CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

[tsimmonds]

Without realistic limits on the Japanese Player's strategic options CHS is unlikely to provide anything other than another version of "FANTASY GENERAL".

Well, the first thing to do is make sure you have user defined upgrades turned off.

[Don Bowen]

P.S. I am also a huge fan I love the new India command and all the OOB stuff done there and I really love the Prince Robert (I just finished the 1st half of the offical RCN History so to see that Armed Merchant Cruiser in the OOB made my day not to mention all the Flower class Corvettes !!!!)

Andy

Found a line drawing for the Prince class at: Warships of the World (there are many others too!).

Perhaps one of the talented artists on the forum could work on a bmp...

[rtrapasso]

The idea behind CHS it to try to make the OOBs and TO&Es accurate. It is true that most of the effort so far in CHS has been directed at the Allies, but I think that is because that is where the interest (and expertise) of the contributors tends to lie.

If this has created imbalances in CHS, then they should be addressed, but I think that any changes should be based on research and play(test) results, rather than anecdote alone.

I think trying to get the OOBs as historically accurate as possible is an excellent first step.

Unfortunately, it is going to create game play imbalance due to the nature of the game as the game by design deprives the Allies of two of their biggest weapons: MAGIC decrypts and (many) of the other technological advantages.

Yes, the Allies do get better SIGINT than the Japanese, but it is the far cry from the kind of stuff they actually had in the war (i.e. - when's the last time YOU got the OOB and arrival time of the IJN invasion fleet coming after a major objective, AND what the objective was?? At best you might get that unit X is planning for Y, which is easily spoofed by a canny Japanese player.) Another big ommission is aircraft radar (Swordfish, B-24s) that allowed rather devastating night attacks. There were also ALL KINDS of radar not modelled in the game.

Also, the oversupply EVERYWHERE tends to favor the Japanese. As i have mentioned previously, the IJN couldn't have its BBs running around doing bombardments at the drop of the hat because (a) they didn't have the fuel, and (b) they didn't have the ammo. I think CHO attempts to limit supply more than the standard game, but if they did it to actual historical levels, no one would want to play the game!!

I am NOT saying that this should be stopped because of these issues, but i am saying that the changes will probably give the Japanese some advantages over the Allies in the game that they did not possess in real life. However, this will increase the chances of the Japanese players to win, which, if accurately modelled, are otherwise close to zip.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: EUBanana




Hey, I'm famous! [:D]

Infamous? [;)]

If starving, he would be "INFAMINE" ??

I'd say close to death [;)]

[Bradley7735]

AB is asking for playtesting results. I'll give you mine, but we'll see if my data is ok to use.

I play as allies vs AI. However, I mod the AI's stuff for a better play. That means that I add engines to the Japanese AI pool. I also slightly increase the production of certain types of AI planes. Japanese carrier bombers and Betties were increased significantly. And, I think I increased the Zero production by about 50. I also increase Japanese pilot replacements to 60 and 30 (army and navy, respectively).

I do this because in the stock games I've played, the AI breaks itself by about March 42.

Anyway, I have tried to play with Tom Hunter's method of air war. I put every allied fighter type into action. There aren't many US navy land based fighter groups, but I got what I had into action, so I could draw on the F4F pool. I put Wirraways into the fight. I got as many P-39's in there as well (they have the best allied USAAF replacement rates).

The AI had me very hard pressed up until the Brits started getting the newer Hurricane and the USAAF started getting the P-38G. Most of my groups were less than 50% full of planes. The P-39's would fall from the sky like leaves in the wind. Only the P40E, F4F and the Spitfires could actually get a 1-1 kill ratio. All other planes got creamed. However, the replacements of the P40E and Spitfires couldn't keep up with the losses. (100 zero's vs 25 P40E's would result in a month of rebuilding on my part, but it never lets up)

So, Here's my analysis. I have had a very fun game vs the AI. My air groups were getting to the full point by early 43. Once you get to the first production of the P-47, you can generally replace your losses across the board. (and, the AI has trashed it's front line units). It wasn't a cake walk for me, and by no means is the AI dead. It is producing better zeros, and they now do well vs anything except maybe the Corsair. In fact, I'm worried about what happens when the 3rd generation zeros come online. I bet they eat the Corsair, but can't confirm that yet.

