Allied aircraft engines? [A really radical question]

[el cid again]

Suppose (it may be so) that Allied Aircraft COULD require engines

and suppose (it probably is so) that we COULD produce them

right now - in WITP I

should we?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Suppose (it may be so) that Allied Aircraft COULD require engines

and suppose (it probably is so) that we COULD produce them

right now - in WITP I

should we?

I'd say no. WITP is detailed to the point of being "picky" already. If the Allies had had major production problems with engine supply, maybe it would be worthwhile..., but compared to Japan's delima they really didn't. If you are going to add complexity, shouldn't it be in regard to something that actually mattered historically?

[witpqs]

I would also say no, both for the reason Mike stated, and because: Doing so would therefore gain nothing and given the many undocumented dependencies and outright bugs that the code suffers from it would take a long time to make it work. AE will be out next summer. IF the improvements promised work out half as well as promised, I doubt many of us will ever start the old version again. If you decide to continue RHS that would only make sense under the AE code base.

[JeffroK]

I think it should be looked at for WITP XXII, whenever that comes around. At least look into the varieties and numbers.
 
One major problem I see is that japan can put 100% towards the Pacific and both the US & UK are stuck with historical force levels. There should be some options, with VP penalties, for the Allies to increase their efforts into the Pacific theatre.

[spence]

A lot of work for no possible gain since Allied a/c reinforcements and replacements are fixed.

[JeffroK]

You can set up factories in the US, Oz & India to produce aircraft, I'm unsure of how to get them to expand or upgrade but assume it can be done.
 
Can you set an engine type for these aircraft?
 
Can you also set up engine factories in allied bases?
 
Maybe available slots would be a limit?

[el cid again]

Thanks for the comments.

I too initially was very skeptical of the idea - and remain somewhat so.

But it is evolving - which I will describe below.

First, let me answer the last questions first:

RHS ALREADY HAS ALLIED aircraft production in India - China Aircraft Corporation - renamed today as Hindustan Aircraft Ltd - moved from Canton to Bangalore - in 1941 - and its first production run of Hawks - is simulated right now.

CHS and RHS - at least - have aircraft production in Australia. RHS has expanded this - take a look at Sydney.

There may be problems with aircraft engines - this needs testing - Allied aircraft engines may not be an option. But I bet they are.

Now for the evolution:

Japan is really only using about 8 engine types. It also is using one imported engine type - associated with Ki-51 Is, Me-109s and Ki-64s (depending on scenario). There is not much happening with the 10th type - and we can realistically combine it at the top end.

IF we made a free slot, we could consider it to be a generic Allied Aircraft Engine (AAE).

IF we simulated aircraft engines with ONE type - the Japanese nightmare would not exist for them (not enough of the right type).

So why bother?

Right now, Allied aircraft all cost 18 HI points. This would make the cost range from 36 to 90 points. Right now HI points don't have the same meaning for both sides, in terms of feeding aircraft production. It would equalize that. Right now there is no difference in cost of aircraft at all. I like big planes costing more (even if not precisely enough more]

But there is more: if there is a problem - AI will tend to make it harder to produce bigger planes. And the Allies will be subject to having Aircraft Engine plants attacked. Similarly, AE plants need to be fed. All this fits the more elaborate RHS logistical scheme - and it does so on an equal basis for both sides - an RHS principle.

Not that it will work. It might. This thread is about - should we try it? And that is still not clear to me? But having thought about it for 12 hours, I am less hostile than I once was to the concept.

[JeffroK]

Sid,
 
Its worth bashing around.
 
The only reason we have WITP-AE is because of the various thoughts floated around this forum.
 
Any future WITP II will equally because of whats trwaled over here as well.
 
It may not work, so what. It could work, fantastic.
 
I would disagree with removing the problem japan had with engine production, but tweaking with it isnt a problem.
 
PS  WITP-AE will be 6 months away, at least. WITP II could be years, why not continue to develop ideas through WITP!!

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Thanks for the comments.

I too initially was very skeptical of the idea - and remain somewhat so.

But it is evolving - which I will describe below.

First, let me answer the last questions first:

RHS ALREADY HAS ALLIED aircraft production in India - China Aircraft Corporation - renamed today as Hindustan Aircraft Ltd - moved from Canton to Bangalore - in 1941 - and its first production run of Hawks - is simulated right now.

CHS and RHS - at least - have aircraft production in Australia. RHS has expanded this - take a look at Sydney.

There may be problems with aircraft engines - this needs testing - Allied aircraft engines may not be an option. But I bet they are.

