Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.

BIG note to AFB's... Realistic R&D should be ON. If it is off, that doesn't mean I cannot do research. It means I can't freely switch between R&D factories and production factories. It is MORE permissive, not less.

I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2. Which is one reason, although not the main one, I am currently at 1.6:1 against in VPs in July 1944. And why I disagree with statements here that allowing ahistoric R&D is a certain route to VPs going out the window.

N.B. I am primarily at 1.6:1 against because Lokasenna is a far better player than I am. But man, have I learned a lot playing him.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

+1 to this lol

I'll never forget a raid in late '44 in a PBEM game where the Allies had 600+ planes in an attack [X(]. As Japan, I did not have anything even close to those numbers anytime during the game lol.

At that timeframe multiple 200-300 plane raids by the Allies were pretty common multiple times a turn. Nothing you produce as Japan is going to make much of a dent in those numbers.

The VP system is pretty useless since both side can easily get an AV. Japan in '43 by overrunning China and no Midway type losses. The Allies in '45 without even touching the Japanese HI. So the players need to determine what is a 'win'. Mine as Japan is to last longer than historical [:)] Have not done it yet [:(]. Except against the AI [:)]

I completely agree the late game is one of the best game playing experiences I've ever had. Its constant, relentless pressure and only sporadically effective resistance. It's just important to see what you can still do, how your plans actually end up, for better or worse.

I do disagree though that the VPs are useless. That was actually what kept me going, even though my opponent and I had both begun the game with an agreement not to care about the VPs. By the end we both did because it was really the only objective measure we had of what was going on, especially with strat bombing and the kind of territory taken vs the losses incurred.

As much as I'm arguing the ultra research may skew VP results and game play balance I'm actually advocating for VPs. They give Japanese players a reason to keep fighting and scrapping to the end when its dire and every turn offers staggering losses with endless cleanup. If there is a measure of success, and if that measure isn't too tainted by bringing planes so far forward that balance suffers, then it's easier to stick in it to the bitter end knowing you have an honourable result to shoot for.

OK, I missed another day and WOW again.

The way I see it Alfred hit the nail on the head again. The problem really comes into being with the ability to R&D and play with PDU On, which I do. I just won't use the two to 'abuse the system', so to speak. IOW I won't skip the R&D chain. I play PDU On for two reasons. One I don't wish to be confined to the historical limits concerning A/C usage. If I have 'em I want to use them when and where I choose. As has been pointed out before not all air units will convert to just any airframe. To me that's fine, there need to be limits. The other reason I choose PDU On is a bit of lazyness. Its just that I have so much, from my point of view, to keep track of as it is that to now learn what airframes and how many A/C of each I need is just too much for me to track.

My intent is never to 'game the game' to the extent that I abuse what is given to me. Let's be honest the "game games' the game" a bit by giving us these goodies. Ever hear the expression, 'I give you a finger and you take the whole hand', that's what I wish to avoid. So have fun with what is given, but use a little restraint. Again if both players agree to any tactics, I say fine.

Edit:In addition I always play realistic 'R&D On' as well.

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.

Yup, this is one feature of the game that I don't like. It was probably impossible to launch major operations either to or from the Aleutians in WWII, and I'd add even today. I've seen all the film footage I can get may hands on of the place and its not good. As one of my duty sites in the military was Shemya Island I can attest to the nasty weather of the region. Not that I was ever stationed there, but I had served with others who were. It had a reputation throughout that community of the military.

I always put as much as possible in the region. More than what the game provides, but I still see it as a vulnerable location.

You're paying the same for better results.


I disagree about there not being a cost or that you're paying the same for better results, because you're ignoring a not-so-minor quibble:

Lokasenna, I respect ya man, but I have to side with Obvert here.

I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2.

See to me scen2 is a bane to any Japanese player who goes beyond '42. Why? Well yeah, the Japanese player gets extra goodies to play with, but some are a drain on his/her resources. Like for instance the extra ground units that are given. Then in '43, wham all those extra pilots are slamming his/her HI pool. Now he begins to feel the pinch, and it can wreck his/her economy.

From everything I've read the scenario was really intended to be used by the AI in order to give an Allied player a better challenge. I mean anyone can use it, but I'll stick to scen1.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
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.

BIG note to AFB's... Realistic R&D should be ON. If it is off, that doesn't mean I cannot do research. It means I can't freely switch between R&D factories and production factories. It is MORE permissive, not less.

I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2. Which is one reason, although not the main one, I am currently at 1.6:1 against in VPs in July 1944. And why I disagree with statements here that allowing ahistoric R&D is a certain route to VPs going out the window.

