Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

But the food for thought is that the Japanese will see the benefit very early on with better planes and production that isn't challenged by losses, while the allies won't benefit much at all in the early days until they start to stockpile and roll over any IJN force.

Interesting slant that needs to be thought about when looking at what you just said ...

Japan would be paying pp costs during the early days when pp stockpiles are rare.

Allies would be paying pp costs after collecting them for a good year due to the fact that they really don't have anything worth spending pp on until 1943.

So a pp charge is actually a japan only charge unless the us rate is more expensive to compensate for the fact that the USA will have tons of pp banked up by the time they need to start spending it. [:D]

Hi, As Japan by March 42 I have several thousand PP stockpiled. I think the answer here is simple. Another "on/Off" toggle since so many players want to upgrade. I want to upgrade as well. My only concern is it is so easy to do. It does not cost anything extra. The Japanese are all ready changing factories (spending the supply) but currently it goes into R&D and A6M2. PP cost will not hurt the Japanese either. But it will make them have to decide just what they are going to do. Move units from Manchuria or upgrade the fighters?
So prehaps we need 2 toggles
Upgrade "on/off"
PP cost "On/off"

I cannot believe noone is concerned with the implacation of allies mega production.
Allies already overproduce historical production figures in some cases 4 times.

With this change they will be able to use all that surpluss 10000 or more AC (that was never produced historically).

Mogami, you obviously save your PP points. I do not get above 500 PP points until around March 1942. But I am also spending them by changing HQ's around. And even then I spend them as fast as I get them. I could save more if I just made every unit Southern Army, but that hurts my brain concerning chain of command.

Manchuria units are basically off limits to me in most games, unless I change their HQ. All those engineer regiments sure look tasty at times.

I doubt you do very much industry changes either. I do a crap load of changes on turn 1. I know for a fact that supply will be in short supply until around March 42 when all changes from turn 1 are complete. It really gets dicey around Feb 42. That is my crunch time for supply.

I could even be convinced to allow the PP cost to be the same as for changing a HQ of the air unit. So a Zero daitai will cost roughly 125 pp points to change HQ and another 125 pp points to upgrade outside of it's next programed upgrade. A6M2 to A6M3 ahould be free, but to jump from A6M2 - A6M5 should cost the pp points.

ORIGINAL: BlackVoid

I cannot believe noone is concerned with the implacation of allies mega production.
Allies already overproduce historical production figures in some cases 4 times.

With this change they will be able to use all that surpluss 10000 or more AC (that was never produced historically).

I do not worry about it if the upgrade paths will be restricted. USA to USA, USMC - USMC, USN - USN, IJA - IJA, IJN - IJN.

I do not want to see IJA units flying the Zero or see USA units flying the Corsair.

Basically I think the Japs are better off at the start of the war (otherwise they probably didn’t start him at all [;)])as the Allies at this moment. But the upgrade gives them an extra advantage at the start ( They can make more zero's, adjust the factory and have more PP as Mogami wrote). Man is this amusing[:)]. I thought that the allied factory was also adjustable but that seems not the case.

Question: is it hard to make the Allied factory adjustable? If the answer is no I think here is an opening to balance the game. If yes I agree with Mogami.

I would say leave the Allied industry just as it is. They get all that stuff for free anyway.

I got to work real hard to get my toys to play with.

A6M2 to A6M3 ahould be free, but to jump from A6M2 - A6M5 should cost the pp points.

The A6M5 is *in* the upgrade path for the A6M2 ... why on earth should it cost anything?

It is isn't it. DOH.

I am still waiting on an answer to my above question. Are these upgrade changes restricted to the above standards or are we going to see Betty groups being changed to Zero's and Oscar groups being changed to Zero's?

Are these upgrade changes restricted to the above standards or are we going to see Betty groups being changed to Zero's and Oscar groups being changed to Zero's?

