Matrix Games Forums

not a 100 % true. Japan IS stronger than historical in 1942 thanks to ability to upgrade useless Nates to Tojos and Tonies, but once when Allies start to reciving P-47s, P-38J and Corsairs then Allies becomes stronger than historical.

 
How is it that having the historical numbers of the historical planes makes the Allies stronger than IRL?  Pitting those historical numbers of historical planes against ahistorical numbers of greatly superior planes undermines your proposition IMHO.
 
 

I like this game. But I find that in reality the system simply pits the USN against the "USN" in disguise.

The IJN was not the USN however.

1) It never had any form of meaningful fighter direction with regards to naval CAP

2) It was 2 years into the war before the "concept" of ship's supporting one another with their combined flak was even seriously studied.

The KB was a superb raiding force but never possessed the ability to sail into the teeth of LBA. The USN did just that repeatedly from mid 1944 on. KB could attack but lacked the defensive ability to duke it out with a strong enemy LBA. The KB also lacked the fleet train necessary to do so. As an example Japanese oilers refuelled ships at sea by trailing a hose over the stern. That limits the number of hoses for refuelling to one and the number of ships to be refuelled at any one time to one...much more time consuming than alongside refuelling which was the manner the more modern (at start) US oilers did it (The older slower ones did use the trailing hose method).

3) The IJN never conducted an assault landing against a prepared fortified and numerous opponent. For the most part they landed where the spread out defenders were not. Khota Bharu has been mentioned as an example of an IJN assault landing. As I understand it there were 2 battalions of defenders who were responsible for a total of 35 miles of beach. The Japanese only had difficulty and suffered significant casualties there because the sea state was rough. Yet the IJN gets a landing bonus (?) which helps them to routinely land against any opposition excepting (perhaps) locations guarded by heavy CD units.

4) I mentioned before that Japanese CD guns never inflicted any significant losses on an invasion fleet...Japanese troops inflicted significant losses on numerous landing forces but there are as I mentioned 2 separate phases to deal with the damage done by the two different defending groups mentioned.

ORIGINAL: pauk
Japan industry capabilities were set on 0 in the 1946 but they managed to expand their industry and become real industrial superpower.... how they managed to expand their industry beyond their capabilities?

In 1946 the US was rebuilding their industry, infrastructure from scratch from US resources as well as forcing some changes to their society to bring it closer to modern (at the time) standards. Germany (and France and the UK too) got the same treatment. In Europe it was called the Marshall Plan. In Japan it was called MacArthur's Ego. [:D]

It has been noted that in the long term, the best thing countries can do for their industry and economy is declare war on the US. And lose. [:D] The US has this strange habit of rebuilding what we destroy in wars better than it was before. [;)]

(Strangely, some counties in Wisconsin I think it was about a decade ago in the course of about an hour suceeded from the US, declared war on it, and then surrendered, hoping to benefit from that tendency.)

ORIGINAL: dtravel


[(Strangely, some counties in Wisconsin I think it was about a decade ago in the course of about an hour suceeded from the US, declared war on it, and then surrendered, hoping to benefit from that tendency.)

Actually it was Key West....long live the Conch nation

ORIGINAL: Mogami

The Allied player is allowed to set groups on training. There is nothing gamey about this. No one ever said the Allied player could not train pilots on map. Any Allied player who is using 30 experiance pilots in 1944/45 is a knucklehead.

The only problem I see with this, Mogami, is that by the time Allied pilots get up to the mid 50's low 60's using training, their already pushing the 100 mission rotation rule, or are close to. I have yet to see pilots experience rise fast enough to actually benefit from the training mission (aside from Japanese pilots who do not have the rotation rule).

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

With PDU on the japanese are stronger than historical. As Allied, do you want a challenging game, a walkover or a reproduction of history? Decide, and find an opponent who is willing to agree with you on mod/settings/rules, etc.. Or play as you want against the AI. There are also tons of mods. If you want more historical japanese capabilities, just play the stock game with PDU off. Lots and lots of choices.

BTW, you will not see historical results, no matter what.

I don't understand what is the big deal. [&:]

-I would disagree, even with PDU, Japan is not more powerful than in RL, quite the opposite. The big trouble is that there is a BIG oil shortage for Japan, which, even if captures SRA WITHOUTH ANY DAMAGE, is unable to get enough oil to feed more than 40% of heavy industry. Actually, if Japan achieves the peak levels of aircraft production, no less than 80% of HI will go to aircraft production (assuming no blockade and capture of all SRA resources). In other words, the Japanese economy will collapse even withouth blockade or strategic bombing by mid-1943. That´s Nik´s experience with Kaiser73 and my own experience against Nik in the 42A scenario.It´s true that PDU will allow the Japanese to produce lots of Ki-44´s and Ki-61´s by late 42, but the price to be paid latter is huge.

