Page 3 of 9
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:29 am
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: rustysi
Wow, wasn't here yesterday, but this has taken off as I hoped. Didn't even realize that some AFB's were unaware that this could occur. At any rate I've thoroughly enjoyed the responses and debate. The early assumptions (first couple of posts) were on the mark as to what I was talking about, as has been the whole discussion.
I've been an AFB since the day of first ship. I didn't know.
As for why I wouldn't use the tactic myself. My feeling is that I believe the devs ('believe' being the key word here) gave the JFB's a method, along with the ability to train, to maintain some sort of 'air parity' with the Allies.
They did. And in my broken-record fashion I'll point out again that the true historical constraint--lack of av gas--is not present in the game. Training is on meth in the game.
Yes, the Allies could train also, and they did IRL too. Japan didn't, at least not to the levels that were required.
Because they couldn't. Which is why they sent out kami pilots in late-war fighters who had mere hours of flight school and didn't know how to land.
In the game Japan can train as she likes, good. She can also bring her airframes along much quicker than IRL. OK, but to then skip to higher models at rate that could possibly outstrip the Allies' technical ability... Well there for me at least I must draw my line. I will research 'the line'. Heck I don't even like the ability to go from the Rufe to wherever it goes (I forget and don't have the chart available at the moment), and won't even use that.
I applaud your willingness to skip this abuse of the design.
So thanks to all, and I'm more than happy to shed a little light toward my AFB opponents who were unaware. As has been said above all is fair if discussed with your opponent beforehand.
I don't discuss and I don't use HRs. It's worked well for me so far. But if I saw this tactic employed, rather than play punching bag for real-time two years, I'd turtle up. I'd go to ground in Burma and let the JFB fly in empty skies. I'd wait for Essex-class, I'd save up Fletchers, I'd wait for 1943 infantry upgrades, and then I'd go balls-to-the-wall at the Kuriles and Hokkaido. Many JFBs don't know how vulnerable that route is for Japan. The game doesn't really model how hard it was to operate in the Arctic. Several AARs have demonstrated it, but not all players have read them. I'd either win by burning down the super-plane factories, or I'd lose and get out of the game. And I'd find a new opponent.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:04 am
by pws1225
As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On. The premise of my view is that a game based on stock scenario 1, played without utilizing the R&D system and with PDU=Off, and by two players who adhered to the same strategic approaches as the original combatants would, more often than not, replicate what happened historically. (That is quite an accomplishment so hats off to the developers!) But from the point of view of a JFB, getting repeatedly plowed under by the weight of Allied arms starting in mid-1943 would become old pretty fast. That's not a good recipe for the success of a commercial product.
As a remedy to this, the developers included the Japanese R&D system, PDU=On, as well as the ability to accelerate the construction of Japanese shipping. Taking advantage of these options lets the Japanese player maintain parity with the Allies longer than mid-1943, albeit at a pretty hefty HI cost. Therefore utilizing these options must be made judiciously to avoid a premature collapse of the Japanese economy. In my opinion, this flexibility makes the game more interesting for a JFB and therefore enhances the viability of the game as a commercial product. And for AFBs, the same flexibility in the Japanese production system will encourage a ample supply of opponents to eventually pound into dust with your wealth of LCU firepower, LSTs, P-47s, P-51s, B-24s, and B-29s. You just may have to wait a bit longer than occurred historically. [:)]
Of course, a JFB's intension to utilize these features of the game must be made clear to potential opponents at the outset to insure everybody is on the same page. But if a like-minded AFB can be found, utilizing these features of the Japanese production system makes the game more enjoyable. It's all about the fun factor. It's as simple as that.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:07 am
by n01487477
Rediscovering old gems(some would say exploits) in the game is forum fodder for plenty of debate ... The econ101 doc written (and found in my signature) in 2013 pointed this "feature" out back then. Although I must admit I was somewhat coy about it's use
[edit] Numdydar in his Primer.pdf was much more revealing though ...
tm.asp?m=3329605
I have to agree with pws1225 on this matter - losing must be fun.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:53 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Am I missing something?
