Taming Expansion of IJ Production

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: 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]:

Of course this raises the question why you were able to conquer the entire map if the Allies produce so much stuff... [;)]

No offense, but posting numbers from an AI game in which you slapped the Allies around until they have no opportunity at all to engage the enemy doesn't prove anything about their ability to wage a war of attrition.

[ctangus]

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...

So you'd recommend that the Japanese couldn't do better than historical production-wise, but could do worse? I wouldn't want to play that game from either side.

I'll also say that I would like to see Japanese production toned down - even a best case scenario should still be plausible, and I've occasionally seen some highly implausible figures in AARs. And the median result, IMO, should roughly approximate history whereas in stock the median result seems to exceed it.

If the amount of HI that can be supported is lowered from stock (similar to how CHS now has it) I doubt one will see grossly unrealistic production figures.

[ctangus]

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.

With resource & supply production separated, it should be (relatively) easy to force a more realistic draw on Japanese shipping.

Just up the Japanese manpower & also up the resource centers in order to both support the manpower & HI. It make take a lot of tweaking to get it right, but it could better represent the strain that the Japanese Merchant Marine faced IRL.

I stop most merchant shipbuilding in game because I can and I don't need it. But I'd honestly rather have my logistics stretched to the limit & beyond - I enjoy facing similar problems to those my real-life counterpoints faced.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

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...

So you'd recommend that the Japanese couldn't do better than historical production-wise, but could do worse? I wouldn't want to play that game from either side. No..., I didn't say that. Rainerle asked "why should the Japanese bother to take the SRA at all?"---and I offered a reason.

I'll also say that I would like to see Japanese production toned down - even a best case scenario should still be plausible, and I've occasionally seen some highly implausible figures in AARs. And the median result, IMO, should roughly approximate history whereas in stock the median result seems to exceed it.
Then we are basically in agreement. I want to control and limit the increase of Japan's production in the game,..., not prevent it from occuring

If the amount of HI that can be supported is lowered from stock (similar to how CHS now has it) I doubt one will see grossly unrealistic production figures.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Then we are basically in agreement. I want to control and limit the increase of Japan's production in the game,..., not prevent it from occuring

Yep, I think so. I think may have I mis-read you earlier.

IMO a well-played Japanese game should deserve economic rewards. But those rewards shouldn't stretch the limits of credulity either. I think we're mostly on the same page here.

[jolly_pillager]

Just to throw in my .02

In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's.

This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on.

Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"?

I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever.

I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well...

[okami]

ORIGINAL: jolly_pillager

Just to throw in my .02

In my game vs wneumann I literally have 95% of my merchant fleet twiddling it's thumbs doing nothing and have turned off replacement AK's and AP's to save HI and accelerate my CVE's.

This seems basically wrong to me. Every account I have read indicates that the Japanese Merchant Marine was overstretched and that this situation got progressivly worse as time went on.

Also, as others have stated it's not really the raw production numbers that give Japan the edge...it's their ability to focus production onto critical sectors at will while the Allies are stuck with a rigid table (a table that is dictated by events from RL...which might not be applicable to the current situation). Andy, you have seen it firsthand...hundreds of night capable Hellcats lined up in crates while your active carrier groups could not fill out...do you really believe the US would not have built more F6F's in that situation? Or that it's somehow fair to give the Japanese player that very option while denying it to the Allies just because "the Allies are going to win anyways"?

I would like (in a fantasy scenario) to see the Allied player have the ability (perhaps monthly) to set production priorities...and then have the AI move production resources around to attempt to meet those priorities...e.g. reduce P-38 procudtion by 10% to increase Hellcat production by 10%, with an appropriate loss of supplies, PP's or whatever.

I would also like to see much larger Resource centers (possible now that they do not produce supplies as a side effect), coupled with larger manpower centers that produce fewer manpower points each (to keep the land replacements in check). Forcing manpower centers to also consume supplies might be interesting as well...

May I ask how far into the game are you? Is your opponent aggressive with his subs or is he waiting for the new torpedoe? I have two current games of CHS. In one my opponent has used the Sir Robin strategy and I have not seen a sub in some time. In the other the pesky things are always under foot and I have lost a good amount of merchants to sunk or damaged. I agree that it seems the Japanese have way to many merchant ships and it both of my games I have them not producing. But in my one game I believe that I will eventually have to turn them on as my opponent likes and effectively uses his subs.

