don´t dream of a 50 shinao-carriers fleet, i build, but the most important thing i hated in pacwar was, that if i played one side, and i had succsess, i got ships/planes, i didn´t need, and i want the possibility to reduce this for that (and i don´t talk about big ships)... in pac war, if i wanted more betties, because i had enough kates and vals, i had later around 2000 of them in the pool, but no betty... this is the important thing for me, this i want to change,
for the us side, it is more important that i can react to my losses... if i loose 70% of my mcs and apd´s, i can´t belive that the usa has no possibility to regroup or produce more liberty ships, and so on... otherwise we have this boring situation, that you have no influence to achieve your goals (total victory) because you get 2000 p51 more, or you can throw away 10000 p40 or you can build 3 x 15 carrier or what ever absurd situation you can imagine... for the 50 shinanos, 30 yamatos or 100 montanas, we have the editor....

The reason that I talked about the difficulty of building guns was that he wanted to have the Montana class appear in 1943 (i.e., not have some Essex class and/or some Iowa class built). However, I pointed out that this would require the production of one extra turret per ship (if Iowa's were replaced) or the production of four turrets per ship (if Essex's were replaced). So, like he said, to get Montana's in 1943 you would have to drastically increase production for battleships in the form of Turrets and Barrels, which takes a lot of time and effort to build. These were basically stated to say that early Montana's, especially at the expense of Essex carriers, was not a feasible idea.

The Montanas were not built because of a number of reasons.

#1. The course of war was going against the battleship (main argument against this is "I want them anyway")

#2. They could not have been in comission until 1947, well beyond the stated end date for WitP (if you scrap the Iowas, already 1+ years being built, you will not see Montanas earlier then 1945, as the entire process of construction will have to start from scratch in December 1941).

#3. As floating AA batteries, 4 Iowas would be better then 3 Montanas.


Really, the only discussions about production that I am hearing is about the Shiano and Montana's, with only slight reference to actual production needs like the high attrition rate of important small vessels (Minesweepers). However, this attrition rate can be covered by a trigger system, and the Shiano and Montana can be covered by alternate history scenarios.

If the Matrix covers every what if event of production then they will spend the next 5 years researching and coding it into the game. It was not just limited to the popular bigboys, but to smaller vessels as well (BC64, Improved Taihos, USN Liner CV conversions, etc...).

Not a lot of production was reflective of individual battles.

Midway was an anomoly. It was really the only battle that affected production, however, it only affected production in making the Japanese realize what has already happened. The battle made Japan go on a crash course of carrier building, which even had it won at Midway, it would have needed in 1944-45 anyway. The USN did not change their production plans much, except to cancel some ships that were seen as redundant. By 1944 there were over 20 US battleships in the Pacific alone (not including the Iowas). Had the US lost 10 battleships I am sure that the Montanas would not have been built, as the primary role of the battleship is support and bombardment (which is pretty much written into stone unless you lower the quality of aircraft and radar).

A lot of these threads above do have a lot of interesting points.

Notable, what to do about surplus' and defecits?

What if you need more of a certain type that is under produced is a conundrum. It is difficult to say that wether or not a certain type of aircraft was produced at levels due to demand, or due to maximum capability. Switching over aircraft factories, especially for the Japanese, was fairly difficult and costly adventure, and returns will not be seen for a while. The Japanese primarily gave out contracts for one major producer for an aircraft type, with a minor producer (making between 1-10% of what the major producer made).

The problem with exact poduction control, is that production maximization will become just another thing to quickly master, giving you all of the best, and ignoring the worst.

However, Chiteng's 70's War in the Pacific is interesting. Asking for production amounts instead of tinkering with exact types is probably a lot more possible, and easier to implement. However, aircraft production was a constant factor. You just did not have factories go idle for a month if you chose not to buy aircraft. I am pretty sure that they were long-term contracts, which are required to keep an industry afloat (you have to pay workers). Also, what happens if you do not buy dive bomers for a year until you need them, do they remain at the same cost ability? Since you effectively closed the plant, would you not have to restart production almost from scratch, looking for new skilled labour?

It might seem that I am just poking holes in every suggestion, but I really want to have an effective WitP game. Your 70's War in the Pacific is a very interesting and very possible system, if done right and without the possibility for too much abuse (it does not appear so). Realistically, we have to let Matrix games do what it wants to do, which may or may not include anything we suggest, for good reason as well.



R&D was tempting for me to jump on the bandwagon as well, but just so many possibilities and options would result probably an entire separate game for war development to be required to manage it. There were just so many options, prototypes with potential and theories to follow that a system of R&D would be chaotic. There were countless Ki-** and P-** prototypes that 'could have made it', but didn't.

