Allied aircraft engines? [A really radical question]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Suppose (it may be so) that Allied Aircraft COULD require engines

and suppose (it probably is so) that we COULD produce them

right now - in WITP I

should we?

Mayby is this more radical to expand youre proposal with Vehicles and Armaments Factories for the Allieds

Well - IF they just didn't implement code that is still there - it might work. Or it might just accumulate devices.
A problem here is that some armaments are shared by both sides - so Allied production of those might give the Japanese a free ride. OTH - I think that happens already - so maybe it is not a change? It may be there is no way to do this at all - because there is no separate pool - no reports on that pool for the Allies - and no way to use what is in the pool that does not exist. But it is possible this is just dormant.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But the Japanese have interior lines - and the US Army Manual on Japanese Forces (Air Force Section) says they exploited them well. So it may seem the Allies have a rough time - because there is so MUCH to cover - and the distances on the exterior lines are so great. PTO is a vast desert - you can sink a million planes in it and not saturate most places.

The limiting factory is fighter ranges. As the Japanese have the great fighter range the areas of conflict are less restricted to them. The allies may project airpower with their two and four engine bombers but for the most part they will be flying unescorted. China, Burma, Darwin area, and New Guinea are the only theaters that the allies can engage in with fighters without the use of carrier borne aircraft. These are choke points with limited airfields and thus the pace of the war can be dictated by the Japanese. I only brought the subject up because of other concerns voiced by AFB. If the aircraft that the allies have are historical in numbers then that is fine, but the fact that the game does not allow the allies to react to a change in Japanese production is not. I would like to see a solution which quites the critisism without making the game unplayable.

I don't think the game is unplayable. But a lesser charge - that it may not be well modeled - might stick.

Andrew Brown rationalized that "the Japanese Army happens to control the government, and they have only one theater to worry about, so they get to control the economy. The Allies are just generals, they do not control the government, nor make decisions about relative priorities, so they do not get to control the economy." [Paraphrase] I think that is pretty fair reasoning. UNTIL we have a WITA that links with WITP we cannot give the Allies control over production. It is a nightmare - because if you send more to PTO - it means you don't do as well in ETO - and that affects lots of things in out years. Things we cannot know or calculate in fact. Nothing less than a parallel game working it out would make a solution truly viable.

I also am very skeptical the Allies would KNOW there was a "change in Japanese production." Change vs what? Any particular game world is the ONLY world they know about - they cannot know about other "parallel universe" games or the war IRL. Aside from that, a change in Japanese production orders is hardly going to be reported to Allied intelligence. There would be no evidence until the planes show up at the front in operational units - at which point - all you know is "we see the Ki-51" (or "some Italian looking new guy with an inline engine") - not how many are being made.
How could such a sighting generate the political priority to change Allied production? Any successful Japanese strategy is going to be putting awful pressure on the Allies - eventually - by which time changes in production are too late to help in time for that campaign. Then there is the problem that the Allied player is ONLY a PTO player - not for him are the problems of other theaters of war. He will ALWAYS want all he can get - never mind IRL he could not really sell it to the brass/politicians. I think putting this in for just PTO is a can of worms. The Allies are already doomed to win even if they are almost stupid - and the (historically correct) imbalance would only get worse. Why play the Japanese at all if the Americans are going to overwhelm you even in 1942?

But my dream (before I die????) is to have a GLOBAL game system - one game or a pair of games that link - where you THEN can "rob Peter to Pay Paul" - AND you pay the price for so doing.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Andrew Brown rationalized that "the Japanese Army happens to control the government, and they have only one theater to worry about, so they get to control the economy. The Allies are just generals, they do not control the government, nor make decisions about relative priorities, so they do not get to control the economy." [Paraphrase] I think that is pretty fair reasoning.

