Factory System

[CarnageINC]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but after reading a question by Japan in the regular forum, I think that the loophole he is using should be addressed.

I was wondering if the factory system in AE is being changed any, and if so how?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

Sorry if this has been addressed, but after reading a question by Japan in the regular forum, I think that the loophole he is using should be addressed.

I was wondering if the factory system in AE is being changed any, and if so how?

Whether a "loophole" has been closed depends on what exactly that loophole is, and how a player set up their production system to exploit it. I don't know all of the details.

The only change to production in AE is that a prohibition has been added to prevent players from converting R&D factories into production line factories (i.e. factories building current aircraft instead of researching future ones) and vice versa. Players are still able to convert production from one current type to another current type, or R&D from one future type to another future type. This limitation can also be removed if a player wishes by using a new option in the Realism options screen, for players that want to be able to manipulate the production system in the same way that it can be manipulated by players such as "Japan" now. Therefore players playing PBEM can negotiate whether they want to play with realistic production or not.

Andrew

[Shark7]

The loophole he is referring to is the fact that japan has 2 factories (one at 512) producing around 800 Betties per month which he only turns on for a few days at a time. The same thing can happen with the armament factories (in fact I have done so, mostly because I overbuilt, but I do switch them on now and then when I need a boost to the armament pool).

The problem is not switching between R&D or Production, but rather the fact that there is no upper limit on how many airframes a single factory can build per month.

A good question to ask is at its peak, how many airframes could the largest US factory build in 1 month? Then base a Japanese hard-cap on that.

[CarnageINC]

If you haven't read "Japan's" posting about factories, Shark summed it up well enough.  To turn a factory on and off is fine, but shouldn't there be some penality for leaving a factory off for long periods of time?  Realistically a factory that only works 1 month a year would lose its skilled workers to other industries and jobs.  Factories don't turn on and off like lights, more like a train, hard to start but rolls fine once moving.  Couldn't a damage penality or a time penality be added on for excessive down time?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

If you haven't read "Japan's" posting about factories, Shark summed it up well enough.  To turn a factory on and off is fine, but shouldn't there be some penality for leaving a factory off for long periods of time?  Realistically a factory that only works 1 month a year would lose its skilled workers to other industries and jobs.  Factories don't turn on and off like lights, more like a train, hard to start but rolls fine once moving.  Couldn't a damage penality or a time penality be added on for excessive down time?

That makes sense, but the trick is how to do that in game terms. It is something that could be considered for the future, if exploiting production in this way is a problem.

Andrew

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The loophole he is referring to is the fact that japan has 2 factories (one at 512) producing around 800 Betties per month which he only turns on for a few days at a time. The same thing can happen with the armament factories (in fact I have done so, mostly because I overbuilt, but I do switch them on now and then when I need a boost to the armament pool).

The problem is not switching between R&D or Production, but rather the fact that there is no upper limit on how many airframes a single factory can build per month.

A good question to ask is at its peak, how many airframes could the largest US factory build in 1 month? Then base a Japanese hard-cap on that.

Dont see why this would be considered either a "loophole" or desirable. 1 good bombing raid and this 512 plane factory is toast. Give me 16 x 32 plane factories any day. Or better still, 32 x 16 plane factories.

[Shark7]

The main point is the fact that he could build a factory up that large. Nevermind that the cost is rediculous and having such a massive factory is pointless. Should there be an upper limit of how big they can be?

[drw61]

Not sure this would work but...
Part of the problem is the way the Japanese factories and shipyards expand, they double in size each time.  It would be better if the expansion was a set amount each time, say 5 or 10 points and then it could not expand again for a set time, maybe one or two weeks.  It may help slow down over-expansion.  

[spence]

At some point the expansion of the military and expansion of the civilian economy become a zero-sum game IRL. For Japan, having been at war for 4 years at the beginning of the game, that point was not that far off on 7 December 1941. Putting another private in uniform should mean another machinist off the production line.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The main point is the fact that he could build a factory up that large. Nevermind that the cost is rediculous and having such a massive factory is pointless. Should there be an upper limit of how big they can be?

AE was designed with the thought of giving players more freedom and flexibility. Preventing players from doing foolish things would be against its philosophy. For example: over-stacking airfields. It is absolutely one of the dumbest things a player can do in the game, yet people insist on doing it. I dont believe in putting in code to prevent stupidity.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
AE was designed with the thought of giving players more freedom and flexibility. Preventing players from doing foolish things would be against its philosophy. For example: over-stacking airfields. It is absolutely one of the dumbest things a player can do in the game, yet people insist on doing it. I dont believe in putting in code to prevent stupidity.

I think so long as said stupid things being done have repercussions worth mentioning everyone will be happy.[;)]

Example in case; having the facilities to produce nearly 800 airframes a month should absorb massive amounts of supply and take fairly long to build up.

Edit: I would also hope that over-stacking an airfield would lead to aircraft repair issues and coordination penalties etc. Not that I doubt all this has been thought of already but we are all on the same page when it comes to a certain amount of realism I would hope.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
AE was designed with the thought of giving players more freedom and flexibility. Preventing players from doing foolish things would be against its philosophy. For example: over-stacking airfields. It is absolutely one of the dumbest things a player can do in the game, yet people insist on doing it. I dont believe in putting in code to prevent stupidity.