Now for the evolution:

Japan is really only using about 8 engine types. It also is using one imported engine type - associated with Ki-51 Is, Me-109s and Ki-64s (depending on scenario). There is not much happening with the 10th type - and we can realistically combine it at the top end.

IF we made a free slot, we could consider it to be a generic Allied Aircraft Engine (AAE).

IF we simulated aircraft engines with ONE type - the Japanese nightmare would not exist for them (not enough of the right type).

So why bother?

Right now, Allied aircraft all cost 18 HI points. This would make the cost range from 36 to 90 points. Right now HI points don't have the same meaning for both sides, in terms of feeding aircraft production. It would equalize that. Right now there is no difference in cost of aircraft at all. I like big planes costing more (even if not precisely enough more]

But there is more: if there is a problem - AI will tend to make it harder to produce bigger planes. And the Allies will be subject to having Aircraft Engine plants attacked. Similarly, AE plants need to be fed. All this fits the more elaborate RHS logistical scheme - and it does so on an equal basis for both sides - an RHS principle.

Not that it will work. It might. This thread is about - should we try it? And that is still not clear to me? But having thought about it for 12 hours, I am less hostile than I once was to the concept.

Personally if you can get it to work I say go for it. I would like to see a day where the Allied economy is just like the Japanese economy. If that has to happen in WitpII then so be it. But maybe a working step in a mod in that direction will convince the developers to make it so for the next game. And who knows maybe in trying to get allied engines to work you may stumble across something that you never though was possible. As it stands now the great drawback to the game is Allied fighter production. If this takes us a step towards fixing that, then I say it is worth the effort.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think it should be looked at for WITP XXII, whenever that comes around. At least look into the varieties and numbers.

One major problem I see is that japan can put 100% towards the Pacific and both the US & UK are stuck with historical force levels. There should be some options, with VP penalties, for the Allies to increase their efforts into the Pacific theatre.

For the record, because multiple scenarios permit this, this is NOT the case in RHS. Note that many things change scenario to scenario, INCLUDING the proportion of the war effort going to PTO. Now a plane type (for example) which sent 100% to PTO already is not affected. But that is exceptional: most aircraft types have 125% of base in EOS family, and 150% of base in EEO. In between, planes that historically sent half of production to PTO STILL increaese - typically to 112.5% in EOS family and 125% in EEO. There are also differences in ships and land units - for the US. The UK/CW, Russians, Chinese are locked in - they already maxed out - and so not very much changes.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

A lot of work for no possible gain since Allied a/c reinforcements and replacements are fixed.

Actually, I don't think this is the case. I think Allied aircraft WILL FAIL to produce IF there are insufficient HI points. And we now know they WILL FAIL to produce if there are no engines. So if some aircraft production were damaged / captured - it might drive total engine production BELOW the number required (eventually) - forcing AI to allocate. In that case, it would discriminate against 4 engine planes (from bitter experience watching Japanese production).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid,

Its worth bashing around.

The only reason we have WITP-AE is because of the various thoughts floated around this forum.

Any future WITP II will equally because of whats trwaled over here as well.

It may not work, so what. It could work, fantastic.

I would disagree with removing the problem japan had with engine production, but tweaking with it isnt a problem.

PS  WITP-AE will be 6 months away, at least. WITP II could be years, why not continue to develop ideas through WITP!!

I note that it was acceptable to release WITP I without midget submarines, Kaiten, airplanes for submarine aircraft carriers (bombers - two classes carried them - and when the war ended - a float recon plane was at sea on such ships as well), no heavy transports, no Russian Navy, no Thais, no blimps, no snorkels (to name something RHS did NOT introduce - but which CHS and Andrew Brown did) - and I am not trying to be exhaustive here. I believe we can influence development by prooving concepts - IF they both work and are popular. I am surprised they changed code in WITP I so Russian ships can work - but they did!

Note further that Matrix has been kind to CHS and RHS - treating us like children: we were given access to an always existent but never implemented bit of code so both could introduce cavalry symbols (Matrix COULD have implemented it first; Matrix COULD have posted notice on the Forum; Matrix COULD have just let it sit there for the future - but it CHOOSE to tell Andrew and I privately); it has given us just in time technical support countless times to we could deliver more workable product. I don't see it likely that either the ideas we contribute to Matrix (which it is always free to modify or reject) not the help we get from Matrix changing - UNLESS we stop contributing ideas.

