Should changing the aircraft upgrade path cost Political points?

[siRkid]

I thought this was a good question.

[tsimmonds]

I said "yes", because there should be some cost, whether of political points, supply, HI, or what have you.

[mbatch729]

Yes. Various elements of the Japanese Military and Industrial "complex" would have a stake in what aircraft were being produced. Changing those has some political "cost" associated with it.

[Ron Saueracker]

Big time! Thanks for this Kid. If simply changing a/c HQs costs PP, then this should be quite the PP hit.

[Mr.Frag]

It you are voting yes, you need to qualify your vote with how much and should it vary by type.

Keep in mind that *both* sides have this ability, it is not a Japan only thing. Japan already has a rather large penality imposed for changing production (1000 supply per point + time + instant convert price) for each point of aircraft production shifted off the default track. Explain why you feel an even larger penalty is needed.

[forranger]

Clear no from me. Japs are punished already with retooling cost for factories.

I'd welcome loss of experience though. No pilot can climb into the cockpit of a new plane and give the same performance he aquired during long training in his older crate.......

How about experience loss of 5 to 10 points for each pilot of a squadron changing planes?

[MadmanRick]

I voted yes. As changing the upgrade path from essentially worthless a/c (such as Oscars) to much more capable a/c, WILL have an effect on combat results, there should be an additional PP penalty. Yes, this should apply to both sides and it should be by type and I believe the penalty should be similar to the one currently used for switching a/c HQ's. I mean we don't want to make it so expensive that it's not worth it to change. But, there MUST be some sort of penalty, otherwise some will just go changing willy-nilly.

Rick

[mogami]

Hi, I'll use the Nate as an example.
On Dec 7 1941 Japan has 2 factories producing the Nate. 700 Nates in the pool. Without any rule change both these factories convert on turn 1. If they convert to Oscar-Ib (the aircraft players are going to upgrade to) it costs 49k supply and 29 days. Oscar-Ib production would then be 111 aircraft per month.

There are 11 Sentai of 36 AC and a half dozen or so 12 AC Chutai Approx 468 AC total.
67 Oscar-Ib in pool.
It takes 29 days to reach full production. (converting just the Nate factories)
So a little over 4 months after the war begins Japan can convert all existing Nate groups to Oscar-Ib.

If this seems reasonable then no further limits are required.

If it seems a little too easy then something has to brake the speed. (Not stop it from occuring)

Why didn't Japan embark on a program that would have so cheaply improved the Army Air Force?

In the game these factories are being converted (most likely to A6M2 production that result in a large stockpile of A6M2 after the A5M are converted.)

It doesn't cost anything extra. It costs the same 49k of supply that most Japanese players are all ready expending changing the factories.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It you are voting yes, you need to qualify your vote with how much and should it vary by type.

Keep in mind that *both* sides have this ability, it is not a Japan only thing. Japan already has a rather large penality imposed for changing production (1000 supply per point + time + instant convert price) for each point of aircraft production shifted off the default track. Explain why you feel an even larger penalty is needed.

Aside from any political issues, let's talk historical context, historical limitations, what have you, that this game utterly fails to model. We don't have any penalties for HQ or nationality interaction aside from a few restricted HQ limitations. Ships don't have HQ attachment restrictions at all,and personally I believe they are needed. No IJA vs IJN conflict limiting operations, sealift capacity etc. Wonder why the PI and Malaya and everything else falls so fast? The invasions at the opening of hostilities basically maxed out Japans sealift capacity, but in every PBEM of WITP, the Jap player triples the size of the invasion forces for PI and Malaya, and does so within the first week! Yet...we are frigging with historical forces. Lets finish the vegetables on your plate, kids, or no desert.[:-]

Personally, if we are going to add this, then more pressing things need to be added as well.

Add HQ attachments for ships and have real restrictions added to HQs for all unit types. eg:

--Mixed Command HQ operations, ie, operations conducted by SouWesPac but require CVs attached to CentPac must pay PPs to allow them to transfer, mixed Jap Army and Navy operations must pay PP if units from one support the other etc.