I think so long as said stupid things being done have repercussions worth mentioning everyone will be happy.[;)]

Example in case; having the facilities to produce nearly 800 airframes a month should absorb massive amounts of supply and take fairly long to build up.

Edit: I would also hope that over-stacking an airfield would lead to aircraft repair issues and coordination penalties etc. Not that I doubt all this has been thought of already but we are all on the same page when it comes to a certain amount of realism I would hope.

Actually, much to my dismay, I just learned earlier this week that in addition to the 50 planes per base level limit, there is also a number of airgroups at a base limit regardless of number of planes.

I had 61 planes in 19 groups at Chungking (level 4 airbase) and found out it was "over stacked".

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
AE was designed with the thought of giving players more freedom and flexibility. Preventing players from doing foolish things would be against its philosophy. For example: over-stacking airfields. It is absolutely one of the dumbest things a player can do in the game, yet people insist on doing it. I dont believe in putting in code to prevent stupidity.

I think so long as said stupid things being done have repercussions worth mentioning everyone will be happy.[;)]

Example in case; having the facilities to produce nearly 800 airframes a month should absorb massive amounts of supply and take fairly long to build up.

Edit: I would also hope that over-stacking an airfield would lead to aircraft repair issues and coordination penalties etc. Not that I doubt all this has been thought of already but we are all on the same page when it comes to a certain amount of realism I would hope.

Actually, much to my dismay, I just learned earlier this week that in addition to the 50 planes per base level limit, there is also a number of airgroups at a base limit regardless of number of planes.

I had 61 planes in 19 groups at Chungking (level 4 airbase) and found out it was "over stacked".

That is a bit too restrictive. Then again, what are you doing with 61 aircraft spread over 19 squadrons anyway? [:-]

Perhaps as was mentioned earlier the real solution would be that each time you turn a factory off it should absorb Y*Factory Size in supply and manpower to switch it back on...basically a cost to take it out of mothballs. Probably a WiTPII thing though.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
AE was designed with the thought of giving players more freedom and flexibility. Preventing players from doing foolish things would be against its philosophy. For example: over-stacking airfields. It is absolutely one of the dumbest things a player can do in the game, yet people insist on doing it. I dont believe in putting in code to prevent stupidity.

I think so long as said stupid things being done have repercussions worth mentioning everyone will be happy.[;)]

Example in case; having the facilities to produce nearly 800 airframes a month should absorb massive amounts of supply and take fairly long to build up.

Edit: I would also hope that over-stacking an airfield would lead to aircraft repair issues and coordination penalties etc. Not that I doubt all this has been thought of already but we are all on the same page when it comes to a certain amount of realism I would hope.

Actually, much to my dismay, I just learned earlier this week that in addition to the 50 planes per base level limit, there is also a number of airgroups at a base limit regardless of number of planes.

I had 61 planes in 19 groups at Chungking (level 4 airbase) and found out it was "over stacked".

How did you find out it was overstacked? I've never seen an overstack message or anything...

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

How did you find out it was overstacked? I've never seen an overstack message or anything...

Number of groups appears in red:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

That is a bit too restrictive. Then again, what are you doing with 61 aircraft spread over 19 squadrons anyway? [:-]

The Chinese start with 3 to 6 planes in most of their squadrons.

[witpqs]

Can the # of air groups restriction be removed easily?

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

How did you find out it was overstacked? I've never seen an overstack message or anything...

Number of groups appears in red:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

That is a bit too restrictive. Then again, what are you doing with 61 aircraft spread over 19 squadrons anyway? [:-]

The Chinese start with 3 to 6 planes in most of their squadrons.

COOL!!!!! [&o]

[Yamato hugger]

If the number of planes is in red, you are overstacked there, if the size of the airfield is red, means the airbase is very heavily damaged (in most cases non-operational but I have seen exceptions). Airbase size can also be orange meaning damaged but operational.

[Panther Bait]

Regarding the turning on and off of airplane factories, it could also be thought of as working at below max capacity over a longer period of time.  While it is unlikely that a 200 plane factory would be completely shut down for 50% of the time and working at full capacity the other 50%, it is likely that they would operate at 100 planes a month all the time if that fulfilled the replacement needs.  Since WitP only allows max capacity or shut down, you don't have much choice but to shut them down some of the time.
 
On a side note, I do agree that Japan actually being able to build a 800 of any plane a month in one factory complex is a little over the top, but at least it did cost him a lot of supply to build that 800 plane capacity.
 
I do like the idea of increasing factories by some small preset amount rather than always doubling the existing number.  Doubling is ok for small factories, but sometimes I would like to bump production from 100 to 125, without having to go to 200.

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

If the number of planes is in red, you are overstacked there, if the size of the airfield is red, means the airbase is very heavily damaged (in most cases non-operational but I have seen exceptions). Airbase size can also be orange meaning damaged but operational.

I hope the AE has stricter penalties for overstaking. In stock, I'm currently playing a game where my opponent is able to launch 500-600 planes a turn from a level 4 airfield. If he is able to launch that many, I would have to assume that he has a lot more planes there...maybe 700-800 actually on the field, because some of them should not of launched. These planes are mostly Helens, Sallys, and Betty's....and the Betty's are still using torpedos.