Matrix Games Forums

Greetings,

Another chapter on the last few details of perfecting this already excellent Pac-War simulation. The IJN production. Just the few key points.

1) limit Japanese AC expansion to 100 engines per month

http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1945/weben ... 11054.html

2) The HI points system does not take into account that
AC materials are not the same as Ship/Tank materials.

Limit Japanese AC materials
1 HI factory generates this much steel, and this much duralumin

japan averaged about 115,000 tonnes of aluminum production between 1942-1944.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Product ... uction.htm

Aluminum used for AC
Steel used for ships / ground forces

Japan managed to do well, relative to Germany, in expanding aircraft and engine production See The Air War.
It might have done better than it did - and it did not achieve the kinds of efficiency the UK or US did. Appointment
of a production tzar helped. Changing the rules would have helped - the services would raid the factories of the
other service and draft their people - for non aircraft production duties. Over time the loss of talent had catastrophic
impacts on quality and efficiency.

It is quite possible a non historical war with different management might have involved better choices. It is more
than just picking what kind of plane or engine to build. These policy choices are below the level we deal with in AE -
but possibly should not be imposed in all games. I try to distinguish between a strictly historical mod and one that
has more options. And if one forces Japan to make all its historical mistakes, it is very hard indeed for it to
prevail against eventually massive numbers of high quality enemy aircraft (not to mention other things like warships
and tanks and radar).

I am not advocating or opposing any suggested limit. I am saying keep in mind the design intent of any given mod when
deciding on limits. These may letigimately differ when there are different goals.

Agreed, it is not fun to face the economic realities of Japan,
but it is realistic.

A statement was made by a forum member once:

"japan had to build the machines, that built the machines, that build their AC"

Japanese production was massively focused on AC - what else were they building?

Tanks? No. Only 2,000 tanks and SPG in total.

Light Vehicles? No. Some thousands of trucks while the US built millions.

AA guns and artillery? Not too much.

Ships? Yes, but only because steel was available in some quantity (8 million tons per year)and aluminum was not (0.1 million tonnes per year)

Japan builds some 70,000 AC which is quite an achievement.
Japan just about runs out of aluminum by the end of the war.

The lack of Jigs and materials were the bottleneck of the Japanese AC industry.

Some officer proposed melting down the IJN battleships to build AC from their steel

(a Ki-84 prototype was built of steel, too heavy and did not fly)

I try to distinguish between a strictly historical mod and one that
has more options.

Yes. Options must exist for the IJN player, absolutely. Agreed.

Options include:

i)which types of AC to research and produce
ii) what ships to lay down and build
iii) to build more tanks or more artilley, AA guns or CD guns
iv) what types of ground forces to create (more support crews, or more infantry) maybe even change the TO&E of those ground forces.

v) perhaps even to pay political points and acquire some German tech
(He-100 fighters were historically delivered to japan before the war, and could have been
produced in 1941/1942, though the pilots objected since it was not maneuverable and
they built the slow Ki-61 with a cheap, lightened engine that failed)

The one optionthat does not exist is to ignore the economic realities that
were present, and the constraints of the Japanese war machine, that irrevocably
requires the IJN to win a series of battles with asymmetric results in order to survive
(as was the case in reality).

The limits you want to impose would not even allow for historical aircraft production.

Instead of crippling the japanese players, how about fixing the allied production that honestly does not produce quite enough?

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf



The one optionthat does not exist is to ignore the economic realities that
were present, and the constraints of the Japanese war machine, that irrevocably
requires the IJN to win a series of battles with asymmetric results in order to survive
(as was the case in reality).

There is atleast one flaw in your plan.

The Allied player is not forced to commit anything of substance to battle by way of political pressure not to mention all the Allied nations working as one. So therefore little to no chance of decisive battle against experienced opponents or even opponents with little experience. The formula for winning as an Allied player in scenario one is boring and simple, so much I quit playing the side. Your plans while interesting I doubt you'd find a player from the Japanese side willing to play it unless you're playing the Axis side. If so I'm wishing you much luck. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
The limits you want to impose would not even allow for historical aircraft production.

Instead of crippling the japanese players, how about fixing the allied production that honestly does not produce quite enough?

I wouldn't get exercised over this, Shark.

An interesting discussion with some decent points; but none of these 'corrections' will get implemented into the game code and, from the looks of them, are not possible to implement in Data. So it's a good discussion about what might be implemented, by some future group, in some future game. But don't get tangled up your shorts about how it might apply to AE. It doesn't, can't, and won't, however unfortunate that result may be.

So take it for what it is, a proposal for something different in a new game. Don't try to apply it to AE.[:)]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Shark7
The limits you want to impose would not even allow for historical aircraft production.

Instead of crippling the japanese players, how about fixing the allied production that honestly does not produce quite enough?

I wouldn't get exercised over this, Shark.

An interesting discussion with some decent points; but none of these 'corrections' will get implemented into the game code and, from the looks of them, are not possible to implement in Data. So it's a good discussion about what might be implemented, by some future group, in some future game. But don't get tangled up your shorts about how it might apply to AE. It doesn't, can't, and won't, however unfortunate that result may be.

So take it for what it is, a proposal for something different in a new game. Don't try to apply it to AE.[:)]

Well add to that wishlist: Allied on map production. Then we could have the new game War in the Pacific II: The Nightmare of Logistics. [:D]

In The Air War it is pointed out that the critical shortage of Japanese industry was in machine tools.
During the war it essentially could not buy any. So it was limited to what these could produce.
A sort of zero sum concept - you can make this or that - but not both - at any given time - with
any given machine. And total machine tool capacity actually declined over time - as mainly bomb
damage reduced the number - while almost none were obtained (and those via the USSR - which
was not inclined to permit much of that). So the comment about building the machines that
built the machines has considerable merit in that respect.

