Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).

My vote as well.

ORIGINAL: treespider

IMO respawn was included as a passive  incentive to the Allied player to use his ships agressively in the earlier part of the war...afterall if he loses one he will get it back later and in better form....and any damge he inflicts with these "disposable" assets the Japanese won't be replacing because the Japanese don't respawn...at least for the larger vessels.

So as the Allies if you don't use your ships agressively early on you lose out on the potential respawned ships...

It's all about attrition.

Well, a more realistic carrier combat model will go along way to make the Allied player more aggressive. Pre AE carrier combat is not representative of historical capability.

You know, given how ardent the community is over respawn every time the phrase is utterred, perhaps it is time to add an official non-respawn scenario. We got PDU out of the blue, why not a non respawn scenario?

I'd love to see a poll on this. It's not that respawn will be removed, just another choice being added.

I know we have gotten a wee OT, but speaking of unit removals/withdrawls...are LCUs and Air Groups open to withdrawl?

LCU's can withdraw (leave theatre with all devices - e.g. 5th British Div, 7th Armoured Bde off to Italy)
disband (devices are returned to pool e.g. Indian 267th Armoured turning its tanks in and converting to Infantry, several AA units converting to Infantry)
or
manually disband (removing small understrenght units or disbanding a Bde to cannibalise replacements for other units)
 
Andy

Perhaps awarding players for withdrawing airgroups with VPs might convince players to disband extraneous units. For example, many carrier squadrons were disbanded permanently after their CVs were sunk.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You know, given how ardent the community is over respawn every time the phrase is utterred, perhaps it is time to add an official non-respawn scenario. We got PDU out of the blue, why not a non respawn scenario?

I'd love to see a poll on this. It's not that respawn will be removed, just another choice being added.

Minor disagreement: from what I've seen the community (both AFBs & JFBs alike) have largely been ardent against respawn. From my POV, I have PBEMs ongoing from both sides currently & dislike the rule from both sides.

On the other hand I'd also be very interested in a poll on the issue. My gut call is that it will be highly anti-respawn. And I'd also be very happy to see official respawn & no-respawn scenarios.

If there isn't an official no-respawn scenario, and if no one else beats me to it, I'm already planning to put one together as soon as I download AE. I'll shamelessly use your research if you don't mind. Though I still think it would be better for the game to have an "official" no-respawn scenario.

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Are there any Allied players who PREFER respawn?

Yes there are. I play as the Allies and I prefer respawn.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

either get rid of respawn entirely or at least give us a toggle (or a non-respawn scenario).

My vote as well.

Agree - vote for either remove or have a switch (or substitute scenario).

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Perhaps awarding players for withdrawing airgroups with VPs might convince players to disband extraneous units. For example, many carrier squadrons were disbanded permanently after their CVs were sunk.

Perhaps PPs can be gained for units voluntarily disbanded.

ORIGINAL: spence

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.

Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.

ORIGINAL: spence

This thread seems pretty well hi-jacked at the moment.

On the topic of the overpowered Japanese economy perhaps an answer lies in assigning a manpower cost to every single thing the Japanese produces and even to running the factories that are producing the "things". Producing 10,000 Franks and 100,000 tanks in a year wouldn't be a such problem at all if it also took so much manpower that there were no pilots or tankcrew. Japan's population was limited and was even more limited by a lower general level of technical experience within the population. Putting a man in uniform subtracts from the base economy.

I still like the idea of limiting the actual number of factories which are available for the Japanese to expand. At least that should cut down on the speed at which the IJ player can expand his production.

For example: with 5 Frank factories expanding the IJ player can reach 1000 planes per month in 200 days. With only 1 Frank factory it takes 1000 days to expand to 1000 planes per month. The latter is over 3 years just to get to the point where IJ can produce 1000 Franks a month. At that rate, by the time a player ramps up to full production of a single plane type, the plane will probably be obsolete anyway.

Worst Case Scenario: Japanese production is still not satisfactory in AE. Solution: In WITP, as it stands, Japanese device, and A/C production CAN be modded out altogether, while at the same time leaving HI intact to produce supplies and fuel. Of course ship building would need to remain the same as well.

EDIT: Fixed typos.

ORIGINAL: herwin


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.

That's a bit OT, but, looking closer at your statement, I will agree that there is, without doubt, a profound lesson to be learned in your illustration about keeping a large standing army. Eventually you will need to use it for no other reason than to secure the resources with which to maintain it. Maybe it would, indeed, make the present oil crisis a moot point if we didn't have a large army which required so much of it. [:(]

ORIGINAL: herwin


Organising a unit meant that the unit had to be sustained, even if it was in garrison. It took 40 tons of supply per day to feed a division. Replacements would be needed for equipment, men and horses. Pilots had to be kept sharp, which means aircraft fueled/repaired/replaced. Ships had to be refitted/resupplied/refueled. Japan went to war because the peacetime costs of the army and navy were unsupportable. Use it or lose it.

Where are you getting the 40T figure?

Real rough calculation would make that about 4-5 lbs per man per day for the division. Ammunition would account for that weight pretty easily if the division was in action; nevermind POL, food and all the paper needed to insure you get at least the same amount on the next day from wherever you're getting it.

ORIGINAL: spence

Real rough calculation would make that about 4-5 lbs per man per day for the division. Ammunition would account for that weight pretty easily if the division was in action; nevermind POL, food and all the paper needed to insure you get at least the same amount on the next day from wherever you're getting it.

The reason I ask is the US Army green books site a figure of .244 tons per man per month just for Class I Supply (Rations/Food). A 14253 man infantry division would require 3477 tons of food per month or 115 tons per day....just for food.

[Edit: I'm at the office right now and do not have the book in front of me but iirc it was .244 tons ....it may have been less]

If you look at the average supply need per man per month for the entire Pacific theater it equates to something like 2 tons per month. However this is an average of overall supply consumption for the entire theater - much of this supply is stuff like ammunition, aviation fuel, POL, building supplies etc....

It seems to me (in my limited experience with Japanese production), that the amounts of strat resources (HI, engine/plane factories, etc), is pointed towards the AI being able to produce roughly the historical numbers.  Seems like a good idea to me, since (as I understand it), the AI doesn't mess with production anyway.

Why not just create a PBEM scenario that lowers the starting size of factories etc, that would compell players to expand them in order to reach (and potentially suprass them somewhat, but not to the degree that currently exists).
 
Or for Japanese players who are either new or can't manage expanding the economy (myself included), you could opt to use the standard at-start quantities (that the AI uses), and then not expand production.
 
-F-

More rough calculations....that 16 lbs of rations per man per day...I always thought the Navy had the good chow...geezum[;)]

ORIGINAL: spence

More rough calculations....that 16 lbs of rations per man per day...I always thought the Navy had the good chow...geezum[;)]

I imagine some of that is packaging...oh and I had a chance to check it was .244 tons...in Europe it was higher - .261 tons.