Consider the paths to be normal. You can't turn a recon plane into a heavy bomber or a fighter. You can't turn a Nate into a Zeke etc. The are no fantasy paths ... things stay pretty much the same. What you'll see is japan will have less Nates with more Oscar I groups early in the war and probably more heavy bombers (not that you can really call a Sally a heavy bomber).

The biggest change I see right now is with Japan's air lift capacity. Expect more air ops with the replacement of all the useless transports with larger/longer ranged units.

The next biggest change is with the good ole Alf consolidation. It's got pretty good range compared to other sea planes which will probably give Japan some better sighting abilities in the naval war. This of course is countered by the fact that the USN tends to never sink when hit due to their great damage control and Japan's lack of real bombs [:D]

The next biggest change will be in the consolidation of the Sally vs all the other bombers. This will shift a bit of workload off the Nell/Betty world allowing you to save some naval pilots.

Then finally ... fighters ... you'll have more Oscar I groups. Now, before you get up in arms, you really need to look at what an Oscar I is.

Later on, when the Oscar II comes into play, you'll see a bigger difference here, but then again, at the same time, Allied production will gobble them up as they are not anything special either.

The naval side is pretty much unchanged as all the naval paths are pretty normal anyways.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Consider the paths to be normal. You can't turn a recon plane into a heavy bomber or a fighter. You can't turn a Nate into a Zeke etc. The are no fantasy paths ... things stay pretty much the same. What you'll see is japan will have less Nates with more Oscar I groups early in the war and probably more heavy bombers (not that you can really call a Sally a heavy bomber).

I am leaning in favor of choosing with these restrictions and some sort of penalty to make players pick between benefits. How do you see the allied side paths? The good initial planes are rare to start with if no F4F for army. Until the good choices role in Corsair, P-38 etc then it doesn't usually matter as much. Although I don't know if I will ever get that far in a game....[8D]

That is all I need to know, thanks. Got basically the same thing with Lemurs mod, but whenever a incoming air group down grades to a lower a/c in the tree due to lack of ac in the pool it is stuck with that a/c for a while.

I now have no worries about the upgrade paths.

ORIGINAL: Jaws43

Basically I think the Japs are better off at the start of the war (otherwise they probably didn’t start him at all [;)])as the Allies at this moment. But the upgrade gives them an extra advantage at the start ( They can make more zero's, adjust the factory and have more PP as Mogami wrote). Man is this amusing[:)]. I thought that the allied factory was also adjustable but that seems not the case.

Question: is it hard to make the Allied factory adjustable? If the answer is no I think here is an opening to balance the game. If yes I agree with Mogami.

How are going to get more Zero's than before. The only plane that can upgrade to the Zero will be the caulde. It all ready does this. I think you can not change any army planes to navy, so there will not be a change there. I think it will only help the japanese after 8/42 when they can change more army planes to tony's.

I am not sure why the players cannot have more control over all builds.. but as a strictly non historical "toggle"...
If the JAps had better planes.. if the US can adjust builds of ships etc... and it should be a "toggle" or option so players in either pbem or solo have the option of using this or not...
as for political points... not sure I see the need to give players a "non" historical.. ie not what wass done but what might have conceivably been done and then restrict its use..
thanks all for the imput
!![:-]

How are going to get more Zero's than before.

You are not [:D]

What you will get is more non-nate groups earlier. As far as the late war aircraft, well, you can dream of being able to build them, but if you didn't kick the allies butt into a victory before then, i doubt you'll be in any building shape [:D]

Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? [X(]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

How are going to get more Zero's than before.

You are not [:D]

What you will get is more non-nate groups earlier. As far as the late war aircraft, well, you can dream of being able to build them, but if you didn't kick the allies butt into a victory before then, i doubt you'll be in any building shape [:D]

Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? [X(]

Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right?