This does oversimplify the Japanese situation quite a bit. The IJN and the IJA maintained almost total seperation of their supporting war production, dealing with different companies and suppliers and refusing to do much of anything jointly. Neither group knew anything about actual production---but both refused to listen to the large Industrialists who did. The "benefit" of military control of the Government actually winds up being a curse, reducing even more the already small and finite potential of the Japanese Economy.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But the Japanese have interior lines - and the US Army Manual on Japanese Forces (Air Force Section) says they exploited them well. So it may seem the Allies have a rough time - because there is so MUCH to cover - and the distances on the exterior lines are so great. PTO is a vast desert - you can sink a million planes in it and not saturate most places.

The limiting factory is fighter ranges. As the Japanese have the great fighter range the areas of conflict are less restricted to them. The allies may project airpower with their two and four engine bombers but for the most part they will be flying unescorted. China, Burma, Darwin area, and New Guinea are the only theaters that the allies can engage in with fighters without the use of carrier borne aircraft. These are choke points with limited airfields and thus the pace of the war can be dictated by the Japanese. I only brought the subject up because of other concerns voiced by AFB. If the aircraft that the allies have are historical in numbers then that is fine, but the fact that the game does not allow the allies to react to a change in Japanese production is not. I would like to see a solution which quites the critisism without making the game unplayable.

I don't think the game is unplayable. But a lesser charge - that it may not be well modeled - might stick.

Andrew Brown rationalized that "the Japanese Army happens to control the government, and they have only one theater to worry about, so they get to control the economy. The Allies are just generals, they do not control the government, nor make decisions about relative priorities, so they do not get to control the economy." [Paraphrase] I think that is pretty fair reasoning. UNTIL we have a WITA that links with WITP we cannot give the Allies control over production. It is a nightmare - because if you send more to PTO - it means you don't do as well in ETO - and that affects lots of things in out years. Things we cannot know or calculate in fact. Nothing less than a parallel game working it out would make a solution truly viable.

I also am very skeptical the Allies would KNOW there was a "change in Japanese production." Change vs what? Any particular game world is the ONLY world they know about - they cannot know about other "parallel universe" games or the war IRL. Aside from that, a change in Japanese production orders is hardly going to be reported to Allied intelligence. There would be no evidence until the planes show up at the front in operational units - at which point - all you know is "we see the Ki-51" (or "some Italian looking new guy with an inline engine") - not how many are being made.
How could such a sighting generate the political priority to change Allied production? Any successful Japanese strategy is going to be putting awful pressure on the Allies - eventually - by which time changes in production are too late to help in time for that campaign. Then there is the problem that the Allied player is ONLY a PTO player - not for him are the problems of other theaters of war. He will ALWAYS want all he can get - never mind IRL he could not really sell it to the brass/politicians. I think putting this in for just PTO is a can of worms. The Allies are already doomed to win even if they are almost stupid - and the (historically correct) imbalance would only get worse. Why play the Japanese at all if the Americans are going to overwhelm you even in 1942?

But my dream (before I die????) is to have a GLOBAL game system - one game or a pair of games that link - where you THEN can "rob Peter to Pay Paul" - AND you pay the price for so doing.

I have read Andrew Brown's rationalization in the past and on the face of it, it seems correct. But it is in the reality of the game wrong. As the Japanese player you can only change two aspected of your military economy totally and one limitedly. Aircraft and engine production can be changed as radically as you wish. You may also increase your overall production of vehicles and armaments. In the area of ships you may only increase or decrease their time of arrival not their type or new construction. In the allies you do not have any of this. And here Mr. Brown's rationalization is in essence correct. But the moment that a player actually changes the Japanese economy he changes history and the allied player is doomed to what history has already given him. So if for example the Japanese produced 900 aircraft of all types in 1942, the allies would still only produce 1800. But if the Japanese produced 1500 in 1942 the allies would still only produce that same 1800. An imbalance is created that is player driven and causes a rip effect in game play that the allied player may not react to. As I have stated before an increase in Japanese fighter production which would be noted by an increase of Japanese fighters in theather by the allied command can not be reacted to in game and here is where Mr. Brown's rationalization is shown to be flawed. If we limited Allied production to the historical level of the production sent to the PTO we would leasen this trend without impacting in too meaningful a way the war in Europe. Example: If say the allies only invested 17% of their total war production in the PTO, allowing the allied player to determine what that 17% was would allow him/her to react to Japanese production that he could discern from things happening in game. I like you would love to see a global version of this game with all nations represented. I will not hold my breath on it for the scope is unlikely to be undertaken, but one can dream.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Andrew Brown rationalized that "the Japanese Army happens to control the government, and they have only one theater to worry about, so they get to control the economy. The Allies are just generals, they do not control the government, nor make decisions about relative priorities, so they do not get to control the economy." [Paraphrase] I think that is pretty fair reasoning.