Yes, I increased production. Yes, I increased Pilot replacements by double. But, I was playing the AI. It doesn't train it's pilots. When I got lucky and got a lot of kills, the AI would send the green replacements into battle the next day and I'd kill a bunch more. Eventually ,the AI will break it's skull vs your airpower. But, I have been thinking through my entire game that I would not be able to do much to stop Japanese air power if I were playing against a human. The AI only needed to rotate it's groups (it has a lot in backwater bases with 80+exp pilots.)

I really have a gut feeling that the Japanese planes perform better than the stock scenario. I also feel that there are just way too many replacements (take that with a grain of salt, as I increased production in my game) for Japanese planes.

I also feel that my example isn't a good enough to do anything with. You really need two players to play each other and switch sides and play again. Or have two players that have played each other a lot in the past and see what they determine.

bc

[Kereguelen]

Just a simple thought,

if one would include certain US (air) units stationed at the WC, one could simply add an asteriks (*) to their unit designation in the database. Would be a simple houserule: Allied player may never convert them to other (unrestricted) commands. One could then add some additional plane production for them that represents the plane production for these groups. When playing without PDU, these units would simply remain where they start (at the WC). When playing with PDU, the Allied player could chose to convert them to the plane-type he wants (and whatever it deems necessary to him for WC defense). This would give the Allied player a certain flexibility with his "plane-management" and allow him to counter developments coming with the Japanese ability to tweak his production according to his needs - and it would still not be too far from history, the WC air units would never appear in the PTO.

K

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: dereck

IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win.

Well there is winning, and there is winning. Could the Japs win the war? I dont think there is anyone then or now that belives that. Could you do better than the Japs did historically? Sure. Thats what I judge "winning" by. If you hold out past 15 Aug 45, you win.

EXACTLY! Somebody who "gets it". In a straight up "Historical" scenario, the Japanese goal is to either hold out longer, inflict more casualties, or in some way "do better" than their historical predacessors---which given that they are probably not saddled with the historical "fight" between the IJN and the IJA should be a reasonable possibility. Only in a "fantasy" scenario should the kind of results often reported in this forum be possible. There is nothing wrong with "fantasy"---but both players should be able to chose it and not have it as the only option.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Just a simple thought,

if one would include certain US (air) units stationed at the WC, one could simply add an asteriks (*) to their unit designation in the database. Would be a simple houserule: Allied player may never convert them to other (unrestricted) commands. One could then add some additional plane production for them that represents the plane production for these groups. When playing without PDU, these units would simply remain where they start (at the WC). When playing with PDU, the Allied player could chose to convert them to the plane-type he wants (and whatever it deems necessary to him for WC defense). This would give the Allied player a certain flexibility with his "plane-management" and allow him to counter developments coming with the Japanese ability to tweak his production according to his needs - and it would still not be too far from history, the WC air units would never appear in the PTO.

K

This is fine for PBEM, not so great for AI games (if you are playing as Japan) if you did some tweaking of units. MOST (but not all) of the P-38 FGs moved away after a few months, so you would have to get some compromise in adjusting units to get the averages right.

This would have the effect of making any attack on the West Coast A LOT more problematic for the Japanese, especially if you did similar things for other (non-P-38) units.

I was trying to think of some way to put something non-movable into the unit (like a giant anchor[:'(]) that would prevent a player from moving the West Coast Units around, but i don't think you can do that with air units (just LCUs).

Of course, if we were playing the ENTIRE war (all ETOs and all PTOs) this wouldn't be a problem!! [:'(][:D]

[esteban]

I think the simple solution is to not play with player-defined upgrades. That will help balance things out in 1943+, as half the Japanese Army air force is stuck in Oscar 2s.

[Captain Cruft]

I don't think fiddling with the Allied side is the answer to this. Keep it is historical as possible.

