Attention Matrix Staff: Aircraft Upgrades

[brisd]

I don't think the game is broken as is. I just think that some of the upgrade paths should be reviewed and the designers make their reasons known. Research seems to be not very worthwhile because restraints were put in to keep people from abusing the system. Fair enough, now to hear from a designer. I support Mr Frag's arguments on research and production.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Can someone, perhaps, create simple list of all IJA fighter and fighter-bomber air groups available on WitP game date Aug 1st 1945 together with their current WitP v1.21 theoretical MAX aircraft upgrade in game path?


IMHO that way we would be able to see, in WitP game terms, how IJA fighter and fighter-bomber OOB would look like on Aug 1st 1945 and we would have something firm to discuss further!


In other words we would exactly know how many aircraft of such-and-such type IJA would posses on that WitP game date (Aug 1st 1945):

Ki-27 Nate
Ki-43-Ib Oscar
Ki-43-IIa Oscar
Ki-44 IIb Tojo
Ki-45 KA1a Nick
Ki-45 KA1b Nick
Ki-45 KA1c Nick
Ki-46 III Dinah
Ki-61 KA1c Tony
Ki-84-Ia Frank
Ki-84-Ic Frank
Ki-100 Tony
Ki-102a Randy


Leo "Apollo11"

[Top Cat]

Wow! What a thread!

Hmm after a quick browse of all the arguments I find I have to say I agree with MG3 err... without the
heat[;)]

I've only played as the Allies but I can see already that playing as the Japanese you kinda of need to have a peek in the editor. This should not be required.

Why do I say this?

Well....

Fact 1 : Japanese R&D and production is pretty flexible.
Fact 2 : Air Group upgrade paths are fixed. ie Not flexible.
Fact 3 : As the Japanese player you need to plan your R&D and production a fair way in advance.
Fact 4 : In game you can only see a squadron/air groups immediate upgrade, not the whole path. This conflicts with Fact 3.

Problem : Conflict between 3 and 4 will mean that newbies will probably screw up their R&D and production in a "gamey" kind of way. They need to plan ahead, but can't see upgrade paths. They also can't be flexible and use a surplus of aircraft they might have because of Fact 2.

Current solution : break out the editor to research upgrade paths or use someone else's solution bas ed on same research. Anyone see a problem with this?

If I hadn't seen this thread I would have played as the Japanese and played for 100's of hours or so and slowly discovered that many of the planes I built were not usable because they don't fit the fixed upgrade path that you can't see without the editor.

Giving players control over the R&D and production was always going to lead to "gamey" what if's. There's no way to eliminate the 20/20 hindsight we have. But countering this by fixing the upgrade paths means that a lot of players will get themselves into a real production mess. They've just been given all the tools needed to screw everthing up.

And I for one would have liked to have toyed with some of the more extreme production scenarios without having to resort to the editor. Would have added extra playabilty after a few games.



Anyway I'm off to have a look at Scenario 26 on Spooky's site that someone mentioned.

Cheers
Top Cat

[Banquet]

Well said, Top Cat.. I completely agree

There has to be some 'gameyness' after all it is a game we're playing!! Otherwise we could all just sit and watch the A.I play itself!

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
…Where I seem to keep running into the wall here is that people want to use the *loophole* in the code and research aircraft against the grain then complain that because they did what the developers said no to, they should be able to use the fruits of their ill gotten gain.

I would not care about the ability to switch aircraft around at all *if* it was not the product of this *loophole* of skipping over research of planes to get to super plane xyz instead…

In August of 1942 Tony’s and Tojo’s are scheduled to begin production… with or without research. Certain Nate groups can use these aircraft while other Nate groups can’t. Where is the loophole or ill gotten gains?

Eliminate all research and the problem still exists.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Some of you need to grasp the reality that the game has been written, it is done. There will be fixes and some new features but they are not likely to gut major portions of the code because of the large numbers of problems it causes.

If the developers are not going to change it… fair enough. Doesn’t mean I like it, but I can live with it.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: brisd

I don't think the game is broken as is. I just think that some of the upgrade paths should be reviewed and the designers make their reasons known. Research seems to be not very worthwhile because restraints were put in to keep people from abusing the system. Fair enough, now to hear from a designer. I support Mr Frag's arguments on research and production.

