Are the Japanese now TOO powerful??

[BLUESBOB]

I've played Scenario 16 six times now. Three against the AI, three in PBEM. My observations:

WITP has made historically inaccurate changes with just about anything associated with the Japanese. From ship armor ratings to the number of AK's and AP's available to the Japanese, everything has been added to, bumped up, enhanced, modified, tweaked, changed, and mutated for the better.

What has that done? Nothing. I hate to say it, but I've never gotten a scenario to 1943. It's always strategically over by the end of 1942. Why? Because despite all the tweaking and modifying...the Japanese are totally inferior in every cotton-pickin' way to the Allies that defeat is inevitable.

So I don't mind all the unhistorical advantages given to the Japanese. They were done to give the Japanese player at least a little chance of doing something in the game and having some fun. But the outcome will always be the same...it's always a matter of when...not if.

By the way, the Allied plan for war in the Pacific calculated that the Home Islands would be invaded sometime in late 1947 or early 1948. I think that the Allied command also overestimated how good the Japanese really were...and were suprised when they were constantly two or three years ahead of schedule.

[mdiehl]

@Pauk -

I agree that all those pro-Axis historical alternatives are potentially interesting scenarios but I think that they are extremely unlikely in comparison with the pro-Allied alternatives that I mentioned.

Sure, preparing for Sea Lion properly could have been done. But such preparations would have had to be well underway (and rather obvious) in 1935. Britain was not going to be invaded by means of low-draft Rhine Barges towed by fast torpedo boats &c. That in turn almost certainly guarantees that invading Britain becomes more difficult because to anyone in Britain a German "invasion fleet in being" could have only one obvious use, and the UK would have compensated accordingly.

These other technological marvels.... more jets, surface to air missiles, and so forth were all possibilities that Germany realistically could not develop into a really useful design nor produce in sufficient quantity. And had they, the Allies would have reacted with the new designs of their own. If you want a maufacturing decision that COULD have made a difference it would be to continue the PZV, don't make any versions of the PzVI, standardize on one or two models of transport trucks rather than Krazy Adolf's Used Car Lot, and shift production to mostly FW190s as soon as that plane became available.

Not invading Russia seems to me like the most obvious and plausible pro-Axis alternative. On the other hand, a happy state of paranoid neutrality could only be sustained for so long, because the USSR had its own plans for invading Germany. Two tyrants coveting each others' lands and girding for war could not have been a stable long term state IMO.

The alternatives that I mentioned, however, like dimming the east coastal US lights, firing Ernie King, and implementing convoy systems don't require that we assume fancy tech or better production. All they require is that the US take the war seriously enough from the outset to listen to the good advice that they were receiving from the Admiralty and implement that advice by, say, February 1942 rather than December 1942.

In the end I just don't agree that the War In Europe could only have played out the same or worse for the Allies. I think in some ways the Allies handed the EuroAxis a number of "unearned runs" so to speak.

@Chez -

Yes but the point is those 28K airframes were (a) not strategically viable because an engine failure grounded the whole plane. Probably the cumulative worth of those 28K planes each with one engine was equal to 5000 aircraft with sufficient supplies of spare parts. And (b) increased produciton in ships didn't matter because Japan lacked the capacity to repair ships at a sufficient rate in the face of normal wear and tear... much of Japanese merchant shipping effectively ceased to exist because engines and so forth could not be serviced at the rate they were being worn out, and (c) the increases in aircraft production had less to do with access to the SRA than they did with rationalizing the post manufacturing refuse and some of the manufacturing processes, and (d) for ex. those built ships, the iron used to make the steel came from Korea, not the PI, Borneo, Malaya, Indonesia, or New Guinea. About all that the Japanese obtained in the SRA that was directly and easily usable to them was rice (and other foodstuffs like fish), rubber, and oil.

The point is that Japan still required 15 years of peace, substantial investment in domestic infrastructure, conversion of more of the civilian sector to an industrial economy, good relations with China, south Korea and the PI for access to food, &c, before they were going to catch up to the US 12/41 capacity, much less US capacity in 1944.

[ChezDaJez]

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.

