CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The allied player in the game doesnt play Roosevelt.

But we are talking about game design, namely the number of aircraft that would be produced and that was Roosevelt's decision. A great book that really gets inside this discussion is Walter J. Boyne's "Clash of Wings." I'll find the pertinent text and post it up later.

Worr, out

[worr]

ORIGINAL: spence
To me that indicates a bit more flexibility than WitP allows it.

Does it have any production flexibility?

I wish we could make some trade offs in the US economy in the game.

[Yamato hugger]

The point is worr, they did step up production to make up losses. As I said, the liberty ship is just 1 example of it. The aircraft industry wasnt very large at start, and it continued to grow all along. But, if they had needed more, they would have built more. There is an army ammunition plant in Rosemount MN that was only about 20% complete. They stopped builting it in 1944 (as someone just said, they were already winding down). Had they needed that plant, it surely would have been built, rushed into production if necessary.

And therein lies the problem with CHS. It only looks at production based on what was. Not what could have been. Or what would have been.

Edit: But by the same token, a commander on some island in the pacific isnt going to tell anyone not to make .50 calibre ammo there, he wants 40mm instead. Isnt going to happen. The Jap player (Tojo if you will) could make that decision.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

So, how is this thread helping to determine if CHS has the appropriate air industry for Japan?

I would bet that they got US production closer to history. But, the original question is whether Japan is too high, US is too low or is it just right. None of the last two pages is helping to determine if CHS is close to accurate.

bc

Thread's gone to sh*t, for a change ...

Scenario Editor/Design is the place to do this really.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The aircraft industry wasnt very large at start, and it continued to grow all along. But, if they had needed more, they would have built more.

No quarrel with that...but this illustrates the point that the growth was projected by decisions made at the begining of the war. You really should pick up Boyne's book if you are more interested in this. It wasn't that they were inflexible, but rather that they were wise.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

$1.14 for used is a steal!

Were there change orders? Sure! But were there greater needs than production? Most definately! And area commanders had to wait for the ramp up to reach its fevored pitch.

I agree that the game presents the production systems with pressures than envisioned by history...namely more losses than were historically acceptable. However, I don't buy the idea that you just ramp up production to over come this. Historically commanders in the PTO were told to cool it for just the reason...so as not to add pressure on production and draw material away from the ETO/MTO.

Guadalcannal is an interesting political development for this reason in WWII.

And therein lies the problem with CHS. It only looks at production based on what was. Not what could have been. Or what would have been.

Perhaps also the problem with the original game too. I would like some Allied flexibility in production myself...a.nd I'm sure others would enjoy it too. But it was probably a design deceision because of other dificulties with the code.

I know where you are gong with this...and do not disagree with your directoin. I just don't think the speculative arguement advances it as it should be.

Worr, out

[worr]

ORIGINAL: mlees

Hehe. I think the word "flexible" is what some of us got hung up on...

How about "herky-jerky"?

[spence]

MY POINT IS THAT AFTER THE ZAIBATSU EXPLAINED TO THE ARMY THE DISLOCATION AND HARDSHIP THAT WOULD RESULT FROM SWITCHING PRODUCTION OVER TO SOME NEW DESIGN THE ARMY ACQUIESED AND MADE THE DECISION TO GET BY WITH OSCAR IIs. ("YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND LORD")

[mlees]

So, how is this thread helping to determine if CHS has the appropriate air industry for Japan?

I would bet that they got US production closer to history. But, the original question is whether Japan is too high, US is too low or is it just right. None of the last two pages is helping to determine if CHS is close to accurate.

bc

Bolded by me for emphasis. Because the US production (and its potential) is what is being discussed.

The most accurate industrial output model (or at least, the one that can be defended the best) is the one that sets up the game, so that, if the AI controlled Japan, and with nearly the same level of success on the battlefied, the production of aircraft is very nearly the same as was historical.

However, as stated by others, the production model for the Allied player in the game cannot be modified by the player in game. So, despite the success or failure of the Japanese player, the Allied player is stuck with what is hardcoded in the scenerio file.

