Matrix Games Forums

Looking back, think this isn't completely clear.  Kill points are the same in all comparisons.  Bases held are the same in all comparisons.  The difference is completely in points given for bases held and for production.
 
IJ Control Points
 
53040 Matrix
25900 SSI
27190 Revised Tora
 
 
Allied Control Points
 
39320 Matrix
12530 SSI
11830 Revised Tora
 
 
IJ Production (Gross, subject to low oil or resource penalty)
 
6440 Matrix
6630 SSI *
5594 Revised Tora
 
* IJ needs higher aircraft production due to SSI including more airgroups in China and Manchuria which are not in other versions.
 
Allied Production
 
22630 Matrix
16130 SSI
13675 Revised Tora
 
 

IJ Production (Gross, subject to low oil or resource penalty)

6440 Matrix
6630 SSI *
5594 Revised Tora

* IJ needs higher aircraft production due to SSI including more airgroups in China and Manchuria which are not in other versions.

Allied Production

22630 Matrix
16130 SSI
13675 Revised Tora

Hmm. It looks like both sides need to manage their resources more carefully under the Tora scenario. Is some of this because higher aircraft costs lead to lower production?

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

IJ Production (Gross, subject to low oil or resource penalty)

6440 Matrix
6630 SSI *
5594 Revised Tora

* IJ needs higher aircraft production due to SSI including more airgroups in China and Manchuria which are not in other versions.

Allied Production

22630 Matrix
16130 SSI
13675 Revised Tora

Hmm. It looks like both sides need to manage their resources more carefully under the Tora scenario. Is some of this because higher aircraft costs lead to lower production?

Most of the reduction in produciton and control points is caused not by aircraft produciton reductions but by returning oil, heavy industry, shipyard, artillery, and tanks to SSI values. These values are known to work because of years of people playing ths SSI version.

Aircraft production reductions compared to Matrix have several causes, not just cost. There are fewer aircraft factories. For starters, no factories for C47s or any patrol aircraft. These are low loss aircraft. Providing a factory results in many thousands being produced.

The game produces one per turn of every active aircraft even without a factory. That produciton, and a small initial pool, has proven sufficient even when losses are atypically high, although grossly high losses (such as losing complete airgroups on three or four occasions in a year when bases are lost) can cause shortages.

Aircraft are created four ways: factory, automatic one per turn produciton, aircraft placed in pools at scenario creation, aircraft placed in airgroups at scenario creation. The idea "I have an aircraft, I need a factory" doesn't always apply.

Both SSI and Matrix aircraft production are designed to work for non-thinking AI. Since I intended the scenario only for PBEM play, I didn't have to compromise to make it work for AI, to the detriment of a PBEM game. So, between reductions in heavy industry, etc, to SSI values which are known to work, and remoral of factories for non-combat aircraft, combat aircraft produciton capability isn't reduced as much as might be implied from the total production numbers.

Some comparisons

Average aircraft cost, A6M2, Ki43, Ki43II, Ki45

Matrix 2.75, SSI 3.25, revised Tora 3.25


Average aircraft cost, A6M5, Ki44, Ki61, Ki84, N1K

Matrix 2.4. SSI 3.8, revised Tora 4.4


Average aircraft cost, P38F/G, P39, P40, P47, F6F, F4U

Matrix 3.17, SSI 3.17, revised Tora 4.67


Number of IJ fighter factories

Turn 45
Matrix 7, SSI 7, revised Tora 6

Turn 90
Matrix 12, SSI 11, revised Tora 10

Final
Matrix 16, SSI 13, revised Tora 12.

Note: SSI has more IJ airgroujps in China and Manchuria to support and so needs more production.


US fighter factories

Turn 1
Matrix 3, SSI 5, revised Tora 3

Note: SSI overproduces P39/P40 with two initial factories for each. In revised Tora, there are also two factories producing export versions of P39/P40 so non-US airgroups can use this aircraft, which they can in Matrix AI, but can't in Matrix PBEM. Not counted in the factory total above since they're for non-US use.

Turn 91
Matrix 12, SSI 8, revised Tora 9

Note: By this turn factories producing export versions of P39/P40 are no longer needed. Those airgroups have access to Corsairs and Thunderbolts, plus some better British fighters. So those factories are counted in the US total here since they'd be converted to produce US aircraft.


Total production capacity, combination of cost and number of factories, percent of SSI, front line fighters for the turn.

IJ fighters
Turn 45
Matrix 119% of SSI, revised Tora 86% of SSI

Turn 130
Matrix 160% of SSI, revised Tora 79% of SSI

Final
Matrix 181% of SSI, revised Tora 80% of SSI


US fighters

Turn 50
Matrix 120% of SSI, revised Tora 80% of SSI

Turn 91
Matrix 116% of SSI, revised Tora 70% of SSI


US tac bombers

Through turn 150
Matrix 250% of SSI, revised Tora 83% of SSI

Note: This is what prompted me to start this project. An Allied opponent asked early 1944 exactly what was he supposed to do with 15,000 A20s, B25s, and B26s in the pool.