Hi Andy,

I'm not referring to your game but to the question as to whether Japan is too powerful in the game. The problem is that no matter what production changes a aJapanese player uses, it will be seen as ahistorical by AFBs.

BTW, I am in agreement that there is an issue with Hellcats and USN pilots.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Yes but the point is those 28K airframes were (a) not strategically viable because an engine failure grounded the whole plane. Probably the cumulative worth of those 28K planes each with one engine was equal to 5000 aircraft with sufficient supplies of spare parts. And (b) increased produciton in ships didn't matter because Japan lacked the capacity to repair ships at a sufficient rate in the face of normal wear and tear... much of Japanese merchant shipping effectively ceased to exist because engines and so forth could not be serviced at the rate they were being worn out, and (c) the increases in aircraft production had less to do with access to the SRA than they did with rationalizing the post manufacturing refuse and some of the manufacturing processes, and (d) for ex. those built ships, the iron used to make the steel came from Korea, not the PI, Borneo, Malaya, Indonesia, or New Guinea. About all that the Japanese obtained in the SRA that was directly and easily usable to them was rice (and other foodstuffs like fish), rubber, and oil.

Your points (a), (b), (c) and (d) aren't germane to the original statement that Japan's military production was already maxxed out in 1940 and 41. Indeed, Japan never anticipated a long war of attrition and had converted only a relatively small portion of her manufacturing capability to war materials. The fact is that Japan could and did greatly expand her military manufacturing capability during the war with 1944 being their best year. The worth of that production is a separate matter.

Point (a): According to the USSBS, Japan had over 12000 operational aircraft at the end of the war, 5000+ of which had been converted for kamikaze use. The limiting factor wasn't spare parts or reliability so much as it was a lack of fuel and trained pilots.

Point (b): Beginning in mid-1944, the US submarine campaign began inflicting grievious losses on Japan's naval and merchant fleets. Merchant repair facilities weren't of much use due to the fact that much of Japan's merchant fleet was at the bottom of the sea by war's end.

Point (c): not quite sure what you mean by "rationalizing the post manufacturing refuse and some of the manufacturing processes." Japan greatly increased her production in 1944. That's an unassailable fact.

Point (d): You minimize the importance of the SRA resources. While its true NG had little to offer, the rest of the SRA provided Japan with access to other materials such as nickel, bauxite, saltpeter, potash, copper, tin and scores of others materials vital to the manufacturing process.

We are not comparing the Japanese production capability to US production capability. Japan could never begin to approach what the US was capable of. It is to the original statement made by a poster that a Japanese player's ability to increase production is ahistorical because Japan didn't have the ability to increase her production IRL. I provided the data to rebut that assumption. Japan could, and did, increase production during the war.

Chez

[RETIRED]

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 would be very entertaining in played to the hilt. Heck, the squabbling that occured between Mac and the rest of the Army would be entertaining. But that wasn't the point. The IJN and the IJA actively competed for Japan's scarce resources to the detriment of both. There was no "Joint" or "Combined" Chiefs of Staff to intervene and bring order out of chaos. And the War Production Board handled the allocation of US resources. Japanese "interservice rivalry" was carried to absurd heights, especially for a nation at war.

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 never make the assumption that anything 2x3 put into this game is accurate...., or even more than a WAG. But giving ONLY the Japanese the ability to play with production is not an adequate solution.

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.As one of the first to condem the games super-abundant supply of US 4-engined bombers, I resent your implication. I've always maintained that ALL historical inaccuracies need to be corrected, not just one side's. But why do we always hear about the need to cut back B-17's while I am a voice "crying in the wilderness" when I mention Japan having 200+ Tony's in squadron service before the end of 1942 out of the 30-odd they actually built that year? Being a "History Fan-Boy" in this forum generally requires sticking up for the Allies. There are more than enough contributors looking for ways to help the Japanese

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) RIGHT! Let's "fix it" so the Japanese can be landing in San Diego instead. (not quite as much sarcasm as I could wish 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. With the exception of the "faults" growing out of Japanese Production capabilities, I would agree. Start at the top, and correct everything all the way to the bottom. But don't accept "But then I can't 'win'" as a valid arguement for or against corection.