ORIGINAL: spence

not a 100 % true. Japan IS stronger than historical in 1942 thanks to ability to upgrade useless Nates to Tojos and Tonies, but once when Allies start to reciving P-47s, P-38J and Corsairs then Allies becomes stronger than historical.

How is it that having the historical numbers of the historical planes makes the Allies stronger than IRL? Pitting those historical numbers of historical planes against ahistorical numbers of greatly superior planes undermines your proposition IMHO.

I play allies, but I'll answer this one. It does give you higher numbers of 2nd generation fighters on the front lines than were seen IRL. pauk's comments were referring to a game with PDU on.

I believe it's generally agreed that ops losses were higher IRL than are seen in the game. With PDU on, that gives one more frames available to put into your front-line units.

As an example - my most advanced PBEM is in early Feb 43. I've upgraded 4 VMF squadrons to Corsairs. 2 or 3 of those had Hellcats listed as their historical upgrade. So I currently have 2-4X as many Corsairs on the frontlines as I would with PDU off. (And yes, my opponent has more Helens/Tojos/Tonies than IRL. IMO I endured that and am starting to receive the benefit.)

Back to the OP's question: are the Japs too powerful? Definitely not. Despite being an allied FB I think we see more early allied victories in the AARs than Japanese ones. With the advantages he created for himself, I'd be disappointed in the game engine if PzB wasn't able to cause trouble for his opponent in mid-44.

they couldn't do better than it was in RL - thanks to poor decisions of WWI soldier who believed that he is a greatest strategiest in the world of all times...

I suspect that view is common. It is certainly the one perpetuated by the surviving German general staff postwar. In effect "and we would have gotten away with it without that dratted "Hitler's Meddling And Mind Control Effect"(Tm). I don't think that claim is accurate though. I can think of several ways in which the Allies might have done FAR BETTER whither or no Hitler in the picture.

1. The Battle of the Atlantic. Had US Admiral Ernie King been less of a wholesale paranoic (as regards relationships with the UK), US convoy escort systems would have been organized far earlier than they actually were. Throw in shore commands with a clue about simple things like maintaining coastal blackouts, and a willingness to trust British intel analysis about German boat positions, and the UBoat campaign would have been about half as successful as it was, and the Uboats would have started losing badly in American waters by the end of 1942 rather than crossing the threshold in mid-1943.

2. Stalin takes intel about the German build up on his border seriously.

3. The US bombing campaign continues to strike ball bearing plants rather than giving up just as a crisis started to develop in German industry. Or, alternatively, the US starts pounding infrastructure like railroads and dams early in the campaign.

4. French generals in 1940 show up other than a day late and a dollar short.

Yes they Definitely are in some areas.  Come on guys.  The japs did not have a chance from the first shot fired.  It was over when it started.  It was just a matter of time.
 
How ever I do like the set up on the jap production overall.  Not historical but makes for a good game.  Even though I am into historical wargames.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Bombur
The big trouble is that there is a BIG oil shortage for Japan, which, even if captures SRA WITHOUTH ANY DAMAGE, is unable to get enough oil to feed more than 40% of heavy industry.

Do you have some more details about this? Such as how many HI points you have, and how many oil points you have currently?

Thanks,
Andrew

I notice no-one has replied to your observation..., so I think you can safely say that yes, the Allies are getting "hosed" once again. But everyone overlooks the biggest single advantage the Japanese Player has in this game. He is the Japanese PLAYER..., period. No constant clashing and in-fighting between the IJN and the IJA..., he is in charge of a single well-oiled war machine. If the game were historically accurate, there would be 2 Japanese players, and they would have different and mutually exclusive "victory conditions". Then there COULD actually be a Japanese "winner"..., whichever Service achieved the most "victory points" while the Allies were reducing the Japanese to rubble. I wonder if they will consider that if WITP 2 ever gets rolling.

Then shouldn't you also have at least 5 allied players? China, Britain, MacArthur, Nimitz and one for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Netherlands? Just the squabbling that occurred between Nimitz and the Glory Hound wouldbe very entertaining in played to the hilt.

In response to the statements concerning Japanese production ability, it can be turned off before the start of the game. Just don't be fooled into thinking that it portrays anything realistic. And good luck finding a player that will agree to that.