The problem is with the super-enhanced and overly flexible Japanese industrial machine. Here are a couple of suggestions as to how to reduce the effects:

1) Reduce all Japanese aircraft factories of size > 10 (including r&d) by 50%.
2) Reduce initial supply stockpiles in all Home Island bases by 50%.
3) Convert some Home Islands "Resources" factories to daily "auto-resource". That way supply produced will only come from HI as it should. In fact this might be considered as an option for the whole map barring the places that get invaded i.e. DEI, Malaya & PI.

There is nothing like a lack of supply to put the dampeners on over-active Japanese production optimisation. It would also have the beneficial side-effect of reducing the possibilities of "let's invade the whole map" syndrome.

Personally I would go for options 2 and 3.

The Allies should also get a lot less initial supply on the West Coast.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

Allies produced whatever they needed. If they would’ve needed 5000 more P-40E they would’ve produced 5000 more P-40Es. Same for B-17 and P-38.

Exactly. And thats the problem with any game really is it doesnt take this into effect. Same with CHS. If the fighting is heavier and the losses greater, the industrial machine that was the United States would have pumped out more to make up the losses. Look what happens when the Japs get too close to the US mainland. Reinforcements are speeded up 6 months and additional units deployed.

[mdiehl]

The game does far more than any of the genre, but still more must be done, right?

It actually does not do much more than GGPW did, and that which it does, it does poorly. It has an updated order of battle which is nice. It has a logistical system that is cattywumpus flat out wrong to the degree that it gives the Japanese an ease of deployment and maintenance of units in the field a couple of orders of magnitude greater than their best day. It has an aerial combat model that is complex but could be replaced by a simplistic "lose one aircraft for every twelve friendly aircraft in the engagement" and *that* would do a better job approximating combat losses. It has a whole bunch of ill-defined intangibles like "exp" and "aggressiveness" that seem to be about as well grounded as a live wire dangling in the breeze.

More must be done? Of course not. But it's a poor excuse for a simulation and as games go the 1 day / 3day turn cycle redefines the word "tedious."

What exactly would WitP (or any game, for that matter) have to do to not be poorly designed?

1. Generate ballpark correct results from combat.

2. Set the strategic challenges and options available to the players such that they more or less conform to the array of challenges and options available to the historical combatants. (That means no invasions of India, Australia, or Hawaii, much less the US west coast).

3. Within these frameworks, allow both players to do whatever they want consistent with historical precedent. "Consistent with ~" would, for example, preclude the absurd CAP %values regularly seen.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This is fine for PBEM, not so great for AI games (if you are playing as Japan) if you did some tweaking of units. MOST (but not all) of the P-38 FGs moved away after a few months, so you would have to get some compromise in adjusting units to get the averages right.

Guess the AI needs all help it can get[:D]. Thus I see no problem coming with this, could even make life more challenging when playing the Japanese.

This would have the effect of making any attack on the West Coast A LOT more problematic for the Japanese, especially if you did similar things for other (non-P-38) units.

So what, any attack on the West Coast should be problematic for the Japanese. The US kept the air units in question there just because they feared a Japanese attack (and certainly reinforcements would have arrived as it is covered by the rules now).

I was trying to think of some way to put something non-movable into the unit (like a giant anchor[:'(]) that would prevent a player from moving the West Coast Units around, but i don't think you can do that with air units (just LCUs).

Because of this (no useful means to put static devices into air units) I came with that "asteriks" (*) idea.

Of course, if we were playing the ENTIRE war (all ETOs and all PTOs) this wouldn't be a problem!! [:'(][:D]

Ostensibly this is just what most Grognards dream about[;)] Maybe, in the future...

[Speedysteve]

mdiehl:

It actually does not do much more than GGPW did, and that which it does, it does poorly

You're having a laugh right? [;)]

[spence]

. Set the strategic challenges and options available to the players such that they more or less conform to the array of challenges and options available to the historical combatants. (That means no invasions of India, Australia, or Hawaii, much less the US west coast).

I think it would be a little bit of a shame if the Japanese Player didn't have a chance to try one of these things. My objection is to the fact the game allows for the Japanese Player to try all of these things at the same time. READING THE PLANS IN MOST JAPANESE PLAYER AARs IS LIKE READING ABOUT A GAME OF "AXIS AND ALLIES".

[mdiehl]

You're having a laugh right?

Nope.

