Build Ahead...

[brian brian]

so how does this rule work "plus 50% of the unit's cost (minimum of 2)" ?

we play it that you must add at least 2 BP to the cost - so GARR and FTR2 cost 4 each, and cv planes 3 each.

you could alternatively read that to mean you can't build 1 point units (carrier planes) ahead at all.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

so how does this rule work "plus 50% of the unit's cost (minimum of 2)" ?

we play it that you must add at least 2 BP to the cost - so GARR and FTR2 cost 4 each, and cv planes 3 each.

you could alternatively read that to mean you can't build 1 point units (carrier planes) ahead at all.

In our list of questions to Harry, there is this one.
******************************************
Q347
13.6.5
When advance building units, the phrase "minimum of 2" is written with respect to the additional amount to advance build from next year's units. But below that when the rules talk about advance building two and three years ahead, the minimums are written with respect to the total cost. Which is it?
Example : Does a GARR cost 3 or 4 to advance build one year?
******************************************

No answer from Harry yet, but out of 4 rule gurus that answered, 3 said "cost 4", and the 4th said the rule should be rewritten.

So I guess that playing it that you must add at least 2 BP to the cost is a good guess.


And this one too :
******************************************
Q348
13.6.5, 14.6
When advance building planes (playing with PiF and pilots), do you :
a) calculate the cost to advance build the unit with a pilot, then subtract 2 for the pilot, or
b) advance build the plane without the cost of the pilot considered (thus having an advance built plane cheaper than with a)?
Example : Does a 5 cost FTR cost 6 (5 times 1.5 = 8 minus 2) or 5 (3 times 1.5 = 5) when advanced built.
******************************************

No answer from Harry yet, but out of 4 rule gurus that answered, 2 said one way and 2 the other way.


There is also this one about advance building :
******************************************
Q009
13.6.5, 28.
You build ahead (advance building) by TYPE (as opposed to gearing CLASS), for example both a FTR and a NAV are of the CLASS plane but they are each a different TYPE and hence can be advance built separately.
Question : Is an INF DIV a different TYPE than an INF Corps / Army? That is, do you need to build all available DIV before you can advance build like corps and vice versa?

ANS> No. INF Divs are a different type to INF. Date: 28/01/1998
******************************************


And this one :
******************************************
Q281
13.6.5, 28.
I wish to build an AA piece. There are none in my force pool. Question:
a) I have to build all guns before I can advance build. i) and even then I’d have to draw randomly from all 4-build-point guns from the next year.
b) I need only build all AA units before I can advance build (with the extra cost, of course).

ANS> (b), see 28. for the different unit types (or classes). Date: 20/01/1998
******************************************

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I did a mathematical analysis on building ahead ages ago. It's buried somewhere in here. Steve's got it anyway. Mostly it doesn't look like it's worth it.

One exception I can think of is building a German armoured HQ in time for Barbarossa (a 1940 one IIRC). They are just so handy on the endless Russian steppe. I've done it but I remember it happened to fit in with how many build points I had left and the stuff I'd already produced.

Cheers, Neilster

IMO a pure BP mathematical comparison is unlikely to show the benefits of building ahead. Not every BP spent is 100% useful. Something you build ahead with a specific mission or role in mind usually is.

Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I did a mathematical analysis on building ahead ages ago. It's buried somewhere in here. Steve's got it anyway. Mostly it doesn't look like it's worth it.

One exception I can think of is building a German armoured HQ in time for Barbarossa (a 1940 one IIRC). They are just so handy on the endless Russian steppe. I've done it but I remember it happened to fit in with how many build points I had left and the stuff I'd already produced.

Cheers, Neilster

IMO a pure BP mathematical comparison is unlikely to show the benefits of building ahead. Not every BP spent is 100% useful. Something you build ahead with a specific mission or role in mind usually is.

Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

The analysis was carried out with respect to assigning mathematical weights to units according to their suitability for planned operations.

Cheers, Neilster

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

Jimm, you might reconsider what you said, knowing that the Shinano / Karyu printed in the latest CS23 DO NOT replace the previous ones. They are cheaper (and historical) alternatives. I mean, you have the choice as to which Shinano you improve to.

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Having said all that the only things I would habitually build ahead are the Shinano/Karyu as the Japs - they otherwise arrive too late to make a proper impact on the Pacific. I note these two big boys have been downgraded in the new counter issue though.

Jimm, you might reconsider what you said, knowing that the Shinano / Karyu printed in the latest CS23 DO NOT replace the previous ones. They are cheaper (and historical) alternatives. I mean, you have the choice as to which Shinano you improve to.

apologies, I assumed they were more historically accurate replacements.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Jimm, you might reconsider what you said, knowing that the Shinano / Karyu printed in the latest CS23 DO NOT replace the previous ones. They are cheaper (and historical) alternatives. I mean, you have the choice as to which Shinano you improve to.

apologies, I assumed they were more historically accurate replacements.

Yes, they are, but they just do not replace the fantasy replacements. They are in addition.

[paulderynck]

As Japan I would consider advance building the late 6-moving, 3 capacity CVs. They only cost 2 additional. Mind you, you need to wait until you can scrap the horrible 4-moving CVs rather than building them to clear out the force pool.

[brian brian]

the horrible 4-moving CVs move well with the 4-moving BBs...