Well, me too think that chiteng´s idea is great...

give us also the possibility to give some of these points to r&d let´s say, maximum of
100 points for planes
100 points for ships
100 points for land units,

these can given to the r&d or to the production...

in the r&d they can improve or fasten the development of planes, but you don´t know wich plane, in the production it can help to enlarge your site, so you can produce more planes....

so we have here some fog of war, some interesting things....

if your war went well, you can spend more points to r&d (but not too much) instead of producing obsolate planes, or if you need the planes, not new types (because you are in trouble), you can increase your output...

also, i think the us navy never will have NO freighters, because they produced so much of them, that it would be stupid, if i can´t supply my bases and the brits swim in goods.... but if you are forced to do so, you got a penalty, let´s say you loose (a lot) r&d points for shipbuilding, because the need of extra production for the eto...

the shinano... one wish here: it should be possible to choose between two variants, as an aircraft carrier with 47 planes or a larger one (you can spend (a lot) ship points, the game will make a random choice (as more points, as better odds for the best option), so you can get it as a 47 plane, 64 plane, 84 plane or an 96 plane carrier (or something between)


generally, we could think about refittings again as a points-system..., if i give less points to r&d, the refitting with equippment is low, you give many points here, it is better... but all not special, only general, so if you put the nagato in the port and spent a lot points, you never know if this ship will get all the aa guns you want it to have, and, clearly, if the ship got them, it sits a longer time in the port.....

I do have a big problem with R&D.

I think it is unrealistic and prone to problems that will make the game too arcadish.

Before you discuss this further, ask Matrix Games what they are planning to do about Production and R&D. Whatever they say goes, so please do not attack them for whatever decision they make, as I really think that R&D will not be included.

It may seem simple, but TRUST ME, it isn't. If it is simple, then it is not going to work with a complicated game.

I am tired of reiterating the same points while being ignored and called narrow minded.

I am done arguing.

I hope no one called you narrow-minded. I must have missed it.

I agree that R&D is another kettle of fish above and beyond production choices. There's also (almost **) no logical connection between R&D and production except where the R&D involves how to produce things. The decision, for example, to research the US abomb is not going to have any affect one way or another on, say, researching the SJ radar, refitting ships with 40mm, or the number of hulls built.

(** The limit is budgetary. Given the stakes and the deficit spending incurred by all parties, the budgetary constraints were pretty much ignored by everybody. In the Axis countries the result was runaway inflation. In the US, budget only became a pressing priority after it was clear that the Allies were going to eventually win. )

Chiteng, Adnan -- I think Jeremy and Pasternakski have a very valid point about getting the historical model correct *first and foremost.* Speaking of budgets, since Matrix does not want to R&D this game indefinitey or spend aeons fixing bugs and releasing new patches, the immediate goal is probably to get the historical model right. But as Jeremy pointed out, all they have to do is speak up and say what they're gonna try to do.

The problem with complex, dynamic systems, like the R&D-production model, is that small perturbations can have very unpredictable effects, and small errors in the models used to drive the systems can be detected and, er, "gamed" (in the sense of "gaming the system" or "gamey strategies or tactics") in ways that make the whole thing unpalatable. Consider the board game A3R when played with "research" rules: Every Axis player R&Ds winter warfare to death, leading to Russian collapses in most games I've seen, and every Axis player usually R&Ds Moslem fanatics with the Armies of Xerxes Conjured from a Bag of Holding to scr** the UK in the Middle east. It's a very simple system mechanically, but the results are frequently (more often than not, IMO) absurd.

Oh I agree, if the game CANT model historical production
and force levels something is wrong.

Apparently 30% of all effort required during the war went to
the Pacific theater. Obviously that is an interesting figure.
(It is from the Victory in the Pacific book)
However the ships laid down that first month were FAR
more expensive than 30% of the effort that month.
So obviously they paid as you went.

Sounds alot like BTR actually.


But you see MY favorite strategy in the afore mentioned game
'War in the Pacific' is to build alot of infantry and Armor
and engineers. Then you pile them all into India. Then you
drive into North Burma building rail lines and roads as you go.
Sooner(or later) you take Hanoi and Haiphong.
Then you drive into southern China with your armor. The Japs
have no means to resist you, no matter what they do.

In mid 44 you are in easy B-24 and B-17 escorted range
of Japan. ONLY if the Japs made provisions for this possibility
in 1941 does he have a chance to stall you out.

This 'strategy' (in the same sence that the Somme was strategy)
isnt subtle at all. But it does avoid all the expensive ships
and daring battles at sea. You dont need all those fancy
CVs and loveboats. The marines are not really that important.

Why didnt we do it? We were smart enough to realize that getting involved with China would be a nightmare.

However it could have been done.

Yep, mdiehl, there's nothing wrong with "way out there" ideas. Hell, I've been in the backyard the last three nights with my butterfly net just a-tryin' to snag one of them danged UFOs so as to get back the 50 pounds of peanut butter they stole from me last spring when I wasn't lookin' - or so gol' danged well equipped.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I don't care what y'all say in return: 90% of this thread is nonsense. If you want a game that starts just after WWI and portrays the political, social, scientific, and military developments through the '20s and '30s with WWII eventually breaking out and being fought with the weapons, and under the conditions, that emerged during that period, fine. I hope somebody designs it. I would buy it if I considered it well done. Matrix/2by3, with additional resources, would be competent to design such a game.