Chez

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

Japan produced warships totaling only 225,000 tons in 1941 yet produced warships totaling over 468,000 tons in 1944?

Minor point, but I'd imagine those numbers are a bit skewed. The 41 production probably doesn't include the Yamatos and Junyos (160k tons approx?) and the 44 production probably does include the Shinano and some of the newer carriers. Any increase in IJN production was probably siphoned off to increase merchant ship production.

[ladner]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

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

With regard to aircraft, Japan, finally belatedly rationalized their aircraft industry under a Ministry of Munitions, this resulted in the expanded output. This had a similar effect as when Speer did the same thing in Germany, it was a case of too little too late. Rationalizaiton of industry is something that I don't think Grigsby games do a good job of, perhaps the only exception to this is GGWaW since there is a built in industry modifier based upon war footing for the various powers. I would like to see WitP2 take this into account in the economic model that there are different levels of output amoungst the various beligerents for a given level of resource input, or man hours worth of labor.

[ChezDaJez]

I would like to see WitP2 take this into account in the economic model that there are different levels of output amoungst the various beligerents for a given level of resource input, or man hours worth of labor.

That would be nice, wouldn't it?

However, I don't want to see an economic model that requires a great deal of micromanagement.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Minor point, but I'd imagine those numbers are a bit skewed. The 41 production probably doesn't include the Yamatos and Junyos (160k tons approx?) and the 44 production probably does include the Shinano and some of the newer carriers. Any increase in IJN production was probably siphoned off to increase merchant ship production.

I would assume that the naval tonnage figures are added at the time of commisioning. The numbers also don't account for the thousands and thousands of tons of shipping that were laid down and never completed.

The fact is that production increased throughout the war. It was only in 1945 that production really took a nose dive.

Chez

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

@Pauk -

I agree that all those pro-Axis historical alternatives are potentially interesting scenarios but I think that they are extremely unlikely in comparison with the pro-Allied alternatives that I mentioned.

Sure, preparing for Sea Lion properly could have been done. But such preparations would have had to be well underway (and rather obvious) in 1935. Britain was not going to be invaded by means of low-draft Rhine Barges towed by fast torpedo boats &c. That in turn almost certainly guarantees that invading Britain becomes more difficult because to anyone in Britain a German "invasion fleet in being" could have only one obvious use, and the UK would have compensated accordingly.

These other technological marvels.... more jets, surface to air missiles, and so forth were all possibilities that Germany realistically could not develop into a really useful design nor produce in sufficient quantity. And had they, the Allies would have reacted with the new designs of their own. If you want a maufacturing decision that COULD have made a difference it would be to continue the PZV, don't make any versions of the PzVI, standardize on one or two models of transport trucks rather than Krazy Adolf's Used Car Lot, and shift production to mostly FW190s as soon as that plane became available.

Not invading Russia seems to me like the most obvious and plausible pro-Axis alternative. On the other hand, a happy state of paranoid neutrality could only be sustained for so long, because the USSR had its own plans for invading Germany. Two tyrants coveting each others' lands and girding for war could not have been a stable long term state IMO.

In the end I just don't agree that the War In Europe could only have played out the same or worse for the Allies. I think in some ways the Allies handed the EuroAxis a number of "unearned runs" so to speak.

The problem with your approach is that you are looking very one-sided. I usually restrain myself from the "what could happend in the history if..." mainly because it is not possible to use any arguments here....

look, you've used "i think that is very unlikely" and i can respond to you "no i think THAT is very unlikely"...kind a funny, right?

I still recall our debate about von Braun and your thoughts about him; still recall your thoughts about Me262 and i don't have illusions that i can change your exotic attitude. I wont go in the further debate. But i can assure you that combinated using of jets and Wesserfall could broke Allied offensive. I agree that Allied would react with new design of their own - but temporarely German victory would delay Allies!


Now, what i'm interested is about Russian plans for invasion of Germany - i'm very intersted in this subject and perhaps you can offer me more info. I recall that before 10 years or so, information on Russian plans for attacking the Germany were found in Russian archives. But since then i didn't hear anything more about it. I wish if you could guide me on this subject and offer me some books/links because i also agree on that point....


guys, sorry on hijacking thread!