A human playing Japan will be able to tweak his industry to make more (or at least, more sensible) aircraft, etc. For the sake of game balance (which is needed as much as accuracy, if possible, IMO), the effects of this need to be accounted for with as little SWAGing as possible.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: spence

MY POINT IS THAT AFTER THE ZAIBATSU EXPLAINED TO THE ARMY THE DISLOCATION AND HARDSHIP THAT WOULD RESULT FROM SWITCHING PRODUCTION OVER TO SOME NEW DESIGN THE ARMY ACQUIESED AND MADE THE DECISION TO GET BY WITH OSCAR IIs. ("YOUR WISH IS MY COMMAND LORD")

"THE ARMY ACQUIESED AND MADE THE DECISION" Next?

worr, as far as acceptable losses goes, in game terms it's called "points" [;)]

[Kereguelen]

Well, trying to come back to the original topic of this thread. Does the perceived problem really lie in the Allied production? Maybe another approach could lead to a better solution.

Some points to consider:

(1) It seems that in the game (both "vanilla" and CHS) the Japanese player is able to produce more (many more) planes than the Japanese did historically.

(2) I've yet to see an AAR that lasts into late 1942 where this (Japanese plane production) did lead to shortages in armament production or ship construction for the Japanese. As far as I know, CHS did not change Japanese production figures (factories and HI), thus one can compare "vanilla" with CHS in this regard.

(3) Thus it seems that is has no (major if any) impact on Japanese production/industry if the Japanese player expands his aircraft production. He "only" has to spend the necessary supplies.

(4) Conclusion: Japanese production capacity in the game seems to be too high in the game (both in "vanilla" and CHS). That is, while the Japanese player should have production options, he should have to "pay" for the chosen path (production focus).

(5) Proposed solution: Reduction of available HI for Japan. HI "governs" production. If the Japanese player wants to expand HI, he has to provide supplies that he should miss elsewhere. Would leave the Japanese player all game-options.

K

[Yamato hugger]

Japs had 11,000 planes ready to go in 1945 for Olympic. Numbers of planes doesnt matter. As someone pointed out in another thread all the airplanes in the world with 30 experience pilots arent going to hit anything.

The limiting factor to the Japs isnt airplanes.

[worr]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


(2) I've yet to see an AAR that lasts into late 1942 where this (Japanese plane production) did lead to shortages in armament production or ship construction for the Japanese. As far as I know, CHS did not change Japanese production figures (factories and HI), thus one can compare "vanilla" with CHS in this regard.

Can anyone verify that?

I'm play CHS 1.6 now as allies...never tried it as Japan. I do feel it is taking a lot longer to fill out fighter squadrons as the allies, but I feel like I have more bomber squadrons than before.

[mlees]

"Herkey-Jerkey"? Never heard of that.

Do you mean unorganised? Nope. Consider:

Converting automobile factories to bomber factories was done rather quickly, considering that the equipment in the factories needed to be replaced, and the workforce retrained. B24 Liberator production increased at an astonishing rate through 1942 and 1943: Consolidated had tripled the size of their plant at San Diego and built a big new plant outside Fort Worth, Texas. More production came from Douglas in Tulsa, Oklahoma. North American was building a plant at Dallas, Texas. None of these were minor operations, but they were dwarfed by the vast new greenfield factory built by Ford at Willow Run near Detroit, which began operation in 1942 August. This was easily the largest factory in the United States, and the largest anywhere outside the USSR.

The shipbuilding mogul Henry Kaiser revamped the industry and how ships were built. Sixteen American shipyards built 2,751 Liberties between 1941 and 1945, easily the largest number of ships produced to a single design.

These are two examples of a team effort, not some "willy nilly" scramble to CYA...

[worr]

ORIGINAL: mlees
Do you mean unorganised?

No I meant organized...not unorganized. Herky Jerky would describe the on again off again approach of the axis.