I do have one question for all the allied fanboys though. Why is it that when something is identified as needing reworking in the game, the first reaction is to nerf the Japanese capability instead of correcting the allied or the game capability? I mean, seriously guys, when people say there is a problem with unlimited torps in the game, the immediate reaction is to advocate the nerfing of the Betty. Hellcat production not historical? Obviously the fault lies with Japanese producing too many planes. Not enough USN pilots? Japanese pilot training is at fault. Too many large caliber naval shells? Nerf Japanese bombardment capability.

C'mon guys. The trend is that the root of all that is evil in the game must be due to those JFBs. I mean, really now, why would any self-respecting Japanese player want to increase the quality of his pilots or build more planes? Why would he want to go further than the real Japanese did? Let's make a rule that Japanese players should never be allowed to do anything that will interfere with the allies marching on Tokyo by the end of 1942! (heavy sarcasm intended)

Ok, sarcasm off. Most of the problems that exist in the game affect both players equally. Some do only affect one side or the other but the game generally practises equal opportunity in its faults.

Chez

This is the whole crux of the arguments. In the real world, there was simply no physical possibility of Japan doing this or any significant increase of their production capability.

Then how does one explain the ramping up of real life Japanese aircraft production from just over 5200 aircraftes in 1941 to over 28000 in 1944?

Chez

4) I mentioned before that Japanese CD guns never inflicted any significant losses on an invasion fleet...Japanese troops inflicted significant losses on numerous landing forces but there are as I mentioned 2 separate phases to deal with the damage done by the two different defending groups mentioned.

Of course, it depends on what you consider to be significant damage. If you mean damage to the fleet itself, that's true. At Tarawa, the Japanese CDs tore the hell out of the landing craft as they approached. And of course no allied CDs inflicted significant damage on any invading force with the possible exception of Wake. Even then, the CDs sank only one DD and managed to cause minor damage on two others. The majority of the damage inflicted on the fleet was caused by the Wildcat's bombs and strafing run. They sank one DD and caused minor to moderate damage on a CL and 2 DDs.

Chez

Insofaras planes and frames:

The limiter on all aircraft production is the power plant being used.
The USAAF allocated 11 replacement engines per engine in actual use.
I have no idea what the USN did, but we can assume something similar.
The Japanese started the war at 7/1 per frame, and it rapidly dropped to 1/1 in 1945.

The Japanese were very pragmatic in the end.

So to speak about increasing plane production, it isnt a question of simply building the frame.
If you have no engine, it wont fly.

ORIGINAL: spence

not a 100 % true. Japan IS stronger than historical in 1942 thanks to ability to upgrade useless Nates to Tojos and Tonies, but once when Allies start to reciving P-47s, P-38J and Corsairs then Allies becomes stronger than historical.

How is it that having the historical numbers of the historical planes makes the Allies stronger than IRL?  Pitting those historical numbers of historical planes against ahistorical numbers of greatly superior planes undermines your proposition IMHO.

Simply - he can ugrade P-39 and other obsolent groups to new toys. I do agree, Allies would have to wait for some time but still they can have 10 instead of 2 P-47....

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

they couldn't do better than it was in RL - thanks to poor decisions of WWI soldier who believed that he is a greatest strategiest in the world of all times...

I suspect that view is common. It is certainly the one perpetuated by the surviving German general staff postwar. In effect "and we would have gotten away with it without that dratted "Hitler's Meddling And Mind Control Effect"(Tm). I don't think that claim is accurate though. I can think of several ways in which the Allies might have done FAR BETTER whither or no Hitler in the picture.

1. The Battle of the Atlantic. Had US Admiral Ernie King been less of a wholesale paranoic (as regards relationships with the UK), US convoy escort systems would have been organized far earlier than they actually were. Throw in shore commands with a clue about simple things like maintaining coastal blackouts, and a willingness to trust British intel analysis about German boat positions, and the UBoat campaign would have been about half as successful as it was, and the Uboats would have started losing badly in American waters by the end of 1942 rather than crossing the threshold in mid-1943.

2. Stalin takes intel about the German build up on his border seriously.

3. The US bombing campaign continues to strike ball bearing plants rather than giving up just as a crisis started to develop in German industry. Or, alternatively, the US starts pounding infrastructure like railroads and dams early in the campaign.