Allies are short of aircraft early and IJ short of front line aircraft late, both historical. Rest of game, reasonable numbers can be producted for a typical game. Even a somewhat atypical game. But the functionally infinite supply of aircraft is gone and production and use decisions matter in the scenario.

Numerous test games run AI/AI with human production control, and one complete PBEM game plus another through Oct 43.

Going back to the question started this: "can the Japs win"

YES they can [:)]

The easiest way is to take Frisco before 1943

The harder way is to inflict high losses to the Allies, when kill multiplier kicks in 1944 they are toast.

Not just theory, done both [:D]

The harder way is to inflict high losses to the Allies, when kill multiplier kicks in 1944 they are toast.

Not just theory

That approach is now a no-go, and I'm exceedingly unhappy about it. The latest version of the game does not have the Kill Multiplier until 1946, IIRC.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

The harder way is to inflict high losses to the Allies, when kill multiplier kicks in 1944 they are toast.

Not just theory

That approach is now a no-go, and I'm exceedingly unhappy about it. The latest version of the game does not have the Kill Multiplier until 1946, IIRC.

I was able to edit he exe for my new scenario and return the kill multiplier to Jan 44 as in SSI. The exe is compatible with the Matrix version as the kill multiplier date is the only change to it(all other scenario changes are in the obc file). If you'd like a copy, please PM me with your e mail address.

Capt Harlock... file sent.  Thank you for your interest.

ORIGINAL: bradk

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?

SSI version Against the computer neutral help setting. Took all bases except the west coast US which I'd invaded. Lost interest then, game's technically unfinished but hey.

v 3.2 sounds like more of a challenge.

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

ORIGINAL: bradk

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?

SSI version Against the computer neutral help setting. Took all bases except the west coast US which I'd invaded. Lost interest then, game's technically unfinished but hey.

v 3.2 sounds like more of a challenge.

The game is finished if the exe called a win. Which in the situaiton you describe, it should of its Jan 44 or later.

I wouldn't necessarily call Matrix more of a challenge. AI capability is significantly reduced versis AI in SSI. But Allied produciton is so much higher, which counts as points, you have to take more of the map to win. Destroying the entire USN and RN isn't enough. Yet that should be an IJ win.

ORIGINAL: bradk

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

ORIGINAL: bradk

If yes, was it against AI or human, and what were the help settings?

SSI version Against the computer neutral help setting. Took all bases except the west coast US which I'd invaded. Lost interest then, game's technically unfinished but hey.

v 3.2 sounds like more of a challenge.

The game is finished if the exe called a win. Which in the situaiton you describe, it should of its Jan 44 or later.

I wouldn't necessarily call Matrix more of a challenge. AI capability is significantly reduced versis AI in SSI. But Allied produciton is so much higher, which counts as points, you have to take more of the map to win. Destroying the entire USN and RN isn't enough. Yet that should be an IJ win.

I agree. Although if you do that it's not difficult to take the whole map. At least in the older version.

I suppose the point imbalance is not so bad in the short scenarios? I always had the habit of wanting to play the long campaigns (WIR too) but never finished them. My interest is really only in the 1939-1942 period so I've decided only to play short early war scenarios from now on.

I've been running CP vs CP games of the SSI v 1.1 x22 on another computer and it seems the points are pretty balanced there. Draw without help and decisive victory with help so far.

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

I suppose the point imbalance is not so bad in the short scenarios? I always had the habit of wanting to play the long campaigns (WIR too) but never finished them. My interest is really only in the 1939-1942 period so I've decided only to play short early war scenarios from now on.

I've been running CP vs CP games of the SSI v 1.1 x22 on another computer and it seems the points are pretty balanced there. Draw without help and decisive victory with help so far.

First Turn Points

IJ Control 36940, Allies Control 52840, Total Control 89780 - Matrix
IJ Control 16500, Allies Control 19950, Total Control 36450 - SSI
IJ Control 16300, Allies Control 19820, Total Control 36120 - PWB

IJ Production 5295, Allied Production 17575, Total Production 22870 - Matrix
IJ Production 5420, Allied Production 12880, Total Produciton 18300 - SSI
IJ Production 4710, Allied Production 10940, Total Production 15650 - PWB

IJ Total 42235, Allied Total 70415, Game Total 112650 - Matrix
IJ Total 21920, Allied Total 32830, Game Total 54750 - SSI
IJ Total 21010, Allied Total 30760, Game Total 51770 - PWB


Typical Production, August 1943

IJ 6440, Allied 22630 - Matrix
IJ 6630, Allied 16310 - SSI
IJ 5594, Allied 13675 - PWB

The value of kill points is greatly depreciated in Matrix due to increase produciton and control. That's one of the reasons its necessary to take most of map to win as IJ in Matrix. Holding the Pacific and destroying the USN and RN isn't enough. Also Martix doesn't give IJ the kill multiplier until 1946. SSI give is in 1944.