--Make AK/AP type eligible to carry units of same HQ. Such restrictions will force the player to build up PP in order to conduct ops, thereby slowing down the game.

--Ships of differing HQs if placed in same TF suffer penalties in surface combat (represents lack of training among strange ships of same nation)

--Ships of different Nationalities pay more severe surface combat penalties due to an even greater difference in operational methods and lack of unit training.

--Add morale and fatigue to ships!!!

To me, PPs are not just political, but operation points, logistical points,whatever hindrance is necessary. Of course PP need bespent for upgrades, butlet'snot forget the need for PPs elsewhere as well.

[forranger]

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick

I voted yes. As changing the upgrade path from essentially worthless a/c (such as Oscars) to much more capable a/c, WILL have an effect on combat results, there should be an additional PP penalty. ............. I mean we don't want to make it so expensive that it's not worth it to change. But, there MUST be some sort of penalty, otherwise some will just go changing willy-nilly.

Rick

How about allied cannonfodder? Playing allies I can think of upgrading US and aussie wirraways, buffalos and P-40E earlier (don't know if brits and dutch will be allowed earlier upgrades than now, they have plenty of upgrade candidates too), and once P-38's get produced you'll have more longrange escort squadrons for 4E bombers sooner. The impact will be felt on both sides.

Experience penalty would hurt more. Changing planes of elite squadrons would be a tougher decision.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

What about EXP?

Can we lower the EXP of all pilots in some squadron by some amount (let's say 10 - 20 points) whenever the aircraft type for that squadron is changed?

Wouldn't that be historical and accurate?


Leo "Apollo11"

[mogami]

Hi, Experiance loss should not be more then a point or 2. A trained pilot is around a 50-55 rating. Losing 20 points is a bit much.

The Allies cannot alter their production so they are limited in number of groups they can alter and the timing. The Japanese can convert to new aircraft models every group they want within 6 months of that aircraft entering production.
If we keep the auto upgrade of factories where they convert instantly and free of charge the Japanese could upgrade even faster.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Experiance loss should not be more then a point or 2. A trained pilot is around a 50-55 rating. Losing 20 points is a bit much.

I respectfully disagree!

IMHO no pilot can hop from one aircrfat type to another and loose just 5% of his skill (i.e. 1 - 2 EXP points as you suggest) - historically the difference from aircraft types was always big and transition period is required for additional training.

Again, IMHO, the 20-30% loss of skill (i.e. 10- 20 EXP points) is more realistic...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Hard Sarge]

Sorry Apollo
got to disagree here also
off the top of my head, the first that comes to mind is the 4th FG changeing to the P-51

also, there were units that would bring in one or two of the newer plane type, to be flown by all hands, while the stock pile was being built up for there change over

a number of GE units would change models as they came in, how many times do you see a JG that the Staffels are flying different planes

so I do not think a "large" exp drop is needed

(alot of times what we see in unit from the PTO and what not, when they were pulled out of the line for R@R and refit, would then be giving new plane types, for training and working up, but they would of been out of the line anyway)

HARD_Sarge

[Hard Sarge]

okay what kind of penaltys or restrickions (sorry for spelling) can we add in ?

IE for the IJA, can they change there planes to IJN types, or only IJA types (2nd would be better)

for Allied units, can different models be used between the Allies (US Fighter Group flying Spits, or only can fly US planes, again, 2nd is better)

the only real changes I would want to make in my games, would be the Chinese AF, and I would want to use, the Demons and Hawks that build up in the stock pile, as opposed to trying to Uberaize them

can the "cost" be made based on the year/month of the plane type ?

say it is 06/43, changeing a plane type to another plane from 04-06/43 would cost high,er, while a plane type from 09/42-03/43 would be less, and even less if it is before that (months and dates based on what you feel would be best)

hope some of that made sense

HARD_Sarge

[siRkid]

You guys must have forgot. When you upgrade, all the aircraft are in a not ready state (I'm at work and can't get the ture term). The time it takes to get the new aircraft into a ready state represents the pilots getting use to the new model. This was our answer to the experiance issue. I do not see this changing.