[FeurerKrieg]

My 2 cents -

First, I will agree with something Jim said:

If you want historical accuracy as you claim, then why aren’t you advocating Japanese production start from an historical beginning? We know Japan built these figures in 1941:

1,080 fighters
1,461 bombers
639 reconnaissance

So given these numbers we can assume Japan’s monthly output of air frames at the start of the war was:

90 fighters
121 bombers
53 recon

Even if we assume Japan started 1941 with very low production and ramped up some by the end of 1941, Japan should not start with more than

150 fighters (a very generous figure)
150 bombers
70 recon

This would be an honest and historically accurate start point for Japanese production at game start.

I definitely think this would help.

Aside from that my take on a few topics -
PDU - I like PDU - with some limits for both sides. In my experience (albeit not as great as many others here) it will take me a quite a while to phase out my Nates with Oscars. However, PDU is very useful for allowing the continued use of obsolete aircraft for training, Kamikazes, quite theaters, etc.

R&D factories - HR I use is that I repeatedly convert them until they are zero on the first turn of the game. Thus, if I want to use them later, I have to expand and repair from scratch. EXPENSIVE

Japanese Production - I really don't see the problem here. Maybe it is because I play CHS, but I HAVE TO (yes, Jim, I HAVE to) turn off various things in my economy to keep my HI pools from dropping. I cut back on merchant shipyards and planes that have sufficient pools. And that feels right to me. As much as I would love to turn everything on, if I did my economy would crash in 42. Now, I could expand HI (and maybe I will) but that is going to suck up supplies I need for the offensives I have going. Maybe if I stopped expanding earlier, I could spend more supply on economic expansion. Again - it is a choice that seems right to me. In any case - I sure can't imagine hitting some of the number others have posted. Even if I had the CAPACITY to do so, my HI would not support running all those factories for very long at all.

Allied Production - I do think Allied production should be adjustable. Certainly between types of units (lower one, increase another) but also I LOVE the idea of using PPs to push productions since it represents hardware being pulled from the ETO. And I don't think that gets mentioned enough. Britain and America were not operating in a single theater like Japan. Are you so sure the British could send more tanks to India in 42/43? Weren't they a bit busy the Europe and Med theaters?
Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production. Maybe, the allied player could GAIN VP's by shutting things down if he is doing really well. This might be enough to allow the use of an extra A bomb without pushing the victory condition another level to Japan.

AP/AK - I do think something needs done here. I do keep all my ships working, but I do think I am able to ship more than Japan did historically. Not to mention, shutting down merchant yards is the first thing I do to try and keep my HI net usage positive.


Thanks to the AE team for listening and all their hard work!

[Ken Estes]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: 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]:

Of course this raises the question why you were able to conquer the entire map if the Allies produce so much stuff... [;)]

No offense, but posting numbers from an AI game in which you slapped the Allies around until they have no opportunity at all to engage the enemy doesn't prove anything about their ability to wage a war of attrition.

Don't know what your problem is, so just don't read it. I have already pointed out the failings of Allied AI and why my 'slapping the Allied AI' would not likely work vs. human opponent. My illustration of Allied AI production in a defeated campaign shows they don't likely need to be plused up to any extent. I claim nothing more than to show how their stock production went when under severest pressure.
Alles klar?

[witpqs]

Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production.

This is a great idea. BTW, I think it was earlier than 1/44 for several things.

[Ken Estes]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
....
Allied Production - I do think Allied production should be adjustable. Certainly between types of units (lower one, increase another) but also I LOVE the idea of using PPs to push productions since it represents hardware being pulled from the ETO. And I don't think that gets mentioned enough. Britain and America were not operating in a single theater like Japan. Are you so sure the British could send more tanks to India in 42/43? Weren't they a bit busy the Europe and Med theaters?
Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production. Maybe, the allied player could GAIN VP's by shutting things down if he is doing really well. This might be enough to allow the use of an extra A bomb without pushing the victory condition another level to Japan.

AP/AK - I do think something needs done here. I do keep all my ships working, but I do think I am able to ship more than Japan did historically. Not to mention, shutting down merchant yards is the first thing I do to try and keep my HI net usage positive.

There may be something keying Allied reinforcements to India, because 7th Arm Bde (Desert Rats) showed up after I took Delhi. I have also read that US ground reinforcements are accellerated if one approaches too closely to the US W. coast. Of course, there ought to be the same for the USSR, which could have sent crushing reinforcements to the F.E. by second half of 1943, making any conquest of the USSR impossible.

Part of the historical performance of the JA mechant marine is that the plan to release a lot of it back to civilian sustainment was never realized. So there never was any test of how they would have performed with the c.5M tons they supposedly required [but never had]. Setting up an accurate model of JA performance would require the WITP designers to assess what JA economic performance could have been had the army-navy reverted sufficient shipping to commerce [scratching head]? Dunning the economy if they do not??