Just that this has been the mechanism in place since WiTP:AE emerged. The Japanese player isn't getting to 'slide this advantage any more' than they were able to do so 6+ years ago. It isn't anything new.
The work around is to insist on "realistic R&D" ON and "PDU" OFF for any PBEM partners out there. That will ensure that the Japanese player is unable to manipulate the R&D and production systems the way it is described above.
Of course, this may limit your partner options somewhat, but the choice is yours.
I hesitate to quote myself from a previous post in this thread, but will permit it this time. [;)]
A PBEM game constitutes a contract of sorts. In order for there to be a contract, there has to be a meeting of the minds. Disclosure of expectations for satisfaction of the contract, terms of satisfaction, etc. are part and parcel what makes a contract.
Assumptions of what the other partner 'knows' when they enter into the contract are usually ill-advised. "Hey landlord-you should have known that my job was temporary and that I might not be able to make my rent."
So are expectations that the other party alter the terms of the contract if one discovers new information after the fact. "Wow. Most places around here are renting for *less* than this place is. We shouldn't have to pay so much for rent."
Now that AFBs have been put on notice (about something that should have been well-known for many years), they can really hold potential partners' feet to the fire and
demand PDU off and Realistic R&D off in their games. The 'opponents wanted' thread should be populated with many of these requests.
Nearly all will go unfilled.
The reality is that no Japanese player wants to go through a boring slog of a beatdown without entertaining the possibility of victory. Or at least novelty on the way to ignominious defeat. PDU and R&D settings are one of several ways in which Japanese players derive interest in this game as designed.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:28 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: pws1225
As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On.
No one is calling for not using the R&D system. No one is calling for all PDU OFF games. No one is calling for Realistic R&D OFF to be required; in my own game ahistorical R&D is ON and PDU is also ON.
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:51 pm
by GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.
It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 2:57 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.
It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him
Obvert listed some "options" the Allies have to frustrate Japan. I'd like your opinion on those.
I've outlined my response if this tactic were used in a PBEM game with me. I'd add that I would contact anyone responding to the JFB's next opponent ad and make sure they knew who they were contemplating playing against.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:54 pm
by GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.
It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him
Obvert listed some "options" the Allies have to frustrate Japan. I'd like your opinion on those.
I've outlined my response if this tactic were used in a PBEM game with me. I'd add that I would contact anyone responding to the JFB's next opponent ad and make sure they knew who they were contemplating playing against.
Umm, there is a difference between challenge and intentional griefing, no? The former is agreed on beforehand, the latter is not. My very first post in this thread stated the need for discussion, because R&D is a strategical choice, part of the long-term planning. You can't seriously say "hey, you doing this with R&D? please don't" somewhere in 44, like you can in response to some cheeky tactics.
Also I'm curious of why would you want to interfere in someone elses choices of partners. Grownups surely are capable of discussing relevant stuff themselves. Assuming that JFBs would take advantage of unsuspecting uninformed Allies is a bit too much?
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:27 pm
by Lecivius
ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Assuming that JFBs would take advantage of unsuspecting uninformed Allies is a bit too much?
Considering that in my first PBEM, I got my butt placed on a platter, an apple in my mouth, with all the trimmings, in the first year? Yeah, I can see that [:D]
Seriously, from all the comments here (including some people with time in game) many did not know, or at least understand, this vastly accelerated possibility. It's something to consider now that it is more widely known and understood.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:36 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: GetAssista
It is more like alternative reality where Japan can do things right from the get go in the research department. It is an additional challenge to the Allied player, and a big one. Allied player can accept the challenge or decline, all up to him
Obvert listed some "options" the Allies have to frustrate Japan. I'd like your opinion on those.
I've outlined my response if this tactic were used in a PBEM game with me. I'd add that I would contact anyone responding to the JFB's next opponent ad and make sure they knew who they were contemplating playing against.
Umm, there is a difference between challenge and intentional griefing, no? The former is agreed on beforehand, the latter is not. My very first post in this thread stated the need for discussion, because R&D is a strategical choice, part of the long-term planning. You can't seriously say "hey, you doing this with R&D? please don't" somewhere in 44, like you can in response to some cheeky tactics.