But in other ways - Japan was able to build aircraft and engine plants - and also (and contrary to some
books statements they did not) to convert auto plants to that same end. Indeed, I have material that
suggests TOO MUCH conversion of auto plants occurred - because the Japanese didn't appreciate the
value of motor vehicles enough (Yamashita excepted) - and eventually they converted some back - but
too late. This is probably true: Japan ended up with numbers of planes but not pilots for them. Better
to focus on more pilots and fewer planes - and those not obsolescent types. As with most things,
it is not just what you build, it is balance that is critical - lest you waste what you build.

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

Agreed, it is not fun to face the economic realities of Japan,
but it is realistic.

A statement was made by a forum member once:

"japan had to build the machines, that built the machines, that build their AC"

Japanese production was massively focused on AC - what else were they building?

Tanks? No. Only 2,000 tanks and SPG in total.

Light Vehicles? No. Some thousands of trucks while the US built millions.

AA guns and artillery? Not too much.

Ships? Yes, but only because steel was available in some quantity (8 million tons per year)and aluminum was not (0.1 million tonnes per year)

Japan builds some 70,000 AC which is quite an achievement.
Japan just about runs out of aluminum by the end of the war.

The lack of Jigs and materials were the bottleneck of the Japanese AC industry.

Some officer proposed melting down the IJN battleships to build AC from their steel

(a Ki-84 prototype was built of steel, too heavy and did not fly)

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Shark7
The limits you want to impose would not even allow for historical aircraft production.

Instead of crippling the japanese players, how about fixing the allied production that honestly does not produce quite enough?

I wouldn't get exercised over this, Shark.

An interesting discussion with some decent points; but none of these 'corrections' will get implemented into the game code and, from the looks of them, are not possible to implement in Data. So it's a good discussion about what might be implemented, by some future group, in some future game. But don't get tangled up your shorts about how it might apply to AE. It doesn't, can't, and won't, however unfortunate that result may be.

So take it for what it is, a proposal for something different in a new game. Don't try to apply it to AE.[:)]

Well add to that wishlist: Allied on map production. Then we could have the new game War in the Pacific II: The Nightmare of Logistics. [:D]

JF Dunnigan once wrote me privately "no one would want a game with logistics in it" - and went on to design one when the market said otherwise.
In many ways the game only makes sense in logistical terms. It is fought over resources and oil. It was caused by the embargo of iron, rubber and oil - deliberately done knowing it would cause the war. And absent the need to move resources - the Alllies have entirely too many "AKs to burn" in invasion transport and base logistical support. Sans Allied production, the Allies should probably have a 3/4 reduction in ocean shipping - just to force the admirals to have realistic amounts. Even then - the problem of escort of that economic shipping is gone. Yes - Japan didn't do much to attack it (except in the Indian Ocean - aided significantly by the Germans) - but that was a choice - not one we ought to impose on games. No need for Allied production means production is free - and not a potential Achilles heel if the enemy wants to go after it. Sinking a single ship not only kills the ship and its cargo - but prevents all cargos it ever would carry from being carried for the rest of the war.

ORIGINAL: elcid
JF Dunnigan once wrote me privately "no one would want a game with logistics in it" - and went on to design one when the market said otherwise.

When someone like Dunnegan writes to me privately, I keep those communications private, as they were intended. Anyone who pretends to talk about the content of private communications must be prepared to reveal the entire communication. That is the rule.

If you cite private communications with "big names", you are required to source them, just like the rest of us, so that people can determine the truth of what you say. In every private communication, I have ever referenced, I have always either cited the commo, in toto, and given a published text reference, or given an email address for verification.

I have seen many of these kinds of claims, over the years, on this and other forums, and have never seen a single instance where any one of them has been supported by anything other than windy smoke, mirrors, and wet owl fewmets.

The limits you want to impose would not even allow for historical aircraft production

Japan begins with approximately 500ac engines per month production (from the encyclopedia source, not the game)
at a rate of expansion of 100 per month, between 1942 to the end of 1944 japan is able to build just over 100,000 engines.

This is a bit above historical ~ (it assumes no damage from 4E during the later part of 1944)

As it stands in AE, using the original 6950 HI centers and focussing all production on AC (cancelling all shipping, all ground forces and not expanding HI centers) japan is able to build ~

- more than 600,000+ engines - because steel and duralumin are part of the same pool

I would like a system where some quantity of duralumin and some quantity of steel is generated from
each HI point.

I also have one additional point to make - the availability of supply at the base of production should be ignored.
The Axis player already is playing too many roles (minister of production, CIC of Navy, CIC of Army, minister of
resources). The lack of supply at the bases should be taken for granted.

I would be pleased to play the axis side of such a scenario, and one such scenario is just being developed by me at this point [:)] *(it also has empty TO&E slots for AC groups on both sides, in reality the TO&E were generated based on AC availabiilty, however since the days of WITP plenty of airframes are sitting in the pools, and plenty of pilots in the pools since there are not enough 'slots' in 'airgroups' [8|]

There are only 3 components that are real:

1) airframe
2)pilots
3) ground support crews

there is one component that is just paper: the TO&E name and size limit of the squadron