[Brady]

"Japan  71,600,000 "
 
 Hmmm, Does that figure Include Korea, Formosa,Okinawa, and the rest of the Japanese Empire? I was always suprised at just how many people Lived in the Japanese home islands.

[Bombur]

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

Nik mod 42A. Mar/43. Almost no damage to Japanese oil production. No enemy blockade. No TK sunk by submarines. Oil production=2700 (about 15000 oil/day). Japanese HI capacity=13900.Oil comsumption at full capacity=410000. Pool=1430. About 1/3 of Japanese HI is shut down due to lack of oil/resources. Oil reserves about 1200000 (enough to 30 days of full HI operation). Japan is spending its reserves to keep industry at 65% capacity, and this is...best case scenario for 1943....I think Nik mod is a good model for this evaluation, as it didn´t change too much oil/resources for Japan.
-Btw: Japan is producing 1000 aircraft/month. Close to historical.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Bombur
Nik mod 42A. Mar/43. Almost no damage to Japanese oil production. No enemy blockade. No TK sunk by submarines. Oil production=2700 (about 15 oil/day). Japanese HI capacity=13900.Oil comsumption at full capacity=410000. Pool=1430. About 1/3 of Japanese HI is shut down due to lack of oil/resources. Oil reserves about 1200000 (enough to 30 days of full HI operation). Japan is spending its reserves to keep industry at 65% capacity, and this is...best case scenario for 1943....I think Nik mod is a good model for this evaluation, as it didn´t change too much oil/resources for Japan.
-Btw: Japan is producing 1000 aircraft/month. Close to historical.

Do you mean that you have 2,700 oil centres (each one producing 6 oil points per turn for a total of 16,200 oil points/turn)? Or do you mean that you have 2,700 oil points generated per turn (from, presumably, 450 functional oil centres)?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Bombur]

2700 oil centers

[Bombur]

Actually there is a resource shortage too. I have 18600 resource points (23000 resources/day), which are enough to sustain only 11500 HI points/day, and there are still 8-9000 resources necessary for manpower.

[SamCole]

I do not understand. You have 23000 resources/day, why can't you sustain 23000 HI per day? I was under the understanding that it took 1 resource and 1 oil for each HI to produce 1 supply, 1 fuel, and 1 HI point. [&:]

And I do not understand your complaint. From what you posted it seems to me that you have plenty of oil and resources. Maybe you need to move some?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

2700 oil centers

So those centres are producing 16,200 oil points per day. You have 13,900 HI consuming 13,900 oil points per day. That is a surplus of 2,300 oil points per day. Is this correct?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Bombur]

So those centres are producing 16,200 oil points per day. You have 13,900 HI consuming 13,900 oil points per day. That is a surplus of 2,300 oil points per day. Is this correct?

Thanks,
Andrew

-No, that´s the point, each active HI spends 3, not one oil/day. Two are spent to produce one HI point, another is spent to produce 1 supply point+ 1.33 fuel points. If you could make HI produce only HI points, then 16200 would be enough to feed 8100 HI points (only 60% of overall capacity). As a third oil is used to produce supply/fuel regardless you want it or not, then the 16200 points can feed only 5400 industry points. No surplus, instead a shortage of 11000 points. See manual, p182

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: SamCole

I do not understand. You have 23000 resources/day, why can't you sustain 23000 HI per day? I was under the understanding that it took 1 resource and 1 oil for each HI to produce 1 supply, 1 fuel, and 1 HI point. [&:]

And I do not understand your complaint. From what you posted it seems to me that you have plenty of oil and resources. Maybe you need to move some?

Two points:

-According to the manual, each HI spends 3 oil and 2 resources/day
-Each manpower spends 10 resources/day
-See el cid again topic "Houston, we have an economic trouble" in the Scenario editor topic

[Andrew Brown]

Its been a long time since I tested all this (I have never actually played a game as the Japanese). It looks like I am going to have to test it again as I don't trust the manual. Just when I was about to release CHS 2.08 as well... *sigh*