N.B. I am primarily at 1.6:1 against because Lokasenna is a far better player than I am. But man, have I learned a lot playing him.

I'm honestly not sure realistic R&D on or off makes much difference. It allows you to switch some factories from production to R&D at the start, but having started a second game with the same scenario and setting up my R&D... the number of factories that I would even want to switch is 2 or 3.

The biggest difference is that with realistic on, you have to make sure that you don't let any of your R&D factories switch to production factories unless you want them to do so, because once they've flipped you can't flip them back.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

You're paying the same for better results.


I disagree about there not being a cost or that you're paying the same for better results, because you're ignoring a not-so-minor quibble:

Lokasenna, I respect ya man, but I have to side with Obvert here.

OK, but numbers don't lie.

I played Scen 2 in a PBEM game and my HI costs for pilots in mid to late '44 were over 100K/month [X(]

It is a lot of fun though. Again none of the extra 'toys' did much at the end [:(] Still lost in early '45.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Short points before I run out for errands:

a) I don't think most IJ players "will/do" run out of supplies in 1944.
b) There are more examples of games going into 1944 than there are of "most" IJ players not being willing to continue beyond 1943
c) There are probably as many dropped Allied games as there are IJ games.

a) I was mainly talking about HI. Sorry for the confusion.
b) Hard to say how many quit or not. But I've seen any number of threads of AFBs complaining about JFBs quitting in '43 or earlier. There are a number of AARs that have been abandoned as well. So my impression comes from these observations so could well be wrong.

But after experiencing the Allied might up close and personal, I can easily see many JFB's leaving games when that starts happening. Especially when they know it is NOT going to be getting any better for them for the rest of the game.

c) Doubt it. If there are, it is likely due to RL events versus getting beat up by Japan.

Just my thoughts [:)]

The biggest difference is that with realistic on, you have to make sure that you don't let any of your R&D factories switch to production factories unless you want them to do so, because once they've flipped you can't flip them back.

You can on the first day. I've done it as I still can't figure out how to stop it. I think even where I had 'production off' they still flipped. At any rate I didn't have a problem so I didn't look for a solution.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Short points before I run out for errands:

a) I don't think most IJ players "will/do" run out of supplies in 1944.
b) There are more examples of games going into 1944 than there are of "most" IJ players not being willing to continue beyond 1943
c) There are probably as many dropped Allied games as there are IJ games.

a) I was mainly talking about HI. Sorry for the confusion.
b) Hard to say how many quit or not. But I've seen any number of threads of AFBs complaining about JFBs quitting in '43 or earlier. There are a number of AARs that have been abandoned as well. So my impression comes from these observations so could well be wrong.

But after experiencing the Allied might up close and personal, I can easily see many JFB's leaving games when that starts happening. Especially when they know it is NOT going to be getting any better for them for the rest of the game.

c) Doubt it. If there are, it is likely due to RL events versus getting beat up by Japan.

Just my thoughts [:)]

Well, in that case about HI or supplies... I'd have to disagree and say that HI is not going to be a concern as long as you don't overspend on industry/factory expansion and go nuts with ship acceleration/engine overbuilding. And it's much easier to burn through supplies without realizing it.

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


R&D favors the bold.

Tony Romo?

[&o]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey



BIG note to AFB's... Realistic R&D should be ON. If it is off, that doesn't mean I cannot do research. It means I can't freely switch between R&D factories and production factories. It is MORE permissive, not less.

I am aware. I posted what I did to state that my PBEM game with Lokasenna gave him max advantages re aircraft, as well as being Scenario 2. Which is one reason, although not the main one, I am currently at 1.6:1 against in VPs in July 1944. And why I disagree with statements here that allowing ahistoric R&D is a certain route to VPs going out the window.

N.B. I am primarily at 1.6:1 against because Lokasenna is a far better player than I am. But man, have I learned a lot playing him.

I'm honestly not sure realistic R&D on or off makes much difference. It allows you to switch some factories from production to R&D at the start, but having started a second game with the same scenario and setting up my R&D... the number of factories that I would even want to switch is 2 or 3.

The biggest difference is that with realistic on, you have to make sure that you don't let any of your R&D factories switch to production factories unless you want them to do so, because once they've flipped you can't flip them back.

I've never played an actual game with Realistic R & D OFF. So this is more of a question than a discussion point.

If you say research 6 x 30 Rufe, which are ready to go in 4/42, aren't you able to switch them immediately to the Sam with no damage. So you could begin adding research points to the Sam long before factories dedicated directly to it would be repaired. (For example I'm in 5/44 and not one of my Sam R & D factories is repaired and producing research points even though they were set up on day 1).

