Taming Expansion of IJ Production

[witpqs]

JWE hit the nail on the head when he talked about setting the historical parameters correctly. Japan should be able to produce more than in history because they could have produced more than in history. If they do even better in terms of securing resources then their potential to produce even more should increase accordingly. There are only two caveats:

A) Have the parameters be pretty much correct for Japan's potential production (as good a ballpark effort as practical). B) Have some function whereby Allied production could respond as the Allies would have (and could have).

JWE has pointed out the work they are doing for A. Let's give them some slack to get it done. Having something for B would be great, the only concern is do they have the time to include it for release? Let Joe and others comment. We can complain and lobby until the cows come home but that won't change the physics of time and effort available.

I do not want either a JFB or AFB fan game. I do not want balance for the sake of it. I believe that non-die hard players will find plenty of room to romp (from either side). Everything I have heard indicates that AE will be as close as they can make it to what JWE said - historical parameters. Nobody is talking about creating a 'Civ V' here.

[Rainerle]

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI? Why should japanese tankers and freighters run from the empire and back? What keeps the USN subs from going after warships only then ? Keeping japanese reinforcements strict will lead to less historic play rather than to more.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI?

Because if they don't take it and sieze the resources, they won't be able to even maintain the "strictly historical" level of production? Just a thought...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

If you have strict japanese reinforcements whats the point in taking the DEI?

Because if they don't take it and sieze the resources, they won't be able to even maintain the "strictly historical" level of production? Just a thought...

The primary Japanese strategic goal was to gain and keep the resources (particularly) of the DEI, which were necessary for the long-term health of the Japanese economy (and in the shorter term to sustain Japanese operations past the depletion of oil and resource stockpiles in Japan). To do that, they had to defeat the Commonwealth (a Dutch ally). They attacked the Philippines to protect their lines of communication back to Japan. They attacked Hawaii because it seemed like a good idea at the time (actually to delay the American response to their attack on the Philippines).

[Andy Mac]

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.
 
If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Yeah a new resource called food that HI requires to run would be great. If each HI point required 4 food be consumed each turn in addition to the other resources needed to operate normally, that would about do it. You could then roll for damage to each HI point if at least 2 food don’t make it to the HI point to be consumed each turn.

So if a factory was 1500 HI in size and only 400 food made it to the factory, 1300 HI points would roll for potential damage. Perhas a 10% roll per point would be sufficient. This would give the food resource priority over other resources as it should have. I doubt we’ll see something like this, but it would be nice.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

Right but fixing allied pools doesn’t necessarily make it right. Especially when Japan can build so much more of everything than they did historically.

I made the point earlier as an example, if all the UK tanks in India had been destroyed in a Japanese attack on India, the UK would have made adjustments and sent a lot more tanks to the region, probably doubling or tripling the original number because they had been too few.

But because the UK didn’t need more tanks historically in India (because Japan never really made an effort to take it) we’re now stuck in game with a fixed pool of very limited scope no matter what Japan does or how many tanks are destroyed.

Also Japan only built 2,500 tanks and self propelled guns during the war, so the allies didn’t really need a lot of armor. But Japan can build tens of thousands of tanks if it needs them, but with fixed pools the allies cannot hope to compete, even though they historically built over 100,000 more tanks and self propelled guns than Japan did.

It’s this lack of flexibility that fixed pools hamstring the allies into that makes the game less *right* if you don’t get the Japanese economy done too. The only real way to give the allies enough flexibility to deal with events on map is to simply give them large equipment pools and let on map OOB’s decide how the land game plays out.

After all Japan will always have TO&E strengths near 100% because of their unlimited capacity to build anything they want, why shouldn’t the allies have the same ability?

Historically scarce equipment, only works if you hamper both sides with historical numbers. Hampering one side and not the other simply leads to making one side comparatively stronger than it should be.

Jim

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Manpower centers have first claim on resource points, each manpower center burns 10 resource points per day, and there's no way to turn them off. This is a huge drain on IJ, especially in CHS, where they account for about 30-40% of the consumption of resource points. There is no way to build up any sort of reserve unless you manage to capture them all essentially intact.

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11



Thus let's simply introduce some thresholds which simply trigger the doubling of Allied production!


Simple examples (for simplicity sake - numbers are just for making a point):

a)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 fighters per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied fighter production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese fighters per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)

b)
For each instance of Japan producing more than 500 bombers per month double (i.e. x2 increase) the Allied bomber production numbers (thus for 1000 Japanese bombers per month the Allied production would be 4x = quadrupled)



What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"

I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys its quite simple if I have a choice between having allied production 'right' and allied production 'fantasy' whatever the interation with Japan then I am always going to vote for getting at least one side right.

If issues arise out of that we will deal with them but for now the starting premise is get both sides as accurate as we can but still leave the Japanese flexibility as they do have some control of prodiuction

One question...is there a semblance of a civilian population supply demand in the game now? This has always been an issue with the logistics and economic model because shipping used to move foodstuffs were free to embark on other tasks...like far flung invasions. When one considers that Japan could not even feed it's population and needed vast amounts of continental food imports, the civilian requirement looms huge.

Manpower centers have first claim on resource points, each manpower center burns 10 resource points per day, and there's no way to turn them off. This is a huge drain on IJ, especially in CHS, where they account for about 30-40% of the consumption of resource points. There is no way to build up any sort of reserve unless you manage to capture them all essentially intact.

This falls woefully short as a civilian population cost though.

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

Think so Mike. Maybe the best would be something not so "brutal", so to say some code that says: if you build 500 the allies build x 1.50, if you build 600, 1.70 etc etc...but however that's the right idea imho. This will keep the numbers more or less balanced

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

depending on how it would be timed, not necessarily... if for instance I don't lose a lot of aircraft and have plenty to spare early on, then I can turn those factories off and save up the resources/hi for later on.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'd rather have smaller numbers of Japanese production...ie more inline with history or plausible what might have beens, not a free for all bloodfest. This game is already too bloody and it is already too easy to bring reinforcements to the front (wiggle one's nose and voila...24 P-39s or Oscars...despite being thousands of miles from a supply hub). We don't need to correct one wrong (pie in the sky Japanese production) with a second wrong (well, just spew out more Allied production).[8|][:-]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Reiryc
I think people would then game the system in order to not let the allies double their production. Using your 500 bombers as an example, I would, as the japanese, then halt my production of bomber to 499 per month.

And wouldn't that (on a basic and simple level) fulfill the goal of "Taming Expansion of IJ Production"?

Think so Mike. Maybe the best would be something not so "brutal", so to say some code that says: if you build 500 the allies build x 1.50, if you build 600, 1.70 etc etc...but however that's the right idea imho. This will keep the numbers more or less balanced

Like I said..., I thought it sounded like a basic and simple way to approach the problem. I could probably come up with something convoluted and elegant..., but at this stage in AE's developement I figure only the "basic and simple" has even a hope of inclusion.

[Ken Estes]

I doubt that Allies need any real plus-up. AI [Allied] pools for 11Mar46, after being denied most production sources since I took USA on3May45 still show the following [4 shots to follow]:

[Ken Estes]

and,

[Ken Estes]

and (3):

[Ken Estes]

and for tanks (4):