Attention Matrix Staff: Aircraft Upgrades

[Andy Mac]

Guys

As I see it all I would like as a minimum position is 10 - 20 of the Oscar 2 gps changed to upgrade to a variety of late war aircraft to give a Japanese player able to produce better fighters more options to use those fighters he has produced.

Can be Tojo's Randys/ Franks anything but basically a variety to provide options.

As I see it this is a simple fix that in reality can be done by using the editor without breaking anything.

Exact number and and upgrade path can be fought over elsewhere.

For me that would solve 90% of the problems. (Even just make it an alternative to the existing 15 so that you the player have the choice of which one to play)

I would like a fully flexible model if possible for both sides similar to the one outlined by Frag on page 20 of this thread.

If I have to I can live with the game as is because its such a great game that I will be playing it for years anyway.



Now I think this thread has got a tad out of hand so this will be my last post on it I will watch it with interest

Andy

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered.

Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

And that has what to do with picking what aircraft a squadron will fly? Oh thats right, nothing. Off and running with the goalposts again Frag?

[Tankerace]

Saying "how many P-40 units were there in 1945" is like the argument about M3 Light tanks. In the ETO and MTO, they were completey outclassed. As such, they were phased out considerably. However, in the PTO, M3 Light tanks were more widely used than Shermans, mainly because a Stuart could deal with ANY of the Japanese tanks.

I for one plane to have several P-40 squadrons at the end of the war. Mostly N, but a few E models.

As to the R&D thing, like vonmoltke I like the old PTO I and II system used by Koei. You would spend money (which for WiTP could be supply, resources, pp, etc) and so much would advance you to a level. At certain levels, particular airplanes (and also ships in PTO) would become available. Then, once you had the ability to produce the plane, you could began building the plane in numbers. While doing this, you could continue research.

After another high had been reached, you could build that plane too. So, each plane would have different costs to be built, thus forcing the player to decide on large amounts of old planes, or smaller amounts of new planes.

Another conept pioneered by PTO was its aircraft assignment. While it did not use real squadrons (a downer), it did let you assign planes to squadrons at base airfields, and on ships. On carriers, for instance, you had 4 squadrons available. This represented the VF, VS, VB, and VT assigned to a carrier. You could allot a max of 20 planes to each, and assign any plane you wanted (provided, of course, it was a navy plane). So, if you wanted to, you could put 20 F2As, 20 F4Fs, 20 F6Fs, and 20 F4Us.

While that particular system is unrealistic, the concept is a good one. If the player could allot any US naval fighter that he has in his pool to his VFs, or any bomber, etc, that would be what the game was supposed to be. IMO, that would be the best solution.

In addition, since the WiTP website touts "Complete control of aircraft upgrades", what we have here, unfortunately, constitutes false advertisement. I'm not saying that I'll sue Matrix or anybody, because I love the game. However, we do deserve what we were promised.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont.

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

I would 100% support this solution!


Leo "Apollo11"

[2ndACR]

I also support it 100%, I just got buried in the shouting. I thought about starting a new thread, that way if and when it got out of control I could request it to be locked.

[vonmoltke]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
So, if you wanted to, you could put 20 F2As, 20 F4Fs, 20 F6Fs, and 20 F4Us.

One minor correction Tankerace: only two models of each type were allowed to be in service at any given time. To produce a new aircraft, not only did one of the old lines have to be shut down, but the existing aircraft had to be scrapped.

The control of loading aircraft on ships was a little more defined than "army vs. navy"; the game did make a distinction between carrier capable and non-carrier capable aircraft. It only mattered to the Japanese player, though.

[Tankerace]

My idea, nay "solution"

Only 2 could be in production, but on the East coast you always still had some F2As and Wildcats, even after shutting down the prod. lines.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one....

[:-]

Steve.

Err what did I say that was off topic?
Spoke about upgrades, research and wether things are historical/realistic

Top Cat

Sorry TC that wasn't aimed at you! [X(][&o]

My mistake with the "Reply to" button [:(]

Actually aimed at certain people who were effectively hijacking the thread with a "My **** is bigger than yours" type argument.

I notice that no devs have been in and finished this yet....[&:]

Steve.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar
Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it?

