Production options

[caine]

I wonder if ship building will be added in this game to the previous Pacific War.I would be great.Anyone knows it? I think that production orders for ship, planes and perhaps troops / tanks will make a real difference.If we add research options for achieving new weapons or improving building ship/aircraft times it would be perfect.All of this dependent of resources for Japan, obviously.

[U2]

Originally posted by caine
I wonder if ship building will be added in this game to the previous Pacific War.I would be great.Anyone knows it? I think that production orders for ship, planes and perhaps troops / tanks will make a real difference.If we add research options for achieving new weapons or improving building ship/aircraft times it would be perfect.All of this dependent of resources for Japan, obviously.

Hi

I really do agree with you that it would be great fun to decide which kind of ships to build and to research different weapons. BUT this would just make the game too BIG and I dont think the game engine which was used in UV would support it. The negative side of more production control and research is that it would be a fiction and not a historical game. I am almost 100% sure that you will get what the commanders had in the Pacific but will be able to control aircraft prouction and might be able to choose if the ship Shinano should be build as a BB or CV for example. There were many other ship conversions made during the war that I feel we should have control over but decisions on ship building taken before the war should be left alone.
Dan the Man

[caine]

I think it would not be so big.Some options to build are not so difficult to implement.I know it would not be an historical game, but if that was the case the Japanese would always lose the war.Having the option to play following historical building plans or personal buildin plan is better for game play and would make everyone happy.I am for flexibility, if possible.

[U2]

Originally posted by caine
I think it would not be so big.Some options to build are not so difficult to implement.I know it would not be an historical game, but if that was the case the Japanese would always lose the war.Having the option to play following historical building plans or personal buildin plan is better for game play and would make everyone happy.I am for flexibility, if possible.

Hi

I know that winning as the Japanese is not historical but thats OK with me but fictional shipbuilding and to research future technologies is not so much fun. If I win as the Japanese I want historical forces against historical American forces. Thats what these games are about although "what if" scenarios can be entertaining. The result of a wargame will never be historical but I want to achive that with historical forces. I not only enjoy wargames but also reading about the Second World War and thats why these types of games are special to me. Let us control ship conversions during the war and aircraft production but no more please.
Dan

[Svar]

Originally posted by U2


Hi

I know that winning as the Japanese is not historical but thats OK with me but fictional shipbuilding and to research future technologies is not so much fun. If I win as the Japanese I want historical forces against historical American forces. Thats what these games are about although "what if" scenarios can be entertaining. The result of a wargame will never be historical but I want to achive that with historical forces. I not only enjoy wargames but also reading about the Second World War and thats why these types of games are special to me. Let us control ship conversions during the war and aircraft production but no more please.
Dan

How do you feel about adjusting historical building programs depending in circumstances. For instance, the US delayed, scrapped, and cancelled many ships due to the fortunes of war. Would you allow a player to modify that or would you required the historical order of battle regardless of circumstances?

[U2]

Originally posted by Svar


How do you feel about adjusting historical building programs depending in circumstances. For instance, the US delayed, scrapped, and cancelled many ships due to the fortunes of war. Would you allow a player to modify that or would you required the historical order of battle regardless of circumstances?

Hi

Very good question SVAR. Something should be build into the game so when it passes a certain date, lets just say sep 45, these planned ships should be build and become availible. I strongly argue that Gary lets this game continue (if needed) for another 1-2 years so that we as Americans can invade Japan itself. The ships that would arrive after the historical date of surrender would thus be historical if you know what I mean. Same thing for planned Jap ships, weapon systems, aircraft types and so on. Perhaps these options should be build into a special longer scenario for those who would like to continue playing after Aug 45.
What do you think?
Dan

[showboat1]

Instead of extensive production options I think a good, detailed editor would be better. Something like PacEdit for Pac War. Extensive detailed list of aircraft, weapons, and ships of all types includng those that were proposed, but never actually used could be included in these lists. Also a ship builder would be nice so that armament andother details could be altered. I like playing the historical based games, but after awhile it could get repetitive and hence boring. Variety is the key to keeping things interesting. Besides, building my own scenarios is almost as fun as playing the game itself.

[RevRick]

In the old SPI board game - which I still have somewhere - production was modeled by allowing the player to order whatever ships were going to be available after those already on the ways were in service. You could speed up DD production or DE production and slow down CV production, or vice versa, and had to also produce the service forces and merchant shipping as well. That made it a truly strategic game - and not just operational. That model was based on a certain number of production points allowed each month and a given cost and production for each unit desired - and you had to balance all of those - and that was a fascinating aspect of a game of that magnitude. I'm all for production control. Tell Mr. General Motors that we don't need all of those poor breathing Allison engines - ramp up for Merlins. And by the way, forget the P-39 - get ready for something that can actually do something - or at least begin to pump out more P-40's. Do you take that risk or not - cut production of something that is mediocre at best and risk being short supplied at a critical moment for a long term gain in quality? That is gaming.

[cpt_Venomous]

Agree, production control would make the game PERFECT.

[Sam-I-am]

Second that!

I want to play a game not take history lessons.:rolleyes:

The "what if ?" is what makes playing history games so fun.




" what if ? " Hitler had not opened up a second front?

"what if"? brings the ability to change the mistakes that were done in the past.

OMG!!!!

"What if ?" the jap code had not been broken before the Midway battel?

This is the part I love.