War in the Pacific, however, is not that game. I come to these forums to read sensible commentary and to try to add to my understanding while making some small contribution.

I'm not getting that here. This thing is just nuts. I believe that this thread should be moved to the "art of wargaming" area (or some other place where they keep the loonies on the path).

I detest Axis and Allies and World in flames.

WiF is totally dominated by the airpower, and the war was
much more than that.

However there is a Difference between a simulation, and a game.
The combat interface HAS to produce at least historical results.

UV does not do that. I doubt it ever will. Apparently the sequencing is the issue. Jap DD operating alone should
fire the torps and run. They dont. they fire guns, get spotted,
and sink.

Originally posted by Chiteng
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.

No, no, Chiteng, you misunderstand me. I like what you have to say. I like to have it here ... FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!

Or try apparently. So much for decorum.

I am afraid you will have to try a great deal harder.
I am not so easily disuaded.

But, it takes all kinds, nest pas?

The "poop" thing is just a joke playing on a late-night puppet character that has been around on network TV here for a few years (I think it started on the Conan O'Brien show). That's the only funny line it has. No disrespect intended.

I believe that this thread is discussing matters not germane to the design of WITP. You feel differently. N'est ce pas?

I don't think that Production options or R&D will add as much to the game as it's supporters are hoping. The pacific theatre was a mismatch and the Japanese had no real chance of winning once the US had decided it was going to fight to the finish. These production options are just going to add time to the games design, add possible exploits and help confuse the AI. Even if the Japanese can chose which fighter to develope in '43 or '44 it is only going to have a marginal impact on the outcome.

The vast majority of choices would be givens anyway. Do you want to produce the good plane or the bad plane? The Shinano is a classic example. People may pick the battleship option because they like Battleships or to make the game harder but there will be very few games where the Carrier (even if it only holds about 45 aircraft) will not be much more useful. This will be the same with most of the choices - there will be the 'right' one and one that you pick for a laugh.

Rather than add to the richness of the game they will probably take away from it. Instead of there being a selection of 2 Engined bombers on either side once the production choices kick in there will just be one - the best one. The same with fighters, strat bombers etc. etc. Unless the choices are strongly restricted on the Allied side it is likely that it will simply make the game even more one sided as the allies are likely to benefit more as they can afford a reduction in supply in order to get the good planes into production more than the Japanese.

The fact that most accept the choices should be based on what possibly could have been produced is what makes the choices rather pointless. If the Japanese have the choice to build an extra 8 Fleet carriers in 43-44 or double fighter production or produce thousands of Me 262s then these would really affect the course of the war. But hardly anybody wants this outside of an edited fantasy scenario.

Just because you dont like a specific game by a specific designer,
doesnt mean that we all should, or do.

You have a problem with WitP that is your problem. Dont
try and force your bias on people that have never heard of the game.

Its a great game, I cant imagine what your beef with it is.
I certainly dont, and wont,share your opinion.

I already suggested a solution to the 'optimization' problem.

Instead of buying a specific bomber you buy a 'class' of bombers.
That means you get a MIX of bombers. The good with the bad.

Chiteng came up with a very good system of production, with a little tweaking to better represent constant production (instead of bulk buying) it could work as an INFLUENCE for production, but not controlling every little detail down to the exact number of types of aircraft built or not built. This was the major problem I had with production, that it could be too easily manipulated as to maximize itself too efficiently, beyond the realms of reasonable possibility. However, if something like this was implemented, I would like sharp divides. You could not use points meant for ships to make more aircraft, or aircraft to make more infantry, but rather points meant for aircraft (you choose the type, fighter, fighter-bomber, tac-bomber, dive bomber, ect...), points for ships, and points for infantry, possibly even further divided for ship sizes (i.e., points for small ships are a completely different category then points for large ships).

However, R&D is another issue. It gets too complicated, as too many different things can be incorporated. R&D ventures too much into the hypothetical, which we all fully realize is up to speculation as well opinion. Grounding research to follow history is generally the best way in making a wargame, as you won't end up with problems of over-estimating, or underestimating the R&D possibilities of nations, or individual types. Throwing money and resources at something will not necessarily speed things up, or make them perfect.

Originally posted by Chiteng
Just because you dont like a specific game by a specific designer,
doesnt mean that we all should, or do.

You have a problem with WitP that is your problem. Dont
try and force your bias on people that have never heard of the game.

Its a great game, I cant imagine what your beef with it is.
I certainly dont, and wont,share your opinion.

It sure would be nice if you would read what I say and try to understand it. Your experience would be much enriched.

I did. In another thread you disparaged BOTH JFD and the game.
The exact phrase you used was:

'one of Dunnigan's greatest Turkeys' (or somesuch)

Hard not to interpet that in a negative light.