My sentiments exactly. I am only posting so that nobody gets the idea that all who are silent implicitly agree with the changes advocated by those who want to play around instead of PLAY. I suggest that silence generally means contentment with the game pretty much the way it is.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng
That is why I distinguish between "adhering closely to the realities of WW2" and reproducing it. Frag views the amount of resources that Japan has, and the state of her economy as being fixed to historical results. In a game that models shipments from the SRA to Japan, more shipments to Japan means a healthier economy for longer. A healthier economy means more planes built, and more time means more time to deploy a pool of Tony's, Franks, or whatever, to more operational squadrons. If Japan enjoys more resources because more emphasis on ASW, delays to the historical timetable of conquests, depriving the Allies of forward bases for their subs, etc. then she can and should see the results in her economy. That in turn affects what is available to deploy to active squadrons. None of that is unreasonable.

I agree it is not unreasonable. It is very unlikely any knowledgeable player will ignore his merchant shipping as the Japanese did historically. We also know that there are ways for the Japanese player to attack his pilot quality problem that will appear late in the war. Along these lines the Japanese player is going to try and get his best aircraft into his air groups, but is unlimited upgrades the way to go?.

There are a lot of ground troops in Manchuko that are simple sitting there when they could be better used else where, and without any limitations… they would all be in either India or Australia by mid-late 1942. The limitations of using a point system give some leeway to respond to non-historical actions that take place in the game. Some ability to adapt, but not unlimited ability in keeping with the historical flavor.

I believe I fall in the middle, between unlimited upgrades and fixed upgrades.

PS. I believe some would like a switch in one of the option screens that would toggle on unlimited upgrades. Each player having the ability to adapt the game for his or her enjoyment is good.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I don't care if you change Oscar II's to Franks. I care if you R&D Franks to push them to earlier then Oscars and go straight from Nates to Franks. As long as the Oscar is available (e: the full R&D work to get to Franks), I'm more then happy to have you go from Nates to Franks should you choose to.

[:)]

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I don't care if you change Oscar II's to Franks. I care if you R&D Franks to push them to earlier then Oscars and go straight from Nates to Franks. As long as the Oscar is available (e: the full R&D work to get to Franks), I'm more then happy to have you go from Nates to Franks should you choose to.

[:)]

I would like to see if researching the Frank to move it up that far could be done. I bet GG has a roadblock in there somewhere ala TA152H in BTR. You could research that bugger and barley budge its due date, and when it was available you never could build it in big numbers. Even if you switched every factory you had to it, the TA152H would barley produce. You could have 30 a day being built by the factories and if you were lucky you would recieve 5 a week. Of course JC fixed that little gem.[&o]

But as to what you state, I agree completely. I never wanted to research just the Frank alone and jump the Nates straight to it. My Nates would long ago have been upgraded to something else.

[Top Cat]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You are not seeing the big picture ... who said you can't produce it. It is your fault that you are producing the wrong thing, making stuff you don't need instead of stuff you do need. That is part of the overall headache of managing the balancing act.

If you simply pretend there is no IJA/IJN and play the game like that, they I completely understand you wanting to be able to simply make the one best aircraft and ignore production from then on, but that is not the reality of what Japan faced. They had 2 separate groups with totally separate demands making life hell for the industrial boys who were constantly caught serving two masters.

Remove that and we are playing a RTS ... he who makes the most widgets faster wins.

Hmm have to differ here Mr Frag. It's the players fault that he might produce the wrong kind of fighters??

The way WITP is structured you are forced to use 20/20 hindsight to see what squadrons there will be in the future and what they are allowed to upgrade to. Then you can plan what to research and build. Without looking at the upgrade paths in the editor it's difficult to not snooker yourself with unusable aircraft. Very "gamey" in my opinion.

In the real world the Japanese built planes. The Army used whatever came out of their factories and the Navy used whatever came out of theirs. At any given time each service was striving to equip itself with the best planes available, subject to production and re-tooling constraints. Inferior planes were often used because there wasn't enough to go around, not by choice.