[mdiehl]

I also enjoy "What if Singapore had been fortified from the landward side?" "What if USN S/J radar and good torpedoes had been available in February 1942?" "What if the PH strike had been recognized by the Diamond Head radar operators and the K-B pilots had arrived over target with no visible targets and eighty P40s bouncing them?" and "What if the B36 and long range P80s had been available in 1943?"

[caine]

I agree with this freedom.It makes possible to play an unlimited number of games without always the same conditions! Will we be heard? I hope.

[Kitakami]

So do I.

It may be doable by allowing players to choose, not only a scenario, but certain options via toggles, much like the options given in UV, like Japanese sub doctribe for example.

Let's take the Japanese as an example. We could have toggles for sub doctrine (again), less strict naval pilot training, carrier doctrine wins over battleship doctrine, and so on.

Same thing could be done with the Allies, and fortifying Singapore is a good example, but I am sure others could be found (like the US reinforcing the Phillippines?).

Just some thoughts.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Kitakami
So do I.

It may be doable by allowing players to choose, not only a scenario, but certain options via toggles, much like the options given in UV, like Japanese sub doctribe for example.

Let's take the Japanese as an example. We could have toggles for sub doctrine (again), less strict naval pilot training, carrier doctrine wins over battleship doctrine, and so on.

Same thing could be done with the Allies, and fortifying Singapore is a good example, but I am sure others could be found (like the US reinforcing the Phillippines?).

Just some thoughts.

Take this a step further and add point costs to all of these options. That way two players could balance each other out if one was better than the other. For example, allowing a more generous Japanese pilot training program might cost X ‘balance’ points ( for lack of a better term ). Fortifying Singapore might cost Y points. I think we’ve all seen boardgames where they have options like this in the back.

Yamamoto

[mogami]

Hi, One of the "house rules" made up by my old gang of board gamers for SPI's War in Europe was converting everything in the starting/build inventory into points and allowing the player to purchase what he wnated at start. Equpment was not a factor however in this old "combat value/CRT" game.
The Germans usally cahed in the Kreigsmarine and used the points for air or panzer units.

I have problems myself allowing such a thing here but I will explain how it could be down for those interested.

Everything has a victory point value. Add up the total for all units
(including those in production) Then allow player to "purchase" an equal amount of whatever they want.
This scenario would only require the Map (units can be placed at any friendly controlled base) And the buy menu.
(like SPWAW's force selection routine)
You would pick units, then when done go to deploy. The game would save the set up and then after all players had bought and deployed. The game would start.
To be more realistic a percentage of points would need to be spent on items that evolved into improved units later on. (You would need to build a certain amount of ships in one class to be able to buy another class. Same with AC. I would restrict The Airforces to their separate ac (INAAF flys army types USAAF flys Army types. etc) but these could be worked out in advance.

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by Yamamoto





Take this a step further and add point costs to all of these options. That way two players could balance each other out if one was better than the other. For example, allowing a more generous Japanese pilot training program might cost X ‘balance’ points ( for lack of a better term ). Fortifying Singapore might cost Y points. I think we’ve all seen boardgames where they have options like this in the back.

Yamamoto

Hmm... You are describing bid points, methinks.

(An excellent system.)

[Kitakami]

Now this could easily become grossly ahistorical soon, unless the decision tree was VERY well designed.

But if the game designers did put their effort into it, it would be something that I'd love to play, yes.

A less drastic solution could be to give a player a "base" situation and X ammount of points to spend as he/she wishes. That way the historical basis would be there, but the emphasis on this or that would be to the player's liking.

[Gabby]

I don't see the balance point system making the game potintialy ahistorcial as a bad thing.

Since it would be optional people could use it or not, thus allowing more people to be attracted to the game.

There's an old argument with us old wargammers, about which is more important, realisiam, or playablity. You have people people entrenched on both sides. These kind of options help please both type of players, which makes for a better product.

[Kitakami]

Originally posted by Gabby
I don't see the balance point system making the game potintialy ahistorcial as a bad thing.

Since it would be optional people could use it or not, thus allowing more people to be attracted to the game.

There's an old argument with us old wargammers, about which is more important, realisiam, or playablity. You have people people entrenched on both sides. These kind of options help please both type of players, which makes for a better product.

Agreed.

I just thought of the extreme results we could get with such a system, minimizing some things and maximizing others to exploit loopholes, unit chararcteristics, etc. We wargamers are VERY good at that <g>.

But if a base was set and you had to add to it, then it would "feel" more like WWII and less like Axis and Allies®.

I love to explore non-historical variations and possibilities, but if it becomes too loose, it might just loose the flavor UV has kept, even with options and non-historical scenarios.

[Wasp]

Well, looking at some of the posts about production, I see that we are kind of split about production. Some of us worry about the game becoming ahistorical, and I understand your point, but what's the fun if you don't get to choose, especially in a long campaign. This is just an idea, but, if this is possible it would be good and I think it could solve this problem. How about making production an option in the game? To have a historical production line with minimal player control. And have a ahistorical, but a realistic production line with maximum player control. (Ex. the Being able to convert battleships to carriers, add extra AA guns{with certain limits based on resources, etc} perhaps change the propulsion system of a ship thus increasing speed. {this took about a year~ year and a half} Or even being able to prioritize development of aircraft/being able to put out specifications of armaments or performance {of course within reasonable range, we wouldn't want a hellcat armed with a 16inch gun!} But I'm worried about the extra work that may have to go into the game.
Just another idea.


What do you think?