[:(]

I didn't even get a chance to brag about my pathetic attempts at programming Basic two decades ago or the joys of FORTRAN on punch cards while owning a cat. [;)]

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were…?

Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree?

I wasn't talking about 1945. Rather, 1942-3. However even in 1945 there were still P-40 units. Same goes for the German example. ME-109's fought to the end of the war and was the numerically largest airframe built.

So no, i disagree, it is not historical. That doesn't make it wrong but it is rather an inevitable course of action and IMO produces an ahistorical situation. As an option though, i have no problem with it, nor did i have a problem with less restrictive upgrade options. I was particularily in favor of downgrades because they represented a sizable pool for Kamakazi attacks.

Weren’t most of the front line P-40s N-models and not ‘E’? The same goes with the Me109, most of the model ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, etc were long gone before the end of the war… at least in front line units.

The need for ‘better’ aircraft was constantly being felt by the manufactures. Some of this was taken care of by producing new aircraft while much of it was done with upgrades. Agree or disagree?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Saying "how many P-40 units were there in 1945" is like the argument about M3 Light tanks. In the ETO and MTO, they were completey outclassed. As such, they were phased out considerably. However, in the PTO, M3 Light tanks were more widely used than Shermans, mainly because a Stuart could deal with ANY of the Japanese tanks.

I for one plane to have several P-40 squadrons at the end of the war. Mostly N, but a few E models.

[&:]Puzzlement on my part regarding your response. I indicated that the players will attempt to do what was done historically: get the best aircraft into production and to front line units. Agree or disagree?

Why don’t you fly P-40E in your front line units until the end of the war?

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Historically, Nakajima produced both army fighters Ki-27 and Ki-44 in the later half of 1942. Why historically couldn’t the Japanese decrease Ki-27 production and increase Ki-44 at that point in time?

Why were they making the -27? what was preventing them from mass producing the -44 in 1942? Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed. Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

I don’t believe there were any technical reasons why they couldn’t have increasing production of the Ki-44. If I was to speculate as to why production wasn’t increased…

The Imperial Japanese Army Air Force initially called for the creation of air-combat fighter optimized for the dogfighting role to replace the Ki-27.… the Ki-43. Not long after the call went out for the creation of a specifically designed interceptor of the Imperial Japanese Army Air Force (Ki-44). The requirements were a major turnaround of its operational philosophy in that it called for agility to be sacrificed for speed and climb rate.

The Ki-44 was a different type fighter than was normal at this time as it relied on speed and firepower in slashing attacks vs the more traditional ‘turnfighter’ used in Japan. This was not a change that was well meet by most experienced Japanese pilots, although new recruits preferred speed over maneuverability. Some strategists were concern over what had occurred in the air battles between Japan and the Soviet Union, where I-16 had used their diving ability and speed to engage at will and break off when they desired, plus the superior firepower of many Soviet aircraft left an impression.

“When it was first introduced, the Ki-44 was widely disliked by Army pilots, who were disdainful of its high landing speed and comparative lack of maneuverability compared to the Ki-43. But later, younger pilots, without previous combat experience in the earlier machine, were very enthusiastic about the Shoki’s fast level and diving speeds and its phenomenal climb rate.”


In my opinion, during 1942 those who promoted the ideology of maneuverability above all else still had the political power to get their fighter made Ki-27 and Ki-43. The proponents of the Ki-44 simple lost the political battle.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Were they busy working on the -45? what? thats whats needed.

The Ki-43 and Ki-44 were for the most part being designed, prototyped and produced at the same time.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Did they consider the -27 better then the -44 due to shortages of engines?

Not to my knowledge. The Ki-27 was seen in need of replacement well before the war started.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
ie: you can't R&D the A6M5 until the A6M2&M3 are discovered. Those are the type of conditions that will make for a valid model.

You get it ... thats a good step ... dig up the historical reasons for each aircraft and also come up with a table of what must come before what ...

I wouldn’t mind see R&D disappear from the game as it is.

With regards to the Ki-84, the Ki-43 and Ki-44 should come first.

“In 1941, the Army requested a plane that had maneuverability superior to the Ki-43 ‘Hayabusa’ and speed and climbing power better than the Ki-44 ‘Shoki’ be developed. It required a top speed of 680km/h, a climbing time of 4.5 minutes to 5,000m, and a range equal to that of the ‘Hayabusa’.”