But in WITP you can be forced to use inferior planes even if there is enough to go around. If I'm playing as Japan I want to be able to improve on the historical outcome in a strategic sense not just in a tactical sense. If I win the battle of Midway and buy myself 3 or 6 months breathing space
what's the point if I can't take advantage of that and use the time to equip myself with better aircraft in an ahistoric manner? Or if I manage to gather/husband surplus resources I'd like to use them to improve on historical aircraft production or pilot training.

Having hard coded upgrade paths (& hard coded pilot exp. levels) takes away a lot of the strategic level decision making. Makes WITP more like a grand tactical game than a strategic one.



BTW. Many historians think the Allies won because they did make the most widgets faster...

Cheers
Top Cat

[shoevarek]

I never wanted to research just the Frank alone and jump the Nates straight to it. My Nates would long ago have been upgraded to something else.

The Ocsars are available in the beginning of 1943. The Franks for example in August 1944. In current R&D system this is almost impoossible to move the availability date of Frank closer for more than few months. Player for few months to a year will face the decission - upgrade air group flying Nates to Oscars or leave it.

In my current game in mid June 1942 I have R&D rate for Frank around 110. From this point taking into account R&D formula from the manual I could move availability date of Franks to Mid 1943. It would happen of cause If my economy had all needed resources (I have it now but who nows what will happen in the few months). One other thing to consider is that I play against AI - I can't imagine my economy would be in such good shape (at least it seems to me it is [:D]) when playing against human. Now mid 1943 is in my game the most optimistic scenario. They changed the R&D formula, nobody knows how it is actually implemented in the game. My factories are researching for quite some time but the date did not move closer. I can only hope I will gain few months in the end - somewhere near beginning of 1944 for Franks (I am still optimistic [:D]). With such commitment to R&D i would consider R&D system to be OK - it gives the player the choice, brings new interesting dimension to the overall gameplay and yet it does prevent the player from overusing it.

Now when I research the planes I want to equip all my air groups to the planes I want - if I have the air group of aces I give them the best planes I got, if I am desperate I choose the least experienced pilots, give them obsolete planes I have hundreds in the pool and set to the kamikazi mission. If someone is concerned about overusing this there could be penalty like temporary exp loss for month or so when the pilots have to get accustomed with the new aircraft. I would not like to see permanent exp loss as the training in the WiTP (same as in UV) seems not to work, especially for fighter pilots.

[shoevarek]

Giving players control over the R&D and production was always going to lead to "gamey" what if's

Sorry, I have never understood this attitude, maybe because I am new to wargames - UV beeing my first one.

No matter what you do you are faced with 'what if's'. The entire game is based on that. You take that you have interactive Pacific War encyclopedia. I am neither Yamamoto nor Nimitz, all my decissions and their outcome reside in the area of 'what if's'. Are they "gamey" - they for sure are 'ahistoric' in the sense many forum members understand this. Playing both sides player has the advantage of knowing the history and tries not to make same mistakes as real people did. If tweaking the production or R&D trying to avoid obvious mistakes is "gamey" then everything else is. Both players can withdraw the units and ships from every location - "gamey" and "ahistoric". Resources in all bases are subject to automatic destruction rule - "gamey" and "ahistoric". Player playing as Japanese can combine all his asstes and destroy US fleet near Midway - completely "ahistoric". Any new tactic developed by player is "gamey" and "ahistoric".

If somebody loves to play with hands tide up when it comes to strategy and tactics (in economy and military operations) then there are the house rules. There is no sense in imposing hardcoded constraints on all game users especially if, as some pointed out, those constraints look silly at some point of game time.

[pasternakski]

You people need to listen to yourselves: "I want ... I want ... I want ... I wouldn't like to see ... I should be able to ..."

[Top Cat]

ORIGINAL: shoevarek

Giving players control over the R&D and production was always going to lead to "gamey" what if's

Sorry, I have never understood this attitude, maybe because I am new to wargames - UV beeing my first one.