Also I'm curious of why would you want to interfere in someone elses choices of partners. Grownups surely are capable of discussing relevant stuff themselves. Assuming that JFBs would take advantage of unsuspecting uninformed Allies is a bit too much?
I can say confidently I have read every Opponents Wanted ad in the past 4-5 years. I have never, not once, seen an ad say "I plan to use the R&D system to promote summer 1945 airframes into mid-1942." I think you're being a bit too cute.
As I said--hell, as John III, a major modder said--I had no idea this level of acceleration was possible in the R&D system. How can you "discuss" something you don't know exists?
I would add information in a PM. I have been PMed by Allied players in the past asking me what I know, or what I think from forum posts, about a potential opponent. I have answered in every case that I can recall. AFBs do talk to each other.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 4:42 pm
by sanderz
Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?
Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.
It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:10 pm
by GetAssista
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I would add information in a PM. I have been PMed by Allied players in the past asking me what I know, or what I think from forum posts, about a potential opponent. I have answered in every case that I can recall. AFBs do talk to each other.
Oh, responding to requests is quite OK. I got the impression from your earlier post that you intend to "warn" the guys w/o them requesting you (this I see as not quite OK). Sorry for misunderstanding
I'm sure many JFBs are just as buffled about the fact that this R&D quirk is new information to somebody. Many AARs discuss the skipping, there were many discussions on this forum and I took part in some, this possibility is explained in the well-known economy primer. There are considerable costs involved both in resources and in inability to use interim airframes. I'd prefer you not misrepresent it as a magic "plan to use the R&D system to promote summer 1945 airframes into mid-1942", because it is not. In Stock 1 10 factories with engine bonus all the way will get you Oscar-IV, the best chain acceleration available out there, only in Feb-43
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:27 pm
by pws1225
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: pws1225
As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On.
No one is calling for not using the R&D system. No one is calling for all PDU OFF games. No one is calling for Realistic R&D OFF to be required; in my own game ahistorical R&D is ON and PDU is also ON.
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.
I respectfully disagree. I see getting the '45 fighters in mid-'43 as a logical consequence of utilizing a system built into the game by the developers. Besides, all these fighters give a JFB is a rough parity with the mid-'43 allied fighters, not air superiority. If you take a look at the stats of the A6M8, the poster child of utilizing the R&D system, you will see that it is about on a par with the early Hellcat, both of which can come on line in mid-43. It's not a war-winner by any stretch of the imagination but it does help Japan stay competitive for a while longer.
Another aspect of the debate on R&D system (as well as the ability to accelerate ship production) has to do with the decision a JFB must make between building up his military vs building up his economy. At the outset of every game, a JFB must decide how he is going to handle this balance and design his strategy around it. He can decide to forego the A/C R&D and ship acceleration and hoard the saved HI for the late game siege of the Home Islands, or he can expend the HI to build up his military through the R&D and ship acceleration capabilities gambling that a better equipped military can hold the Allies at bay.
A large part of the enjoyment of playing the Japanese side is the challenge of designing a strategy that balances these two competing demands for resources in such a way to enhance your chance of a more favorable outcome. Stated more simply, for me at least, the war comes down to placing a bet on the proper allocation of resources then playing the game to its conclusion to see if your gamble will pay off. This is very similar to the kind of gamble that other Japanese players make when they expend huge quantities of supplies trying to take India, Australia, or even the west coast to achieve auto-victory.
I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Moose, but I hope that I have explained why I find the use of the R&D system and other aspects game so central to the enjoyment of the game for the Japanese player. It is the side every riverboat gambler would want to play, even if the odds are still stacked against him.
It's a hell of a game, wouldn't you say? [:)]
Just my two cents.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:36 pm
by obvert
ORIGINAL: sanderz
Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?
Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.
It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.
No. Even Damian above mentioned he "was coy" about its use. Japanese players and Allied players don't always read each other's AARs. Most Allied players wouldn't know half of what Mike Solli was talking about and wouldn't care much about the other half.
Japanese players were NOT talking about this "feature" openly for years. I've been here and have been reading!
We were all talking about research, yes, and about which airframes, yes, but this is why I only learned this probably a year ago?