Compare:

Japanese Invasion of India by sea: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese Complete Conquest of China: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese Invasion of Hawaii: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese Invasion of Australia: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Japanese invasion of the US West Coast: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Reasonable for US CVs to oppose IJN CVs in 1942: GGPW - sometimes; WitP - never.
Optimization of Japanse Production: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.
Optimization of Allied Production: GGPW - yes; WitP - no.
Japanese hyperexpansion strategy sustained by unrealistically generous logistical model: GGPW - yes; WitP - yes.

I think it would be a little bit of a shame if the Japanese Player didn't have a chance to try one of these things.

The problem is that giving them the "chance" at the root requires an assumption about the quality and quantity of Japanese logistical support (and, for that matter, available transports) that is not realistic. In the real world the problem for example vis India was thus: If the Japanese could find sufficient transports (which they did not have) to move a substantial invasion force to India by sea, where would they find sufficient container ships (which they did not have) to sustain such a force in the field by sea?

The *real* Japanese could scarcely feed their forces in Burma before the US submarine war began to attrite the Japanese merchant pool -- and that was a much shorter line of supply and much smaller force than one required to, for example, invade either India or Australia or the US West Coast. And Hawaii? Where you gonna land other than in the face of major defended positions? Just gonna send your troops ashore in surfboards down the pipeline?

My objection is to the fact the game allows for the Japanese Player to try all of these things at the same time.

My objection is that they can try ANY of these things without sacrificing any of the historical conquests.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

If the fighting is heavier and the losses greater, the industrial machine that was the United States would have pumped out more to make up the losses.

I've heard this assumption three times now in other threads. Perhaps others have repeated it as well. But where is the support for this?

Roosevelt wisely committed the American Industrial Might to air supremacy in larger numbers and in a earlier fashion than any other world leader. He set in motion the wheels to build a huge airforce that was not only capable of assisting the army and navy in carrying out their respective designs, but could effectively fight the war on its own terms as well. No one else did that. Germany, for example, welded its airforce to the whermacht so that when it tried separate adventures, like the battle of Britain it failed.

You just don't throw a switch mid war and say, "Oh, I think we'll change our airforce production philosophy."

Of course, many think there is flexibility built into the production numbers because Germany didn't bring its economy fully on line until it found itself in a two front war. Too late. But this same flexibility, the ability to increase production drastically, isn't built into the allied designs. The US started rationing rubber, tin, fuel etc immediately. US industry was set in full motion from day one.

I don't think it is reasonable to look at what the Germany economy did in 1944 in cranking up airframe productions and impose that on the US model though certainly the US industrial complex was far large and more able to make independent changes.

I think you can argue the case for an increase in production without appealing to this notion that probably doesn't even exist, namely, the US industrial complex would have just made more aircraft to make up for losses in theater. When your losses are greater, front line generals, reduce the number of squadrons they put in theater.

Worr, out

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: worr

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

If the fighting is heavier and the losses greater, the industrial machine that was the United States would have pumped out more to make up the losses.

I've heard this assumption three times now in other threads. Perhaps others have repeated it as well. But where is the support for this?

Well, transfers to and from the Altantic fleet occured all the time (starting with the Yorktown, most atlantic fleet capital ships were sent). B-17 was effectively withdrawn from the Pacific by mid-43 in favor of B-24s yet 8th airforce was just a fledgling in Britan. Europe was never "over-stocked" with troops (Patton had stripped his AA units for infantry replacements for example) yet divisions that were training for europe were committed to the PTO because they were needed there more. (Before you even ask how do I know, my father was in the 96th division. They trained for a year and a half for europe, and then 6 months before they landed at Leyte, they started pacific training instead).

[spence]

In WitP, the 2nd-4th rate Japanese economy is given enormous flexibility. The 1st rate US economy is given none. JUST LIKE REAL[;)]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: spence

In WitP, the 2nd-4th rate Japanese economy is given enormous flexibility. The 1st rate US economy is given none. JUST LIKE REAL[;)]

Matter of perspective. US economy was driven by politics and lets face it, the greed of the manufacturers. Jap economy WAS controlled by the military. Seems logical to me that the Jap can control his production and the allies cant.