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Ken Estes

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: 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]:

Of course this raises the question why you were able to conquer the entire map if the Allies produce so much stuff... [;)]

No offense, but posting numbers from an AI game in which you slapped the Allies around until they have no opportunity at all to engage the enemy doesn't prove anything about their ability to wage a war of attrition.

Don't know what your problem is, so just don't read it. I have already pointed out the failings of Allied AI and why my 'slapping the Allied AI' would not likely work vs. human opponent. My illustration of Allied AI production in a defeated campaign shows they don't likely need to be plused up to any extent. I claim nothing more than to show how their stock production went when under severest pressure.
Alles klar?

The reason it's not a good example is because the AI isn't up to the task of using the material. So seeing that it's leftover doesn't actually prove anything about production, just that the AI isn't so good.

[GaryChildress]

As far as the Allied side of things, if air combat isn't as bloody in AE as it is in the current, then I would think that maintaining higher levels of aircraft in the pool for the Allies shouldn't be as difficult. Of course that may also mean that Japanese will have higher a/c pools as well.

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Also, Allies should have the ability to trade VPs for production after a certain date (jan 1, 44?) since they had the capacity IRL, but chose to reduce production.

This is a great idea. BTW, I think it was earlier than 1/44 for several things.

Yes - I have no idea exactly when Allies started to put the brakes on production, which is why I put the ? in there. [:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

So, to repeat a question. Has the means to model a semblance of a civilian population been added to balance the economic model? Some say that current manpower centres are enough but I'm not so sure this is the case. Increasing manpower centre sizes really can't help as this just increases the availability of squads. Perhaps altering manpower centre requirements to include editor adjustable quantities of resources and supplies might be desireable (ie, manpower centre values can be adjusted for each base/city). This then leaves the civilian economic issue at the hands of modders.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg
Yes - I have no idea exactly when Allies started to put the brakes on production, which is why I put the ? in there. [:)]

Cancellations for things like Destroyer Escorts had begun by the Fall of 1943. But I think they were building LST's right up to war's end. A lot depended on percieved needs....

[mdiehl]

Japan should be able to produce more than in history because they could have produced more than in history.

I do not think that claim is correct. Japan was at full war production starting in 1936. By 1941, something like 50% of their GDP was directed towards armaments --- higher than any other nation during the war as I recall. Despite that, their production growth was relatively anemic as compared with any other major power save, possibly, France (who were knocked out of the war before they really had a chance to start converting to war production), and Italy (who had their own "issues" with rationalization on par with Japan's).

By 1939, Japan had conquered all of China and Korea that mattered in terms of metals, coal, a population to try to coerce into production, and by June 1942, all of the oil they were ever going to get their hands on. By comparison, Allied strategic bombing and strategic submarine campaign didn't really begin to bite into their economy until 1944.

The plain fact is that Japan was as industrially mobilized as it was ever going to get by 1942 (in terms of rapid expansion). The only way it would have seen production numbers that Japanese players obtain in WitP would have been if there had been unfettered access to western oil and raw materials, coupled with strategic investment in industry, and no war before 1950.

There at the very least should always be an option for NO Japanese production control. Especially if there will be no Allied production control.

[mdiehl]

One other thing. Since we're talking about the interplay of civilian and military production, the plain fact is that allied facilities growth rates (especially airbase expansion) in continental Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii, ought to be substantially enhanced.

[mdiehl]

Setting up an accurate model of JA performance would require the WITP designers to assess what JA economic performance could have been had the army-navy reverted sufficient shipping to commerce [scratching head]?

The problem is that even had the IJA and IJN reverted ALL shipping to civilian use, Japan would have been about 2 million tonnes short of what was needed to maintain their industrial status quo. Prior to the outbreak of the war, that shipping was in large part provided by trade with the United States, the Commonwealths, and the UK. I'm pretty sure Jim Dunnigan wrote a concise summary of this around 15 years ago (and as I recall, part of that was printed in the original Gary Grigsby's Pacific War [SSI] manual).

All of the gains that Japan realized in production of aircraft airframes were primarily from rationalizing some production and recycyling. But Japanese heavy industry never kept pace in the expansion of production of engines (for anything -- a.c. or marine), machine tools, infrastructure, etc.

[FeurerKrieg]

There at the very least should always be an option for NO Japanese production control. Especially if there will be no Allied production control.

I thought there was a toggle for no jap production? Or is it a scenario toggle? I know that option is currently there somewhere...