[2ndACR]

I will say yes, but it should be limited to about 50 pp points. That keeps it fairly small and managable for the Japanese player, yet not free.

I as the Japanese have trouble keeping PP points in my pool, but I try and switch HQ's for my units when I can so the chain of command makes some sense to me.

I will avoid the historical arguments, because what happened in history goes out the window the moment I make my first order.

[Andy Mac]

ORIGINAL: forranger

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick

I voted yes. As changing the upgrade path from essentially worthless a/c (such as Oscars) to much more capable a/c, WILL have an effect on combat results, there should be an additional PP penalty. ............. I mean we don't want to make it so expensive that it's not worth it to change. But, there MUST be some sort of penalty, otherwise some will just go changing willy-nilly.

Rick

How about allied cannonfodder? Playing allies I can think of upgrading US and aussie wirraways, buffalos and P-40E earlier (don't know if brits and dutch will be allowed earlier upgrades than now, they have plenty of upgrade candidates too), and once P-38's get produced you'll have more longrange escort squadrons for 4E bombers sooner. The impact will be felt on both sides.

Experience penalty would hurt more. Changing planes of elite squadrons would be a tougher decision.

Err I am always critically short of P40E's as is I would not want more P 40 squadrons.

It could be usefull for downgrading from 40 E's to 40 B's if required.

Andy

[testarossa]

I voted yes. There has to be the price for changing the history.

And I think allies should not have this option at all. Or at least PP penalty for Allies has to be enormous.

P.S. I'm in July 1943 playing allies against AI and have more than enough Lightnings, Hellcats and Corsairs to wipe the table by Jap air force.

[mikemike]

I respectfully disagree!

IMHO no pilot can hop from one aircrfat type to another and loose just 5% of his skill (i.e. 1 - 2 EXP points as you suggest) - historically the difference from aircraft types was always big and transition period is required for additional training.

Again, IMHO, the 20-30% loss of skill (i.e. 10- 20 EXP points) is more realistic...


Leo "Apollo11"

Apollo 11, I respectfully disagree. You are probably thinking about modern aircraft where the changeover can easily take several months even for an experienced pilot (they have to learn all the new systems, mainly - their former aircraft will have been 1-2 generations earlier). With WWII aircraft, there wouldn´t be nearly that much of a difficulty. If you can believe Scott Crossfield´s autobiography, all he needed to switch from the Hellcat to the Corsair was a single familiarization flight. German fighter pilots switched frequently between types without a lot of adversarial effects.

BTW, I voted for no PP penalty for switching the upgrade path. If there is any penalty at all, it should be for re-equipping a unit, EVERYTIME. Re-equipment planes have to be produced, assigned, transported to the receiving unit etc.

There is another aspect that has been overlooked, IMHO. In the Rel. 1.41 thread, Halsey thought that the "Zero Bonus" should be deleted. I beg to differ! Judging from historical experience, there should be a bonus of this kind for any new type that goes into combat, at least for fighters. It always took the opposition some time to come to grips with the characteristics of a new type. Remember, for instance, the time JG´s 2 and 26 introduced the FW190 at the Channel. They ran up a 10-1 kill ratio against the Spit V, to a large part because the RAF had no idea how to counter the beast. The RAF did better after a FW190 had been captured and test-flown. Or remember how Japanese pilots were surprised initially by the bottom-rear gun on the TBF. Or the way Allied pilots had to learn they couldn´t just dive away from a Ki-61.

Ideally, any new type (except level bombers, transports, patrol planes) should get a 10-20% air combat bonus during the two months after first being used in combat, but that feels too complicated to implement. Perhaps for the first three months after start of production?