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

Weren’t most of the front line P-40s N-models and not ‘E’? The same goes with the Me109, most of the model ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, etc were long gone before the end of the war… at least in front line units.

Yes. However using BTR as an example, you wont see even Me-109K's You will see an all FW-190 fleet much earlier in the war. By the time of the -K Messerschmidt, the FW will be being phased out by jets and the TA-152. There were reasons why the ME was kept in production even though it was outclassed by the FW. You seem to be stuck on the idea of at or near the end of the war, while i am talking about periods much earlier in the war because that is where one will see the impact of all the player changes.

The need for ‘better’ aircraft was constantly being felt by the manufactures. Some of this was taken care of by producing new aircraft while much of it was done with upgrades. Agree or disagree?

Disagree. It wasn't the aircraft manufacturers who felt the need. It was their customers...the military. However that generality has little to do with what i am talking about. There were real life limits and reasons why the air fleets of the war were fitted out the way they were. It was not a simple matter for the Japanese to phase out the Zero and Oscar, nor was it a simple matter (nor practical) for the Germans to just cease Messerschmidt production in favor of a complete retooling towards FW aircraft. Same for the US. There were practical, political, as well as economic reasons for why the various aircraft assembly lines and the companies that sponsored them were set up the way they were and they could not be changed overnight. Better aircraft were designed and came along, but it was a much more gradual progression than one will see in most 'games' where players can fully manipulate the economic picture. Much of this is due to simplification of the system, a necessity otherwise it would only appeal too and be useful to players with a degree in economics. The downside of that is that it lacks checks and balances that keep things within a more realistic frame. (note that there have already been more than a few complaints regarding the spreadsheet manner and complication that is the entire Japanese production system.)

Thus my personal preference is for either no or minimal player interference in production because of the effects i've witnessed in various wargames (not just air sims like USAAF/BTR), not the least of which is ahistorical and oversexed OOB's. But as i mentioned a few pages back, having production as an option was to me personally the best compromise.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
…There were practical, political, as well as economic reasons for why the various aircraft assembly lines and the companies that sponsored them were set up the way they were and they could not be changed overnight…

I agree, yet if we allow the Japanese player the ability to us their subs completely non historically; and if we allow the Japanese to start 1941 with a major non-historical campaign in China; and if we allow the Japanese to non- historically focus on ASW/convoy protection problems early… why is aircraft the sacred cow?

The game is ahistorical in nature in how it is played; so is building an extra 700 Tojo aircraft in 1943 so far out side the realm of possibility when compared with other actions taken?

Historically, production of the Ki-43 was halted at Nakajima plants because they wished to focus on other, better, aircraft. Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. took up production of this aircraft.

How do you reflect this ability in the game?

[Mr.Frag]

How do you reflect this ability in the game?

Thats what I keep asking for [:D]

1) What historically happened?
2) Why?
3) What of the list are choices that a player should be allowed to make?
4) What of the list are choices that could not be made for reasons that are beyond the scope of the model?

That would give you something realistic that could not be toyed with too much but also allow you some *reasonable* room to play around.

My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the *WAR* due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the *WAR* due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all.

You think that only 20% of WitP buyers are playing (or will play) PBEMs while 80% will stick to AI only games?

Hmmm... I thought exactly opposite... since this is almost "closed" game available only from producer/developer (Matrix/2By3) and one that will never be available in store I thought that all people who would buy it are hard-core Grognards who prefer PBEMs above all...


BTW, what do you think of proposal from "Nikademus":

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont.

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Added proposal from "Nikademus" to message.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

How do you reflect this ability in the game?

Thats what I keep asking for [:D]

1) What historically happened?
2) Why?
3) What of the list are choices that a player should be allowed to make?
4) What of the list are choices that could not be made for reasons that are beyond the scope of the model?

That would give you something realistic that could not be toyed with too much but also allow you some *reasonable* room to play around.

My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the *WAR* due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all.

Historically, the Japanese analysis the military situation using their political/military doctrine …and made a judgment call. Thus, submarines will concentrate on warships, pilot training will be not as good as needed, China will be stagnate until late in the war, troops and equipment sent to the South Pacific will be piecemeal an slow, etc. The player can and will most likely ignore all of this and make the choices he feels that is need based on the circumstances.