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:57 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: pws1225
I respectfully disagree. I see getting the '45 fighters in mid-'43 as a logical consequence of utilizing a system built into the game by the developers. Besides, all these fighters give a JFB is a rough parity with the mid-'43 allied fighters, not air superiority. If you take a look at the stats of the A6M8, the poster child of utilizing the R&D system, you will see that it is about on a par with the early Hellcat, both of which can come on line in mid-43. It's not a war-winner by any stretch of the imagination but it does help Japan stay competitive for a while longer.
Another aspect of the debate on R&D system (as well as the ability to accelerate ship production) has to do with the decision a JFB must make between building up his military vs building up his economy. At the outset of every game, a JFB must decide how he is going to handle this balance and design his strategy around it. He can decide to forego the A/C R&D and ship acceleration and hoard the saved HI for the late game siege of the Home Islands, or he can expend the HI to build up his military through the R&D and ship acceleration capabilities gambling that a better equipped military can hold the Allies at bay.
A large part of the enjoyment of playing the Japanese side is the challenge of designing a strategy that balances these two competing demands for resources in such a way to enhance your chance of a more favorable outcome. Stated more simply, for me at least, the war comes down to placing a bet on the proper allocation of resources then playing the game to its conclusion to see if your gamble will pay off. This is very similar to the kind of gamble that other Japanese players make when they expend huge quantities of supplies trying to take India, Australia, or even the west coast to achieve auto-victory.
I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Moose, but I hope that I have explained why I find the use of the R&D system and other aspects game so central to the enjoyment of the game for the Japanese player. It is the side every riverboat gambler would want to play, even if the odds are still stacked against him.
It's a hell of a game, wouldn't you say? [:)]
Just my two cents.
Nicely stated. [:)]
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:59 pm
by Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: sanderz
Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?
Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.
It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.
No. Even Damian above mentioned he "was coy" about its use. Japanese players and Allied players don't always read each other's AARs. Most Allied players wouldn't know half of what Mike Solli was talking about and wouldn't care much about the other half.
Japanese players were NOT talking about this "feature" openly for years. I've been here and have been reading!
We were all talking about research, yes, and about which airframes, yes, but this is why I only learned this probably a year ago?
To be fair, I detailed my reservations about using this system to the nth degree to my last two PBEM partners before we started our games. Their response was 'knock yourself out', which was gratifying.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:00 pm
by sanderz
ORIGINAL: obvert
ORIGINAL: sanderz
Using R&D like this has been around for years and openly discussed in many AARs. If it was a real problem wouldn't this have been come to light a long time ago?
Using R&D this way is a fun and challenging part of the game as there are a lot of decisions you have to make, sometimes years in advance of the final outcome, and as as mentioned above it doesn't come without a hefty price in HI/Supplies/Resources.
It also adds a bit of variety to each game depending on players aircraft preference and the risks they want to take with their economy.
No. Even Damian above mentioned he "was coy" about its use. Japanese players and Allied players don't always read each other's AARs. Most Allied players wouldn't know half of what Mike Solli was talking about and wouldn't care much about the other half.
Japanese players were NOT talking about this "feature" openly for years. I've been here and have been reading!
We were all talking about research, yes, and about which airframes, yes, but this is why I only learned this probably a year ago?
i guess it depends on how much you look into it, Damians guide came out in 2011 which was when i first started trying to learn the Jap side of things and found it very useful, as did many others
e.g. Mac Linehan posted
> R&D - after weeks of forum study, your guide and remarks finished the job. For example, while I knew that the next airframe in line (A6M2 > A6M3) could be accelerated, I did not grasp the concept that the A6M3 could be changed to the A6M3a (carrier capable) and thus be skipped entirely. Yes, very basic (but important!) stuff, your chart gave a clear visual of how to do it.
So maybe Damian wasn't as coy as he thought
However it is clearly something that isn't obvious from just playing the game.
I just saw it as just getting to know how the system worked and it has always been a normal part of the game to me (though i don't play PBEM)
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:25 pm
by Reg
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: obvert
That's pretty early.
Isn't it
Gamey? [:D][8D]
Fixed that line for you. [:)]
Something that is possible under the game mechanics that was not plausible in real life is by definition.......