4. French generals in 1940 show up other than a day late and a dollar short.

i didn't say that Germans would win the war without him. Actually Germany wouldn't conquere the whole Europe and came at the Moscow gates without him as supreme leader. He was a gambler, and he won quite a lot rounds, but as majority gamblers he couldn't go off in time (not that i said it was possible in RL).

the problem with "what it could be if..." fantasy is that goes for both sides:

- The Germans didn't attack USSR
- Germany was preparing for invasion of the British isles seriously
- instead of investing in attractive but useless V2 developing the jet fighter from the first day seriously (and without Hitler interventions to Me jet program)
- development of the Wasserfall which would turn off Allied air offensive...

and this goes on an on...

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

If you have no engine, it wont fly.

gliders![:D][:D]

So to speak about increasing plane production, it isnt a question of simply building the frame.
If you have no engine, it wont fly.

Sardonic:

The Japanese built 28000+ aircraft in 1944 complete with engines.

So the question remains: If the Japanese were incapable of increasing their war production, how did they increase the number of aircraft built from 5200 aircraft in 1941 to over 28000 aircraft in 1944?

Also how did they produce merchant ships totaling 1,699,000 tons in 1944 as compared to only 210,000 tons built in 1941. The same with warships. Japan produced warships totaling only 225,000 tons in 1941 yet produced warships totaling over 468,000 tons in 1944?

How do you explain that?

To me the answer is simple. With the conquest of the SRA, Japan had the resources to convert civillian factories and expand military production, in much the same way the US did. That they could never match the industrial capacity of the US is not germane. What is germane is that they not only could but did expand production tremendously during the war. It was only after mid 1944 that the US submarine campaign really began to be felt and have a dramatic impact on the economy. Still, Japan produced more aircraft in first 8 months of 1945 than she did in 1941 or 1942.

BTW, I'm using the aircraft production figures from the USSBS. What is your source?

Chez

I say again one last time I would strongly recommend not using my one game as the basis for this discussion as it is an outlier.
 
Until we see more games getting to 44/45 I think any discussion about Japanese being over or underpowered is premature.
 
(USN is another matter GIVE ME MY HELLCATS <vent> <breathe> [:D][:D][:D]&nbsp;but seriously even this may not be an issue in a normal game so I think we need to wait and see)
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Amen it needs more time.

I think that there is a real issue here the place where a lot of issues arise is on the the attacking side issues like torps and bombardments appear more often for the Japanese as they are in attack in most games.

Actually a lot of these issues are more over the top when the allies go on the attack (airtrasport being one example) but we dont see as many games that get to that phase.

Andy

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I notice no-one has replied to your observation..., so I think you can safely say that yes, the Allies are getting "hosed" once again. But everyone overlooks the biggest single advantage the Japanese Player has in this game. He is the Japanese PLAYER..., period. No constant clashing and in-fighting between the IJN and the IJA..., he is in charge of a single well-oiled war machine. If the game were historically accurate, there would be 2 Japanese players, and they would have different and mutually exclusive "victory conditions". Then there COULD actually be a Japanese "winner"..., whichever Service achieved the most "victory points" while the Allies were reducing the Japanese to rubble. I wonder if they will consider that if WITP 2 ever gets rolling.

Then shouldn't you also have at least 5 allied players? China, Britain, MacArthur, Nimitz and one for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Netherlands? Just the squabbling that occurred between Nimitz and the Glory Hound wouldbe very entertaining in played to the hilt.

In response to the statements concerning Japanese production ability, it can be turned off before the start of the game. Just don't be fooled into thinking that it portrays anything realistic. And good luck finding a player that will agree to that.

I do have one question for all the allied fanboys though. Why is it that when something is identified as needing reworking in the game, the first reaction is to nerf the Japanese capability instead of correcting the allied or the game capability? I mean, seriously guys, when people say there is a problem with unlimited torps in the game, the immediate reaction is to advocate the nerfing of the Betty. Hellcat production not historical? Obviously the fault lies with Japanese producing too many planes. Not enough USN pilots? Japanese pilot training is at fault. Too many large caliber naval shells? Nerf Japanese bombardment capability.

C'mon guys. The trend is that the root of all that is evil in the game must be due to those JFBs. I mean, really now, why would any self-respecting Japanese player want to increase the quality of his pilots or build more planes? Why would he want to go further than the real Japanese did? Let's make a rule that Japanese players should never be allowed to do anything that will interfere with the allies marching on Tokyo by the end of 1942! (heavy sarcasm intended)

Ok, sarcasm off. Most of the problems that exist in the game affect both players equally. Some do only affect one side or the other but the game generally practises equal opportunity in its faults.

Chez