This does oversimplify the Japanese situation quite a bit. The IJN and the IJA maintained almost total seperation of their supporting war production, dealing with different companies and suppliers and refusing to do much of anything jointly. Neither group knew anything about actual production---but both refused to listen to the large Industrialists who did. The "benefit" of military control of the Government actually winds up being a curse, reducing even more the already small and finite potential of the Japanese Economy.

It was worse even than Mike has said in his brief comments: IJA would conscript workers in IJN factories, and vice versa - neither respecting the need for expertise in the other's industrial base. They didn't standardize calibers for aircraft weapons until late into the war - and their bases/organizations could not normally rearm each other's aircraft.
When I model the Japanese economy - I divide it into three parts - Army - Navy and Civil - with limited ability to cooperate. But I have not dared to propose that to Matrix - so far we can't even get coal modeled right - and it needs 2/3 of all sealift (by tonnage) economically speaking.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: okami



I have read Andrew Brown's rationalization in the past and on the face of it, it seems correct. But it is in the reality of the game wrong. As the Japanese player you can only change two aspected of your military economy totally and one limitedly. Aircraft and engine production can be changed as radically as you wish. You may also increase your overall production of vehicles and armaments. In the area of ships you may only increase or decrease their time of arrival not their type or new construction. In the allies you do not have any of this. And here Mr. Brown's rationalization is in essence correct. But the moment that a player actually changes the Japanese economy he changes history and the allied player is doomed to what history has already given him. So if for example the Japanese produced 900 aircraft of all types in 1942, the allies would still only produce 1800. But if the Japanese produced 1500 in 1942 the allies would still only produce that same 1800. An imbalance is created that is player driven and causes a rip effect in game play that the allied player may not react to. As I have stated before an increase in Japanese fighter production which would be noted by an increase of Japanese fighters in theather by the allied command can not be reacted to in game and here is where Mr. Brown's rationalization is shown to be flawed. If we limited Allied production to the historical level of the production sent to the PTO we would leasen this trend without impacting in too meaningful a way the war in Europe. Example: If say the allies only invested 17% of their total war production in the PTO, allowing the allied player to determine what that 17% was would allow him/her to react to Japanese production that he could discern from things happening in game. I like you would love to see a global version of this game with all nations represented. I will not hold my breath on it for the scope is unlikely to be undertaken, but one can dream.

I have tried to help you out in RHS:

BOTH players CAN decide what ships to build - for example carrier or battleship/ light carrier or cruiser - by picking CVO family or BBO family.

Add to which - if you want extra Japanese production - in EOS family - you also get a reallocation of aircraft - and some conversions (CL to CVL, BC to CA, CB to CV, etc) in response to this.

To which I note that BOTH SIDES have much aircraft production which should NOT be used BEFORE it is available. BOTH SIDES should turn off repair for lines assigned R&D aircraft - and if both do - the contest is more likely to produce historical numbers. In this way I was able to model the greatly increased production in out years without vastly increasing it in near years.

IF you play CVO or BBO with this concept - don't reassigne lines that don't even exist yet (indicated by R&D aircraft) - you will find it isn't so vast a number that get made. Also - the economy will not produce vast numbers even if AI or a player sets it to hundreds per line - it will never actually work. The more they repair up - the less efficient the line will become. At a BIG HI generating point, you can make 60 engines or 30 airframes per line. At a small one - you are lucky to get 10 or 5 of either for a single line. Don't let the apparent numbers imply actual production - you must track it turn by turn to know.