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:30 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: pws1225
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: pws1225
As a JFB who utilizes the R&D system in my games, let me share why I think it is perfectly appropriate to take advantage of the R&D system as well as PDU=On.
No one is calling for not using the R&D system. No one is calling for all PDU OFF games. No one is calling for Realistic R&D OFF to be required; in my own game ahistorical R&D is ON and PDU is also ON.
Running models up two years or more early is an abuse of that system.
I respectfully disagree. I see getting the '45 fighters in mid-'43 as a logical consequence of utilizing a system built into the game by the developers. Besides, all these fighters give a JFB is a rough parity with the mid-'43 allied fighters, not air superiority. If you take a look at the stats of the A6M8, the poster child of utilizing the R&D system, you will see that it is about on a par with the early Hellcat, both of which can come on line in mid-43. It's not a war-winner by any stretch of the imagination but it does help Japan stay competitive for a while longer.
Another aspect of the debate on R&D system (as well as the ability to accelerate ship production) has to do with the decision a JFB must make between building up his military vs building up his economy. At the outset of every game, a JFB must decide how he is going to handle this balance and design his strategy around it. He can decide to forego the A/C R&D and ship acceleration and hoard the saved HI for the late game siege of the Home Islands, or he can expend the HI to build up his military through the R&D and ship acceleration capabilities gambling that a better equipped military can hold the Allies at bay.
A large part of the enjoyment of playing the Japanese side is the challenge of designing a strategy that balances these two competing demands for resources in such a way to enhance your chance of a more favorable outcome. Stated more simply, for me at least, the war comes down to placing a bet on the proper allocation of resources then playing the game to its conclusion to see if your gamble will pay off. This is very similar to the kind of gamble that other Japanese players make when they expend huge quantities of supplies trying to take India, Australia, or even the west coast to achieve auto-victory.
I doubt I will change your mind, Mr. Moose, but I hope that I have explained why I find the use of the R&D system and other aspects game so central to the enjoyment of the game for the Japanese player. It is the side every riverboat gambler would want to play, even if the odds are still stacked against him.
It's a hell of a game, wouldn't you say? [:)]
Just my two cents.
As I said, my game with Lokasenna has Realistic R&D OFF. I understand airframes can be accelerated. I understand there are costs. The issue is degree. The gymnastics required to get two full years of gain--and up-thread people ARE talking about mid-1942--is not something I believe the developers contemplated when they put this feature in the game.
No, you won't change my mind on this.
RE: Japanese A/C R&D
Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:37 pm
by Numdydar
One point that I think has been missed is the much reduced chance of getting a research advance with airframes greater than 2 years from the current game date. The 500 engines do help, but then you are tying up engines that could be used versus being sitting in a warehouse. Just because you can get 30 R&D factories repaired pretty quick by using the first model does not mean when you switch them to a 1944/45 model you will be getting them in 42/43.
As stated before everything you do as Japan needs to be looked at in the light of HI costs. Which is why using the Helen series is always a tough choice. Since it the only airframe that uses that specific engine.
The issue is that 90% of these games do not last past '43. So JFB's never have to pay the 'cost' of accelerating planes like this. I've played into '45 as Japan in PBM and I can tell you that you will regret not paying attention to HI costs from day one if you go past '43. Pilot training alone will have a huge impact on HI expense since you cannot turn it off. I had to turn almost all production off just to make up the HI deficit from the pilot training hit in '44.
If you know you are going to stop in '43 you can do all these 'fun' things with HI, accelerate ships, build lots of factories, etc. But doing that in any game that goes the distance, will have a major debt due later on. The piper Will be paid [:)]
After playing several games as Japan, I have no sympathy for AFB's complaining about this. Sorry Moose [:(]. let us have our fun, please. You will crush us in the end. But this means that JFB's need to agree to last until at least the start of '45 so the AFBs can have some fun too [:)] If I can play to the bitter end, then you can too. [:)]
In my last PBEM game, my Allied opponent actually quit in early '45 [X(]. He said he knew he had won and did not want me to have to keep getting hammered every turn as it was bothering him just to see the Victory screen lol.