So in fact couldn't you set 30 x 30 factories to research the first available airframe, like the Rufe, and once they're repaired switch them to all other airframes you want?

(Jets in 44 anyone?) [:D]

If you say research 6 x 30 Rufe, which are ready to go in 4/42, aren't you able to switch them immediately to the Sam with no damage. So you could begin adding research points to the Sam long before factories dedicated directly to it would be repaired. (For example I'm in 5/44 and not one of my Sam R & D factories is repaired and producing research points even though they were set up on day 1).

So in fact couldn't you set 30 x 30 factories to research the first available airframe, like the Rufe, and once they're repaired switch them to all other airframes you want?

(Jets in 44 anyone?)

Won't work, because factories will be damaged when changed to a model out of the line.

ORIGINAL: obvert
I've never played an actual game with Realistic R & D OFF. So this is more of a question than a discussion point.

Realistic R&D OFF only allows you to switch production factories to R&D, nothing else. It does not change the rules governing factory damage/repair

ORIGINAL: Theages

If you say research 6 x 30 Rufe, which are ready to go in 4/42, aren't you able to switch them immediately to the Sam with no damage. So you could begin adding research points to the Sam long before factories dedicated directly to it would be repaired. (For example I'm in 5/44 and not one of my Sam R & D factories is repaired and producing research points even though they were set up on day 1).

So in fact couldn't you set 30 x 30 factories to research the first available airframe, like the Rufe, and once they're repaired switch them to all other airframes you want?

(Jets in 44 anyone?)

Won't work, because factories will be damaged when changed to a model out of the line.

Cool. Good to know. This is why I try to post examples. I want to see if I understand how this really works. Obviously not in this case! [;)]

I had just read the below from the manual to refresh on it, but it's slightly less clear about exactly what is possible. The "any aircraft type" made me think it's really any aircraft type.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]2.4.8 REALISTIC R&D

If the switch is set to the “off” position, no such restrictions apply. This will allow the Japanese player a greater ability to switch production of their factories to any aircraft type, regardless of whether those factories are representing aircraft production or R&D facilities.[/font]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Theages

If you say research 6 x 30 Rufe, which are ready to go in 4/42, aren't you able to switch them immediately to the Sam with no damage. So you could begin adding research points to the Sam long before factories dedicated directly to it would be repaired. (For example I'm in 5/44 and not one of my Sam R & D factories is repaired and producing research points even though they were set up on day 1).

So in fact couldn't you set 30 x 30 factories to research the first available airframe, like the Rufe, and once they're repaired switch them to all other airframes you want?

(Jets in 44 anyone?)

Won't work, because factories will be damaged when changed to a model out of the line.

Cool. Good to know. This is why I try to post examples. I want to see if I understand how this really works. Obviously not in this case! [;)]

I had just read the below from the manual to refresh on it, but it's slightly less clear about exactly what is possible. The "any aircraft type" made me think it's really any aircraft type.

[font="Trebuchet MS"]2.4.8 REALISTIC R&D

If the switch is set to the “off” position, no such restrictions apply. This will allow the Japanese player a greater ability to switch production of their factories to any aircraft type, regardless of whether those factories are representing aircraft production or R&D facilities.[/font]

I had read this to mean that it was possible to switch a factory to any other kind of factory, instead of only being able to switch an existing Nate factory to another IJAAF fighters, for example.


I've been working hard on the Karyu and Ki-83. I won't be getting them in 1944.

If you say research 6 x 30 Rufe, which are ready to go in 4/42, aren't you able to switch them immediately to the Sam

This doesn't work anyway. The Sam doesn't have a research line, its by itself. Therefore no matter what you do you can't advance its research too far. The Rufe may upgrade to the A6M5 (IIRC) once its repaired.

First off, Realistic R&D should be "ON" because "OFF" really gives the IJ too much advantage.

But the discussed feature here, imo not so much... you still need to research (but not build neccessary) most or all interim modells. Otherwise you can NOT switch the factories to produce the next modell in line (I mean the better later one). Those factories will be danmged and need to build up from ZERO again ! Seems some miss this point Only would work if you let all the factories from the "better later" modell to production (but then the research factory is GONE forever only in "OFF" it can be switched back, which would be indeed a bit to much of advantage to IJ!) [;)]

Also the so called "much better later modells" are not really better (then most Allied planes), at least not in stock. If we use eg. "babes" mod then yes, because some Jack and George are faster there, in stock most Allied planes will be faster even than your super duper A6M8 which isnt super duper if you look closely (eg. even P40K and F6 are better in speed and weapons)