It wasn't that the allied production plan was monolithic...but that it was wise. Hence it changed very little from what Roosevelt commended to it from the beginning.

[spence]

THE ARMY ACQUIESED...

It is those believing that the Army controlled production that are missing the point. Acquiescense is not generally construed as a hallmark of control.

The military was subservient to the real powers in Japan: the noble families who had traditionally controlled the country and who had become the leaders of Japanese industry. Those leaders of industry were more than happy to allow the military to embark on a program of imperialistic expansion because it would increase their wealth and power. The military may have recognized that all their pretty toys could not for long stand up to the vast economic resources of the United States and the Commonwealth but their lords, the Zaibatsu, did not.
It is hard to fathom why any patriotic soldier/sailor would launch their country on a course almost certainly suicidal. Then as now in Japan today, the political leaders (who were the military in the 1940s) are heavily influenced at the very least by the powerful industrial conglomerates, who are themselves remnants of the feudal society of ancient Japan. Those leaders, untrained in matters strictly military and unlikely to fully fathom the hard calculus of war, were the ones who set Japan on its course to destruction. It is ironic and unfortunate that unlike many of their German counterparts they were not held personally accountable in their defeat.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: irrelevant



Please tell me you're joking.

Hey, I'm famous! [:D]

Infamous? [;)]

Thats -more- than famous. [:D]

[Andy Mac]

OK I did a little simplistic analysis of CHS versus stock I dont think I missed anything but I may have.

In a stock game the USAAF starts with 140 Aircraft per month of which 50 are P40's and 50 are P39D's both are aguably frontline fighters.

The other 40 are a mix of P36/ 35 and 26's

This rises in October to 220 per month by adding 80 P38's a month giving 180 1st line fighters and 220 total frames

Under CHS the USAAF starts at 126 per month of which 42 are P40's 11 are P38's and 50 are P39D's i.e. 103 front line fighters. Where things are lower in 2nd line fighters with only 23 of which 10 are P400's and 10 are Lancers.

Where CHS differs is in October the USAAF recieves 36 P38's a month taking to totals to 162 for all frames or 139 front line fighters.

So CHS has reduced late 42 USAAF fighters by 58 per month of which 41 are front line fighters.

For the RAF/RAAF the situation is worse comparatively but as the loss is in Buffaloes and Mohawks the situation is less crucial as the allies eventually end up with 70 Hurricanes, 40 Spitfies and 40 Kittyhawks per month.

Anyway thats what the analysis tells us

Andy

[Andy Mac]

p.s. I ignored USN and FAA as they are both ok and relatively untouched

Andy

[Bradley7735]

Andy,

I think the issue here is not whether the US gets too few airframes. I think the issue is whether Japan gets too many. AB implied that the Japanese side wasn't looked at much, because the interest and expertise is in the allied side. I can understand this as I really don't know where to start to get an idea of how many airframes were produced each month by Japan. I can't research anything not in english. I assume the CHS guys are mostly in the same boat.

I do think what needs to be done is to see how many airframes were produced in 12/41 by japan. Modify any factory to make that number, and reduce all R&D factories to zero. The japanese player should expand any factory to expand production. They basically get their expanded factories at game start (they are all the R&D factories.) without paying the HI to expand them.

It would probably be a good idea to try and look at supply/resources/HI/factories/etc for Japan in general. Some folks think that Japan really never suffers a shortage of supply or fuel in the game. That's not historic. But, I can't really prove that it's true in CHS either. I'm not sure if there is even a person in the forums that can figure out that information. And, this thread probably belongs in the scenario sub-forum.

bc

[Andy Mac]

Bradley I agree not saying the figures are right or wrong.

In fact CHS are probably a lot more accurate no question.

This all started for me from a simple question that in GAME terms given the speed a ferocity and losses of WITP compared to actual. A loss rate the Japanese can sustain the game may be unbalanced.

No for a second am I suggesting the CHS team got it wrong but the increased accuracy does have game impacts !!!!

(p.s. I still havnt played a game so I could be talking rot)

Andy