So why not address this?[&:]

Hi, I have never seen a wargame from cardboard days to now where the results were not much more bloody then the event being gamed. In real life the sight of a single wounded soldier can cancel the next attack. In wargames if a player is repulsed in one attempt he tries again as soon as he can bring more force into contact.
Air attacks that WITP plaers consider minor are enough in real life to turn a TF around.
Players would have fits if 1 hex from the landing site the transport TF turned around because a few bombers attacked and missed.
In real life a TF that was promised CAP would turn around if they were attacked by enemy air and no friendly CAP was over head (I'd be screwed)(I always have Daitai stood down that I placed just to fly CAP over a TF)

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

How are going to get more Zero's than before.

You are not [:D]

What you will get is more non-nate groups earlier. As far as the late war aircraft, well, you can dream of being able to build them, but if you didn't kick the allies butt into a victory before then, i doubt you'll be in any building shape [:D]

Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right? [X(]

Since people don't care about killing their soldiers, I don't expect to ever see 1945, things are simply too brutal due to no real caring about wounded/killed rates ... after all, they are just bits of supply right?

So why not address this?[&:]

Play someone like thayne and then, voila, it's fixed.

I am at work so I cannot look up the allied replacement rates in the game, but IIRC the F4F-4 replacement rate is something like 120/month. Yearly that is 1440 planes, continuing until the end of the war. Just looking at a website:(http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f4f_wildcat.html)

This lists F4F-4 production total as 1151 planes. In WITP during the war the allies get in excess of 4000 ac. In 42 allies need most of the F4F-4s to fill out F4F-4 squadrons, but after that they can upgrade all their obselete designs to the F4F-4 with a fantasy build capacity that lasts the entire war. This same situation is true for all the allied planes because all the replacements continue on whereas in real life production of old models was stopped. This gives the allies a surplus of AC that NEVER EXISTED.

Those figures are for one factory only. I am looking in my "Illustrated directory of fighting aircraft of WW2" by Bill Gunston pg 118:

Grumman plant delivered 1169, plus 220 Martlet IV's for the RN. Grumman swtiched to Avenger, Hellcat, and other types, but still delivered F4F-7 reconnaissance versions with 24 hour endurance [X(] and the float plane F4 variant.

General Motors delivered 839 FM-1's (not in game) and 311 Martlet V's.

Eastern took over the production of the FM-2, and produced 4,777 of those. That max number is not in game, but the FM-2 might have Atlantic commitments, so I have no real problem with that.

Hellcats of all types by year (pg 124): 1942=10, 1943=2545, 1944=6139, 1945=3578 for a total of 12272, the majority in the final two years.

P-47 total: 15660

P-51: 15,586

P-40's (including kittyhawks): 13,738

P-39: 9588, with 5000 going to the USSR

Corsair, P-38 entries do not provide production numbers.[:(]

The US industry was a juggernaught. Outproduced the world in all the major categories. Everything from Spam, paperclips, and shoe laces, to complete weapon systems (tanks, ships, planes).

I voted no and agree with Elf's reasoning. No politician cares what the military decides to fly, they care about what is built. Any political cost should be for changing production.

I do think that there should be an experience penalty for switching aircraft types. Sure switching from on subvariant to another or from one Grumman fighter to another might be a minor switch as such things go. But a lot of aircraft vary widely. Merely being able to take off and land and work the guns and instruments doesn't mean that one has mastered the aircraft in stress situations more common in combat. I think a 10% penalty in experience would be fair.

I voted no and agree with Elf's reasoning. No politician cares what the military decides to fly, they care about what is built. Any political cost should be for changing production

But politicians, and public, would care about their commanders squandering units and ships through gross negligence and careless strategy (basically most players are guilty), but this is not modelled...why decide to rationalize PP as strictly political? These points are abstract attempts to simulate all manner of hindrances, not just political.

Add the PP penalty to keep players reined in a bit. The on/off toggle on this feature will be as useless as that for Allied sub doctrine...nobody will use it. Once this is out, goodluck finding a Jap player who'll agree to not use this feature.