Right now there is a serious technical development at RHS - re pwhex files and map art - and it is evolving downward to a level of simplicity it may actually be considered for implementation - in spite of a formal decision such ideas do not make the cut for either WITP I or AE. We are at stage one - having already released 8 pwhex files for all Level 7 scenarios -
and have a utility to switch them in development. But looking ahead - we may be able to change things so there is only one pwhex file, it can be changed, and there also need be as few as one set of art panels - which if true makes changes very easy to implement! When we are ready to release more stages, the details will both come out and be available to play with - IF you want to - and we have carefully preserved the ability NOT to mess with it if you don't want to. Point is, technical development continues - and we are 99% confident this all applies to AE.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

Personally if you can get it to work I say go for it. I would like to see a day where the Allied economy is just like the Japanese economy. If that has to happen in WitpII then so be it. But maybe a working step in a mod in that direction will convince the developers to make it so for the next game. And who knows maybe in trying to get allied engines to work you may stumble across something that you never though was possible. As it stands now the great drawback to the game is Allied fighter production. If this takes us a step towards fixing that, then I say it is worth the effort.

[/quote]


Since FIGHTER production is something a mod may address, please elaborate.

My impression - having done the data entry - is the Allies have vastly too many fighters. I also am running long game test no 375 - just a few of those - and Allied fighter pools are mostly so large the planes are scrapped (shipped to other theaters?) by the code. In particular - a few minor variations back - I went over to a more liberal model for calculating plane numbers (probably wrongly as our attrition rates are too low) - so most Allied fighter numbers came up. And there are cases where the numbers seem vastly too large: the problem with that is that it is also historically correct (look up the P-47, IRL and in RHS). Since I also allocate greater FRACTIONS of production in EOS family and again in EEO, I also want to know specifically if you are speaking of CVO/BBO only - or even including EOS?

What I think you are describing is EARLY WAR fighter numbers. But these problems are real and historical - and should be present. Would we have flown P-43s if we had a choice for something better? Or P-35s for that matter? I don't see how to change them - sometimes you have every one there is (I did some total machine inventories). And in AE - when they increase attrition (or in WITP I update 1.9 if we are lucky - they might increase attrition here too) - it will be worse - because you will lose some of those few nice fighters you have. But I want to be sure: the words "greatest problem" bother me.

FYI air craft engines - IF they impacted - WOULD favor more single engine production. Mostly I don't think they will impact - unless the Allies are badly losing the war - Japan is bombing/bombarding California - etc.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: okami

Personally if you can get it to work I say go for it. I would like to see a day where the Allied economy is just like the Japanese economy. If that has to happen in WitpII then so be it. But maybe a working step in a mod in that direction will convince the developers to make it so for the next game. And who knows maybe in trying to get allied engines to work you may stumble across something that you never though was possible. As it stands now the great drawback to the game is Allied fighter production. If this takes us a step towards fixing that, then I say it is worth the effort.

Since FIGHTER production is something a mod may address, please elaborate.

My impression - having done the data entry - is the Allies have vastly too many fighters. I also am running long game test no 375 - just a few of those - and Allied fighter pools are mostly so large the planes are scrapped (shipped to other theaters?) by the code. In particular - a few minor variations back - I went over to a more liberal model for calculating plane numbers (probably wrongly as our attrition rates are too low) - so most Allied fighter numbers came up. And there are cases where the numbers seem vastly too large: the problem with that is that it is also historically correct (look up the P-47, IRL and in RHS). Since I also allocate greater FRACTIONS of production in EOS family and again in EEO, I also want to know specifically if you are speaking of CVO/BBO only - or even including EOS?

What I think you are describing is EARLY WAR fighter numbers. But these problems are real and historical - and should be present. Would we have flown P-43s if we had a choice for something better? Or P-35s for that matter? I don't see how to change them - sometimes you have every one there is (I did some total machine inventories). And in AE - when they increase attrition (or in WITP I update 1.9 if we are lucky - they might increase attrition here too) - it will be worse - because you will lose some of those few nice fighters you have. But I want to be sure: the words "greatest problem" bother me.

FYI air craft engines - IF they impacted - WOULD favor more single engine production. Mostly I don't think they will impact - unless the Allies are badly losing the war - Japan is bombing/bombarding California - etc.
[/quote]
I always play Japanese so my argument is not from an Allied point of view, nor does it reflect RHS as I have only just started playing your mod. But from a gameplay and strategic point of view from playing many CHS games, the number of allied fighters is low. This could be as you say historical, in which case we should not change it. But I have found that from a strategic point of view, if you know this weakness in the allies, as the Japanese you can exploit it. A war of attition between the historically low allied fighter production and the enhanced Japanese fighter production can cause this imbalance to continue far into the war with the added effect that the Japanese pilots get better while keeping their allied counterparts in the low 50's. I have done this in at least three games. I will be trying to do it in my first RHS game to see if the trend continues. It may not.

