POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Post Reply
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

POLL: Solution to Aircraft Upgrades

Post by 2ndACR »

[Edited] I added some poll options to vote on. Please put any requests for new poll options in this thread. Thanks. - Erik

Here is the solution to the upgrade question put forth by Nikademus. I support it. it gives me the freedom I want. Give a yea or nay answer. Arguments can go to the UPGRADE thread.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

Now that i've posted enough to be flamed. Recall that i "did" say, i was against player controlled production unless it was a toggable option. Problem solved. Those who wish to fiddle, fiddle, those who dont...dont.

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

added: had to do it this way since only Matrix or a mod can poll.

edited for the new guys. PLEASE READ THE RELATED THREADS I PUNTED BEFORE VOTING.
User avatar
Rebel Yell
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:00 pm
Location: The Woodlands, TX USA

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by Rebel Yell »

Yea.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8575
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by bradfordkay »

My idea, nay "solution" for all the ruckas regarding upgrades/downgrades was a simple restrictive system.

Japan: IJN groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJN aircraft
IJA groups can only upgrade/downgrade to IJA aircraft

Further restrictions:

Fighter groups can only change to other types of fighter groups/Fighter-bombers
Bomber groups can only chage to other types of bomber groups.
(further: LBA to LBA only......Dive bomber to Dive bomber only, Torpedo bomber to torpedo bomber only)

Yeah, sounds reasonable. I'd like a switch to toggel this on or off, however.
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by freeboy »

You have a designer set against this...
gg patched war in russia to stop us from converting our Italian factories to tiger producers[:D] as I recall, and while I do not blame him, good luck getting this changed, ever
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by Blackhorse »

Affirmative. Good approach.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
User avatar
BartM
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:17 pm
Contact:

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by BartM »

yea (with exceptions) [:)]
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by Lemurs! »

Agree with everything but the first paragraph.

Freeboy,
What do you mean by your comment? we don't have different nations factories to work with so i am confused. This is not an attack or anything i am just curious.

Mike
Image
User avatar
drw61
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:58 pm
Location: South Carolina

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by drw61 »

I agree with this. With it being swichable it gives us more "what if" options.
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by freeboy »

Fisrt off, I love this game and gg's work..
I mean the game is hard coded against player changes without the editor... use of the editor is a compromise, one still cannot make choices for paths other than those set..
Frag mentioned the oposition was on the design side, and I know gg has a historical mindset in creating fun, historical relevent work...

My point to recap, no pun intended, is that it will never be the case,[:-], that one can change from a directed upgrade path for units without the editor
the origonal posting talks about production and groups.. two seperate but interelated and interdependant features... sorry to be vague, no disrespect to the designers either..

BTW:I love the ability to create better than historical units for both sides as an option
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by 2ndACR »

Easy answer, any debates can go to the upgrade thread. I want this to remain a "simple" thread if possible.

We have enough "hot" debate threads going on this subject already.
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by freeboy »

right, not an issue for me anyway since the out is the editor.. I still am pouting about the no min ocean intercepts , boo bhoo hoo.. can you hear my tears hitting the keyboard?
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
Brausepaul
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Deutschland

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by Brausepaul »

Yes, if toggable.
ZOOMIE1980
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 5:07 am

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by ZOOMIE1980 »

Yes. Good solution, if doable in reasonable timeframe. Add for BOTH sides, though. Rigid history buffs happy, BTR buffs happy. Only unhappy ones? Those that wish to impose their "game views" on everyone else.
User avatar
2ndACR
Posts: 5524
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:32 am
Location: Irving,Tx

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by 2ndACR »

Thank You Erik!!!!
User avatar
tsimmonds
Posts: 5490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: astride Mason and Dixon's Line

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by tsimmonds »

The only change I am really interested in is that the squadrons that appear in the game should be able to upgrade to aircraft that they actually used during the war. This is not currently the case, as many squadrons that stop in the game with Oscar II actually went on to receive Tony, Tojo, and/or Frank. If a squadron was destroyed IRL with an Oscar II TOE, it should still be given an upgrade path to one of the other IJA fighters in the game, in the same way that several IJN CVs have upgrade paths which reflect improvements that would have been made had they not been sunk instead.

Edit: I voted for "other limitations"
Fear the kitten!
Damien Thorn
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:20 am

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by Damien Thorn »

I actually voted to keep things they way they are now. Why? Well, I know it would help the Japanese to be able to actually USE those planes they produce (and that's a very good thing) but it would help the US even more to be able to churn out tons of P-38 and F4U groups.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by Mr.Frag »

but it would help the US even more to be able to churn out tons of P-38 and F4U groups.

Yep, one tends to not see the forest when staring at the type of bark on a tree.

Allow changes = end of game in 1943 - Allied Decisive Victory. I can see it now.

Just sit back and wait for the F4U's to kick in then sweep the board. All those useless Allied fighters become death machines. All those useless bombers become B-17E's and shoot down more fighters then the fighters [:D]
hithere
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by hithere »

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

I actually voted to keep things they way they are now. Why? Well, I know it would help the Japanese to be able to actually USE those planes they produce (and that's a very good thing) but it would help the US even more to be able to churn out tons of P-38 and F4U groups.

and that is a point alot of people are missing i think. here's a good what if....what if the US had a "screw you, Churchill" option and chose a "pacific first" stratagy? (can I say screw?) that should what? triple the industry output in the first year, 5 times by mid 43?
Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"
hithere
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Atlanta

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by hithere »

double post
Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: Solution to UPGRADE question.

Post by mogami »

Hi, I voted for no limits. (no option I don't want code that is not used in every game)

My system.

No airgroup reinforcements beyond those in pipeline at start of war. (nothing beyond 3 months)
Players must create their airgroups.
Airgroups can upgrade to models of same type. (they just pay supply cost for new aircraft and have to wait for them to repair like present system)

Decide how many airgroups can be in play at one time. When limit is reached in order to introduce a new group an existing group must be disbanded

Disbanded groups would not return on their own. The player would have to reform them like building a new group. (Withdrawn groups would work same as currently)

The reinforcement menu could be deleted and space used for other options.

Do the same with ground units.

I think we are stuck with the majority or ships being built. Any considered not acutally planned and paid for at start of game would be placed into a pool. Players could draw from pool for builds. When out of ships of a type and desired to build another he selects and ship is assigned a name from a pool of unused names (sunk ships names would return to pool) by type.


After all these changes are in place we will find the game still belongs to those who spend their time planning operations rather then playing factory supervisor
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”