Against the unfair limitations of US production!

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

The other side of unfairness:

If the Japanese can control their production, the US should too! If the Japanese player can choose unhistorical options, the US player should too (as long as unhistorical options would produce handicaps that the player would have to live with).

I know, I know, the Allied player has some limited control. My point is that he should have similar control as the Japanese.

Obviously you have never tried to fight with the convoluted hoop-jumping involved
in trying to use Japanese Production or you wouldn't suggest trying to deal with the
huge US economy in this system. It would be a massive task..., not to mention
requiring the entire US to be on the map so you can junt through every hex looking
for factories.

[fbastos]

Obviously you have never tried to fight with the convoluted hoop-jumping involved
in trying to use Japanese Production or you wouldn't suggest trying to deal with the
huge US economy in this system. It would be a massive task..., not to mention
requiring the entire US to be on the map so you can junt through every hex looking
for factories.

Uh? I didn't mean to replicate the US economy. Just put some factories in United States and that's it. Initially set the factories to produce what they are already programmed to build, so if one doesn't want to mess with production, just leave them alone and you play the game as it is now. Otherwise go and try to get them early F6F!

[fbastos]

Now you would have to decide which assests,and how much,went to the PTO and to the ETO.

Yeah, nobody would like that. I would be happy just in tweaking the production around a bit, specially on taking some (possibly heavy) penalty in order to get some aircrafts earlier on.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: fbastos
Yeah, nobody would like that. I would be happy just in tweaking the production around a bit, specially on taking some (possibly heavy) penalty in order to get some aircrafts earlier on.

Be careful, it might work like the Japanese system… you can get them early, but you can’t use them. [;)]

[Buck Beach]

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell[:D][:D].

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell[:D][:D].

Just what I was thinking - though I don't see tham as fanatics. Much. As I half agree with them. Sometimes.

Let's get back to bulldozers. I really understood the bulldozer argument.

[vonmoltke]

I don't think either side should have control over their production, but I seem to be in a smaller minority than those who want both sides to control it. [:D]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: fbastos
The other side of unfairness:

If the Japanese can control their production, the US should too!

I started learning this game from the Japanese side and haven’t gotten to the Allied side yet so...

Question: is there any point in the player controlling US production? Is there a shortage of P-38s, P-47s and P-51s in 1944/45?

The issue, by mid/late 1944 with the Allied player is "where am I going to put all this stuff"! there are only so many bases.....

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

[
The issue, by mid/late 1944 with the Allied player is "where am I going to put all this stuff"! there are only so many bases.....

Yeah espeically with all those bulldozers - they take up lot of room.

[vonmoltke]

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

Yeah espeically with all those bulldozers - they take up lot of room.

You could have'em build practice targets for the Navy and Marines to blow up. That oughta keep'em busy. [:)]

[UncleBuck]

I don't think that either side should be able to adjust production. The Allied side is played as if you were Admiral King and had complete control over the other Allies. Japan is run as if you are Not only Tojo but also Head of R&D. Why not just make the Japanese player Commander of Armed forces. They play with what they get, not what they monkey with to get. I think both sides should be allowed to upgrade any squadron to whatever plane type they want within the squadron type. (DB's to DB's or FB's, Fighters to Fighters or FB's, Torpedo Planes to trop planes, LBA to LBA> etc.) You can still play what if, and try to do better than either side did in teh war, so what is the difference?

Has anyone that plays JP often found any real advantage or change in outcome based on Production changes? I am talking about not screwing it up any benificial changes?

UB

[Williamb]

hmm Japan only fought on one front ?

Lets see they invaded China (1), Invaded british Malaya and Burma and India (call that 2), The hit the Dutch east indies (3) Went down into Anzac territory (ie NG and same areas #4) and they attack the US in the Philliphines and the pacific (call that 5)

Then after that can add the Rooskies later (#6)

Think they were spread out on many fronts.

[Bradley7735]

Saying Japan was fighting on 6 fronts is like saying the US was figting on 18 fronts???

North Africa, Europe, Burma, China, Australia, Japan, etc etc etc.

Japan had a continuous front, unbroken. The US was fighting in both hemishperes at the same time.

But, I guess from my logic, Germany had only one front too. So, Japan had 6 fronts, Germany had at least 6, but the US had well over a dozen. [8|] Poor Russia only had one at a time. [:(]

[fbastos]

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell

Completely incidental that the subjects are related...

/blink

[;)]

F

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

[
The issue, by mid/late 1944 with the Allied player is "where am I going to put all this stuff"! there are only so many bases.....

Yeah espeically with all those bulldozers - they take up lot of room.

I think somebody is having bulldozer withdrawal. [:)]

[Mr.Frag]

I see no problem with letting the USA control their production myself except it makes for a vastly different game. If I can shuffle Japan's production around and change the production levels, why should the USA not also be able to do the same?

It seems rather illogical to say it's ok for Japan but not ok for the Allies. Japan's production was a very small fraction of the USA. Japan improving 10% of her GNP should be balanced by a 100%+ increase in the Allies.

The problem is that this type of discussion is better suited for games like GG's World at War where the model is aimed at this reality. War in the Pacific is an operational game on a vast scale, once you start messing with production, the entire game concept starts to drift as it is not about operational use of what you have, it is about making the stuff to support your operations. Too many logic problems start to surface at that point as the games design was aimed at using the historic units that show up on historic dates. The entire concept of an OOB goes out the window with variable production. It becomes a military turn based strategy game at that point, not a historical war game.

The real question becomes:

Do you want a historical military game at the operational scale or a pure strategy game where history (apart from basic starting GNP) has no bearing at all?

I'm game either way, I just don't think you can have both in one game as they are rather opposed in nature.

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It seems rather illogical to say it's ok for Japan but not ok for the Allies. Japan's production was a very small fraction of the USA. Japan improving 10% of her GNP should be balanced by a 100%+ increase in the Allies.

How can you say improving one side by 10% is balanced by increasing the other side by 100%???? That would only balance out if Japan's economy was 10 times bigger than the Allies, something I don't think anyone would try to support.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Hmmm! This thread seems to me to be a back door attack to the fanatics on the other upgrade aircraft threads. I think it is funnier than hell[:D][:D].

Just what I was thinking - though I don't see tham as fanatics. Much. As I half agree with them. Sometimes.

Let's get back to bulldozers. I really understood the bulldozer argument.

Perhaps fanatics is the incorrect label it was not made to offend only to discribed the neverending, unrelenting, post and post after post pursuit of their objective.

[Mr.Frag]

How can you say improving one side by 10% is balanced by increasing the other side by 100%???? That would only balance out if Japan's economy was 10 times bigger than the Allies, something I don't think anyone would try to support.

Think you'll find you read that backwards [;)]

10% increase to Japan grants 100% increase to USA. 100% increase to Japan grants 1000% increase to USA.

Of couse there are those who will probably say it's more like a 1:100 instead of a 1:10 ratio, but lets not get too serious about it ... even at the 1:10, it's brutal [:D]

[anarchyintheuk]

Let's throw in a hypothetical "Japan First" scenario while we're at it.