[el cid again]

IF you play AI you have a big problem: It CANNOT play the Allies - and it will NOT upgrade to the best fighters it can - most of the time. Each unit gets one and only one upgrade - when and if that fighter is available - and when no other unit ate them first!

A HUMAN can upgrade better than history - and in RHS for some planes you start with the entire pool. [This is sometimes true- planes were bought not for use - but to keep lines open - and if you want them - there they are; others were built for export - but you can still use em if you want to]

I did find some CHS values (long ago) too low - not just for fighters either - and some were upgraded. Particularly for CW aircaft. But CW is still on a very tight reign for many types. The Russians start off pretty awful - but it gets better over time - and the Russian fighters are nasty (if short legged) once you get something better than an I-16 (which isn't even made any more).

[Historiker]

One might look whether Australien and Russian planes recieved their engines from factories historical situated somewhere on the RHS map. If it is so, they shall use engines built there to enable attacks on these factories.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

IF you play AI you have a big problem: It CANNOT play the Allies - and it will NOT upgrade to the best fighters it can - most of the time. Each unit gets one and only one upgrade - when and if that fighter is available - and when no other unit ate them first!

A HUMAN can upgrade better than history - and in RHS for some planes you start with the entire pool. [This is sometimes true- planes were bought not for use - but to keep lines open - and if you want them - there they are; others were built for export - but you can still use em if you want to]

I did find some CHS values (long ago) too low - not just for fighters either - and some were upgraded. Particularly for CW aircaft. But CW is still on a very tight reign for many types. The Russians start off pretty awful - but it gets better over time - and the Russian fighters are nasty (if short legged) once you get something better than an I-16 (which isn't even made any more).

I never play the AI. I don't fight the Russians either. These games have been against human players all of which have been playing this game at least a year longer than I have. In each case the results have to a lesser or greater degree been the same. Although the Japanese pilot pool is limited their fighter pool is not. More airframes means more flight time as an attrition war leaves the Japanese with fighters while the allies are waiting for production. The lack of aircraft also means the allies can not train their pilots in a meaningful way and when those undertrained pilots meet up with double their numbers and better pilots they get slaughtered. The P-38 does not help them. I must say this is only for ground air as I have not had a chance to test it against American carriers in 1943 or 44. I am hoping that RHS with it's improved data will tone this trend down. We shall see. But then again RHS understands the true value of the 20mm cannon, something that stock and CHS did not. So it may get worse.

[el cid again]

Well - the Allies have lots of fighters. It is not unusual to get them in three figures (every month) for a single type! But it does not happen that way in 1942. There are still lots of fighters - but not always the fighers you want - nor (depending on scenario) in the nation you want them. A good player should convert some squadrons to "junk" fighters - to defend areas not being threatened anyway - to free up "good" fighters for use at the front. [US Marines went so far as to create fighter squadrons on float observation planes - and a few of these appear that way in RHS - LATER getting fighters - and this not at the beginning but later in the war] There are so many Allied plane types that generalization is difficult: you always have SOME types in short supply, some types in glut, some more or less balanced - and which is in what category dramatically changes over time. There are always lots of places you might want planes - and the trick in strategy is to put the right planes in the right place at the right time. IF you do that, the Japanese will think you have unlimited airpower - and if not - not. But the Japanese have interior lines - and the US Army Manual on Japanese Forces (Air Force Section) says they exploited them well. So it may seem the Allies have a rough time - because there is so MUCH to cover - and the distances on the exterior lines are so great. PTO is a vast desert - you can sink a million planes in it and not saturate most places.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Suppose (it may be so) that Allied Aircraft COULD require engines

and suppose (it probably is so) that we COULD produce them

right now - in WITP I

should we?

Mayby is this more radical to expand youre proposal with Vehicles and Armaments Factories for the Allieds

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But the Japanese have interior lines - and the US Army Manual on Japanese Forces (Air Force Section) says they exploited them well. So it may seem the Allies have a rough time - because there is so MUCH to cover - and the distances on the exterior lines are so great. PTO is a vast desert - you can sink a million planes in it and not saturate most places.

The limiting factory is fighter ranges. As the Japanese have the great fighter range the areas of conflict are less restricted to them. The allies may project airpower with their two and four engine bombers but for the most part they will be flying unescorted. China, Burma, Darwin area, and New Guinea are the only theaters that the allies can engage in with fighters without the use of carrier borne aircraft. These are choke points with limited airfields and thus the pace of the war can be dictated by the Japanese. I only brought the subject up because of other concerns voiced by AFB. If the aircraft that the allies have are historical in numbers then that is fine, but the fact that the game does not allow the allies to react to a change in Japanese production is not. I would like to see a solution which quites the critisism without making the game unplayable.