Japanese carrier construction policy is a fascinating part of WiF.

[alexvand]

Building ahead? Let's see....fighters, fighters, and did I mention fighters?

Seriously though in our group once we had the minimum land and naval units to accomplish your goals, with maybe a little extra, you built nothing but fighters. In fact we rarely built any Tac, or Nav. A few Str would get built but not many. If you didn't have air superiority then there was no point bulding anything but fighters. Plus lots of those fighters have Tac factors to use once the enemy planes are gone. And you can't argue with getting the Black Widow a year ahead, or the Me-262s. Those planes can change the course of the war if used in the right spot and time.

Now mind you, I wonder if our perspective was influenced by the fact that we were playing Wif 5 when PiF first came out. We all wanted to play with the new toys and our playing style was influences by our early experiences. Like this one:

Having survived the German onslaught I was slowly building up to go on the offensive. Building fighters like mad in order to gain air superiority. Finally win a few key air battles shooting down some front-line german planes and the Russion Juggernaut starts to roll, taking hexes left and right thanks to air superiority. At this point I make a crucial mistake and the German makes some good decisions. I decide that it's high time to build my first Tac of the game and actually stop building fighters. In the meantime the German has been building so many fighters that he is an entire year ahead, then he rebases every single plane from the west front to the east front and the Russian steamroller slams to a halt. Took almost a year to recover from that fiasco, and the lesson I learned is to always build fighters.

In fact in our games You will see the German and British building out their entire fighter pools and building one year ahead. Typically you'll see all the '43 planes on the map by J/A of '42. Italy and Russia follow suit if they can. The US will do so as well, but usually later since they have to build a navy first. Japan typicaly just doesn't have the BP to keep up with this arms race.

That's may experience. Your Mileage May Vary.

Alex

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

Building ahead? Let's see....fighters, fighters, and did I mention fighters?

Seriously though in our group once we had the minimum land and naval units to accomplish your goals, with maybe a little extra, you built nothing but fighters. In fact we rarely built any Tac, or Nav. A few Str would get built but not many. If you didn't have air superiority then there was no point bulding anything but fighters. Plus lots of those fighters have Tac factors to use once the enemy planes are gone. And you can't argue with getting the Black Widow a year ahead, or the Me-262s. Those planes can change the course of the war if used in the right spot and time.

Now mind you, I wonder if our perspective was influenced by the fact that we were playing Wif 5 when PiF first came out. We all wanted to play with the new toys and our playing style was influences by our early experiences. Like this one:

Having survived the German onslaught I was slowly building up to go on the offensive. Building fighters like mad in order to gain air superiority. Finally win a few key air battles shooting down some front-line german planes and the Russion Juggernaut starts to roll, taking hexes left and right thanks to air superiority. At this point I make a crucial mistake and the German makes some good decisions. I decide that it's high time to build my first Tac of the game and actually stop building fighters. In the meantime the German has been building so many fighters that he is an entire year ahead, then he rebases every single plane from the west front to the east front and the Russian steamroller slams to a halt. Took almost a year to recover from that fiasco, and the lesson I learned is to always build fighters.

In fact in our games You will see the German and British building out their entire fighter pools and building one year ahead. Typically you'll see all the '43 planes on the map by J/A of '42. Italy and Russia follow suit if they can. The US will do so as well, but usually later since they have to build a navy first. Japan typicaly just doesn't have the BP to keep up with this arms race.

That's may experience. Your Mileage May Vary.

Alex

Building so many fighters only works if the other side does likewise. If the USSR built all those fighters, then as Germany I'll build armor, HQs and offensive chits. I simply won't fight in the air, preserving my inferior air force, while slaughtering the USSR land units. Sure, I'll give up some shifts for not disrupting units, and the USSR can add their 2 points of tactical air/air unit to combats, but attrition of land units will melt the USSR amry while the German army has steady reinforcements coming. Soon those fighters will be looking for a place to rebase as the tanks come rolling in.

And exactly how are the British going to keep their convoy pipelines functioning against a massive Axis submarine force, without naval air? Can those fighters defend well against Sea Lion? The assumption by the CW player (if he builds so many fighters) is that his navy can stand steady attrition without many BPs spent on refurbishing it.

[Dave3L]

Good point. As the Soviet generals met in paris after WW III, one asked the other, "So who won the air war?"

Spending that many points on one thing is never good. Balance is the key.

[brian brian]

My question would be ... was that with 2d10 land combat? When each flipped corps in a defending hex is a +2, basically an odds shift? Also, I get a sense you weren't playing with fractional odds, so a 1 or 2 point fighter-bomber can change odds levels. (I find the game incredibly slower without fractional odds). I've heard about games with such levels of fighter builds but haven't participated in any. But I've never heard of not building many bombers. What good is air superiority without bombers to exploit it? I think you must be playing without fractional odds the more I think about it.

[composer99]

Our German player was building ahead fighters like mad this RL game I'm playing now. We as the Allies have not. We still had an edge in the air from early 43 on and dominating air superiority from late 43. I can't see the point of the Allies building ahead fighters like that when they need so many other bits and pieces to make the war go.
 
Besides, if the Western Allies were doing their job in 41-42 and strat bombing Germany, the Germans should not be able to afford all these fighters.
 
And as Germany I would only build ahead fighters like that if I wasn't on the offensive in 42.