No matter what you do you are faced with 'what if's'. The entire game is based on that. You take that you have interactive Pacific War encyclopedia. I am neither Yamamoto nor Nimitz, all my decissions and their outcome reside in the area of 'what if's'. Are they "gamey" - they for sure are 'ahistoric' in the sense many forum members understand this. Playing both sides player has the advantage of knowing the history and tries not to make same mistakes as real people did. If tweaking the production or R&D trying to avoid obvious mistakes is "gamey" then everything else is. Both players can withdraw the units and ships from every location - "gamey" and "ahistoric". Resources in all bases are subject to automatic destruction rule - "gamey" and "ahistoric". Player playing as Japanese can combine all his asstes and destroy US fleet near Midway - completely "ahistoric". Any new tactic developed by player is "gamey" and "ahistoric".

If somebody loves to play with hands tide up when it comes to strategy and tactics (in economy and military operations) then there are the house rules. There is no sense in imposing hardcoded constraints on all game users especially if, as some pointed out, those constraints look silly at some point of game time.

You got me pegged wrong shoevarek, I'm in your camp. You're quoting me out of context, please read the rest of my post.

I made it clear that I want to explore all those "gamey" what if's. I was just using the language that others have used here to get my point across.

Cheers
Top Cat

[Top Cat]

OK a bit of fun. [;)]

The Troubles Of Nakajima The Tojo Pilot

Pilot Nakajima is sitting in the officers bar looking very glum. The barman decides to try and cheer him up…..

Barman : You look rather sad, whats wrong?
Nakajima : The Americans have destroyed the new Tojo factory, no flying Tojo’s for this squadron.
Barman : Oh well you must have flown one at training school at least.
Nakajima : No we trained in Nates, I’ve never seen a Tojo.
Barman : Maybe you’ll get to fly an Oscar, there are plenty of those I hear.
Nakajima : No I can’t fly an Oscar I’m a Tojo pilot.
Barman : Oh. Maybe you’ll get to fly one of those new Franks.
Nakajima : No I can’t fly a Frank I’m a Tojo pilot.
Barman : Oh. What’s going to happen then?
Nakajima : They’re going to disband our squadron. I’m shipping out tomorrow.
Barman : Ahh you’ll get to fly Tojo’s in another squadron.
Nakajima : No. I’ll be flying a Sally.
Barman : You can fly a Sally?
Nakajima : Yes. Because I’m a Tojo pilot.

[;)]

Cheers
Top Cat

[Tankerace]

Ouch. Well, sometimes Satiracal humor gets the point across.

[Banquet]

It's strange. I've played games with R&D, but never one where you had imposed on you what you had to research and produce, and by when..

It's a odd way of doing things. Usually it's done to give a degree of freedom, to allow a player to think outside the box and achieve victory by power of intellect, rather than the sword.

Unfortunately it's also true that these games usually end with the winner being the one who knew how to use the rules to his benefit.

In WiTP, as the Japanese, it's a different matter. You know what you need, but spend the war having to scale back. The real choice isn't 'what do I research to turn the battle' it's 'what do I have to cut back production on now?'

When you're in that mindset the logic makes sense and I can see why we have this system. I've played complex strategy games for many years but I'll admit that the one's with the most satisfying research/production tree's (Civ II, HoI, Victoria, AC, etc) aren't necessarily the most realistic.

So, to truly simulate the pacific war we need to remove some of the 'fun but unrealistic' elements. On the other hand we need to allow the player a true and reasonable chance to change history.

IMO, the system needs to change to accomodate this. Granted, the game is balanced and there is little scope to exceed history, but yet the Japanese player is bound by the mistakes of his historical counterparts. Fixed upgrades should go. If it creates a game balancing problem then R&D should be changed to ensure we cannot research the impossible.

Either way, this game is staying on my HD till infinity (and beyond) [:D]

[Damien Thorn]

The Japanese should be able to upgrade any squadren to any other plane of the same type (fighter, Dive-bomber, etc). If people are worried about "gamey" effects of people only picking hte "best" planes then the developers should introduce diferent prices for the planes. Maybe they shouldn't all cost 18 + 18 per engine. Maybe some should be more and some shouldbe less. I've always thought fixed costs were a bad idea. I also think fixed vp scores of 1 per plane destroyed is a bad idea. "better" planes should be worth more victory points. People would think twice about sticking poor pilots in good planes in that case because they would just be giving points to the enemy.

[Warspite**]

Now that the Matrix Crew are back, can they address this 15 page debate?

[2ndACR]

just following Warspite's example and bumping it up for the Devs perview.