PWB is a game of two scnearios I made with substantial input from three PBEM opponents. Basics are 1) use of Matrix aircraft, ship, LCU, and leader database with only slight modifications, 2) return of production and control points to close to SSI values, 3) edited exe so kill multiplier applies Jan 1944. It is for PBEM only, and I see you're apparently interested only in AI games. Howver, if you'd like a copy, send me a PM with your e mail address.

ORIGINAL: bradk

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

I suppose the point imbalance is not so bad in the short scenarios? I always had the habit of wanting to play the long campaigns (WIR too) but never finished them. My interest is really only in the 1939-1942 period so I've decided only to play short early war scenarios from now on.

I've been running CP vs CP games of the SSI v 1.1 x22 on another computer and it seems the points are pretty balanced there. Draw without help and decisive victory with help so far.

First Turn Points

IJ Control 36940, Allies Control 52840, Total Control 89780 - Matrix
IJ Control 16500, Allies Control 19950, Total Control 36450 - SSI
IJ Control 16300, Allies Control 19820, Total Control 36120 - PWB

IJ Production 5295, Allied Production 17575, Total Production 22870 - Matrix
IJ Production 5420, Allied Production 12880, Total Produciton 18300 - SSI
IJ Production 4710, Allied Production 10940, Total Production 15650 - PWB

IJ Total 42235, Allied Total 70415, Game Total 112650 - Matrix
IJ Total 21920, Allied Total 32830, Game Total 54750 - SSI
IJ Total 21010, Allied Total 30760, Game Total 51770 - PWB


Typical Production, August 1943

IJ 6440, Allied 22630 - Matrix
IJ 6630, Allied 16310 - SSI
IJ 5594, Allied 13675 - PWB

The value of kill points is greatly depreciated in Matrix due to increase produciton and control. That's one of the reasons its necessary to take most of map to win as IJ in Matrix. Holding the Pacific and destroying the USN and RN isn't enough. Also Martix doesn't give IJ the kill multiplier until 1946. SSI give is in 1944.

PWB is a game of two scnearios I made with substantial input from three PBEM opponents. Basics are 1) use of Matrix aircraft, ship, LCU, and leader database with only slight modifications, 2) return of production and control points to close to SSI values, 3) edited exe so kill multiplier applies Jan 1944. It is for PBEM only, and I see you're apparently interested only in AI games. Howver, if you'd like a copy, send me a PM with your e mail address.

Whoa, control points are double in Matrix! I've read some of your other posts here too. I wonder why they didn't compensate by also changing kill points. Oversight? Or intended to be more historical? Historically kill points mattered a lot to the US. I could even see multiplying Jap kill points at start of game as being accurate. Or perhaps 41 x1, 42 x2, 43 x3 etc. Most of the Dutch and Brit losses (they were less sensitive) would be in '41. Oh well, just musing.

Thanks for the offer. You are right, I've only played PBM a few times and that was in the 90's. If I get hooked and feel the desire to try PBM again I'll take you up on the files.

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

Whoa, control points are double in Matrix! I've read some of your other posts here too. I wonder why they didn't compensate by also changing kill points.

I wonder why control points were changed at all. There isn't any problem with the values used in SSI.

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

Oversight? Or intended to be more historical? Historically kill points mattered a lot to the US. I could even see multiplying Jap kill points at start of game as being accurate. Or perhaps 41 x1, 42 x2, 43 x3 etc. Most of the Dutch and Brit losses (they were less sensitive) would be in '41. Oh well, just musing.

They went the other way, delaying the kill multiplier until 1946. American sensitivity to losses was commented on in the SSI manual as the reason for the 1944 kill multiplier.

Note on control points.  Calculation for base is
 
(airfield + port + oil + resource) x 10.  If the base is a major city in Japan or the US, its x 100.
 
Most of the control point increase comes from oil and resource.  For IJ, oil and resource affect both control points and production.  Oil and resource are required to run heavy industry.  Heavy industry production affects current production, factory expansion, and whether new factories will activate on the turn scheduled.
 
For Allies, oil and resource affect only control points.  No effect on production.  This is why oil and resource pools are not shown on the Allied pools screen.
 
In a PBEM game, the Allied player can adopt an oil and resource denial strategy, and effect it in two ways:  Capture the oil and resource bases, or reduce the abilty to transport them by targeting MCS and TK ships.  These strategies are not available in a game against IJ AI.