If I can ignore the historical political/military realties to do the above, by what rational can I not upgrade the 1st Sentai to Tojo’s? If this completely unbalances the game… ok, but no one has stated that. The counter argument is… what? It wasn’t done historically? That argument seems very weak.

What ever historical limitations that were in place militarily/politically that led to the 244th Sentai upgrading to Tojo/Tony and not the 1st Sentai, may not occur in my game, yet the game is going to enforce this restriction.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the *WAR* due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM. 20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all.

If it unbalances the game it should not be done. In fact, it has been stated that it is very unlikely they we do such a major code change; and my response then as now is... fair enough.

Most of my games are going to be vs the AI., and if it unbalances it… I wouldn’t support change. As it is now, I have had to load different scenarios to check upgrade paths, because historically I could place my Tony aircraft where I wished… the game blocks this. Instead I must preposition my groups that will allow these aircraft. It is workable, but a difficult way to do it.

I don’t care if research or even production is eliminated, but please allow me to decide where I place the aircraft. I can decide which land unit defends Rabaul shouldn’t I be allow to choose which aircraft?

Like I said I don’t expect 2By3 to change anything. So I have made a list of aircraft upgrade path so I know that in ten months this group can use ‘X’ aircraft. I preposition those groups before the upgrade aircraft are available then upgrade. It works, but is somewhat clunky.

Historically, a set number of groups upgraded to Tojo aircraft… for many reasons. I wouldn’t mind being limited to the same number of groups, but must I be limited to the exact groups that upgraded? A bit too restrictive I feel.

Ps. Please don’t take my comments on this subject in the wrong way, while I think this section upgrades could be a little ‘cleaner’… it is still a great game.

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
My fear is any quick and dirty change will result in Japan winning the *WAR* due to the level of unbalance it could create coupled with it ruining the game for the 80% of people who do not play PBEM.

Yes a toggel that a Player can select how they want to play the game with is going to unbalance and ruin the game for the person whos will it was to use such a toggel. [8|]

As for winning the war are you kidding me? Being able to select what aircraft a group can fly isnt going to magically make the USA's overwhelming production go away. Not to mention its not going to help in one bit the lack of trained pilot department. Please give people a little more credit to suggest that it will.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
20% of you will respond with the usual "make it an option" but you seem to forget that the other 80% might be a little ticked that 2BY3 spent time working on stuff for you instead of for the greater good of all.

Its funny how you whined at Zoomie earlier in this thread for assuming to speak for anyone not posting in this thread but you have no problem in speaking for them yourself when it serves your own purposes [:-]

So where did you pull this 20%, 80% out of, not that I cant guess where. You also seem to have missed the point that in this thread more people have been for the ability in one form or another than have been against it and that is the only set of numbers known.

You also seem to forget that the people not posting might have no problem being added. Not you nor I can guess which they want so do everyone a favor and quit trying to use an unknowable factor to bolster another weak and baseless argument that again has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

How do you reflect this ability in the game?

Thats what I keep asking for [:D]

Random thoughts. I don’t claim they are coherent. [;)]


2by3 is using a point system to restrict the movement of leaders and land units between commands. A similar system could have been designed for:

Changes in aircraft production type. Changing Claude’s to Zeros give a small hit, but Claude’s to Sallys’ would be huge.

Changing aircraft production levels. Increasing the production level of any aircraft would cost.

Researching aircraft. The Ki-84 would consume large amounts of points.

Changing group aircraft type. Army fighter for army fighter would cost either going up or back.

You would have to balance you points between production increase, upgrades, changing air craft production and research. Balancing such a thing from the developer’s point of view would be time consuming, if possible. From a players point, many would be uninterested while other less sane individuals (like myself), would like the ability to choose… without destroying the historical feel to the game.

PS. Army Fighter Units can fly any Army Fighter if you pay the cost. Research will have some prerequisites Ki-43 and Ki- 44 before the Ki-84, but large scale change in development time is unrealistic. The Japanese really couldn't ‘mass produce’ research on a given type of aircraft: only so many engineers/people can work on a prototype.