Well my opinion has always been that PW didn't need any changes. War in Russia did (was seriously broken). Still this v 3.2 has given me incentive to play again after a long interval so it's good.

ORIGINAL: MXB2001

Well my opinion has always been that PW didn't need any changes. War in Russia did (was seriously broken). Still this v 3.2 has given me incentive to play again after a long interval so it's good.

I think the Matrix changes to the ship, weapon, and aircraft performance greatly benefit the game. If I were still interested in AI play, I'd play SSI v x22 with the obcs edited to include most of the Matrix obc changes.

The vcr feature is fantastic for PBEM games. I realize that isn't a factor for you.

However, its obvious I think the produciton and control increases, and change of the kill multiplier, are inappropriate.

ORIGINAL: bradk

The vcr feature is fantastic for PBEM games. I realize that isn't a factor for you.

Haha! It would have been in 1997! I was playing a couple of PBEM games then. I recall having to write down some of the combat results and then type them into the email. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Now, its argued that historically the Allies never would have quit no matter how hard it was, but is that really the historical evidence? UK never would have quit as long as Churchill was PM, but the Conservatives lost the May (?) 1945 election and Churchill was out after Germany was defeated but before IJ was defeated. Less than a decade later, the US decided three years in Korea was enough.

Let me haul out my soapbox once more: the only, repeat only, way for the Japanese to pull out a marginal victory was *not* to do the Pearl Harbor raid. Instead, they should have invaded only the DEI at first. This would have triggered a declaration of war from Great Britain and the United States, but with much less popular support. The amazing feats of production the U.S. achieved would not have been politically possible, and the U.S. at least would have been more willing to settle for a negotiated peace.

I continue to be amazed that no one seems to include this scenario in Pacific wargames.

Yamamoto was a brilliant admiral but poor politician. He didn't think that stinging the bear would backfire the way it did. It would have required a keen understanding of the American mentality though and even though he did study in the US I doubt he came to understand them at that level.

And yeah, that would be an awesome scenario! Quarter US production (to account also for th fact that likely the emphasis would have been a Europe first strategy) and fewer units (drawn off to Europe). Nightmare for the Germans though. But that's off board

Old thread but some items require addressing:

I see the axis fanboys are alive and well. You Still do not understand the strategic limitations that confronted Japan and the likely US reaction had the Japanese dared to try and invade either Hawaii any part of the US west coast.

Germany first would have been completely reversed, and most of the remaining US Atlantic fleet outside of convoy escorts would have immediately been sent to the Pacific, including the Ranger and the early production CVEs. Ship production would speed have been even more You also do not realize or don't know (or don't care) that over 90% of the US shipyard capacity and ALL of the warship capacity was on the east coast or the Gulf of Mexico and 100% immune from Japanese attack. Less than 25% of the aircraft production was on the west coast, most of which was well inland.

When I see talk of invading Canton or Johnston, etc. in Jan 42, and talk of invading India while bypassing the DEI, these actions are "gaming" the game.

Japan did not go to war to capture the Hawaiian Islands, or even India. They went to war over oil and resources in Indonesia and Malaysia, etc. The US was drawn in because of the Philippines and its ability to interdict the supply routes. An inability to see the real US resolve and some ineptitude at the start guaranteed the US's implacable hatred towards Japan from that moment on.

Capt Harlock stated it pretty succinctly, Yamamoto failed to see what a surprise -accurately termed sneak- attack would do to the entire US nation. Similarly Great Britain, while much less able had no less of a resolve to avenge the early disasters in HK & Malaysia. It took them 2 & 1/2 years but they finally assembled an Eastern Fleet with 9 CVs / CVLs with over 700 aircraft which, by itself, vastly outnumbered the entire IJN carrier fleet at the time.

mxb201, US Production would not have been "quartered". What you do not realize (or again choose not to care about) is that the buildup against Germany was nearly all the the US could manage as it was, the entire Pacific campaign was conducted with what was essentially leftovers.

I don't get any enjoyment out of gaming a game to win. What I try to do, is do better each time, and try to improve on the historical result while keeping within the strategic limitations that one side or the other were subject to.

So if you want to max help yourself, and invade islands that were never part of the strategic reason why japan went to war, not to mention operations thatr were logistically impossible for the japanese to undertake let alone support, just so you can win, have fun at it. Just don't expect any professionals in my ranks to be impressed.

So,
I finally beat this game as the IJN.
Matrix version.
Max help Japan.
The allied AI rising sun scenario.
Victory occurred late '44.

Link to the files and some screenshots in a .zip:

(Won't let me post the link for some reason)

If anyone reads this, take a look and let me know what you think.
None of the stuff I did seems like it would be legal in a two player game.
I had huge TFs with lots of CVs, or lots of BBs, etc.

Thanks,
DS