CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

[Andy Mac]

I know this is a little late to be commenting on CHS but I wanted to ask a question of those that have tried it as I am very nervous about a couple of aspects.

BTW I think the map and all the work is great and I am NOT disputing historical accuracy merely the impact on the game said historical accuracy will have.

I play allies and I am about to start my 1st PBEM on the CHS scenario. In preparation I have been revieing the allied side in all its aspects to try and understand the impacts of the new map and new OOB.

I understand most of whats been done and I think its great I do however have a few questions/comments. I like whats happened to ground and naval OOB's on the allied side it looks great.

My nervousness is on the air side.

Perhaps I have had it to easy in other games but the following jump out at me

The 50% reduction of P38G production 2 months to equip a single group ?
lower P40B ok a ceased type but it was a help in easing pressure on P40E pool
no P36 ok a ceased type but it was a help in easing pressure on P40E/ P40B pool
lower B17E's 17 a month ?

I am sure this is all historic but as an allied player (who I freely admit hasnt yet played a game) I am concerned that outside of India where the Hurricanes will do well as the 2b looks right I cannot see a single allied fighter type having the replacements to stand up to Japanese types. Not because of quality but because of a ahistorical quantity as the Japanese will re organise production and you will be swamped with Tonies/Tojo's and Zeroes etc. (Actually the RAF did well out of CHS, USMC is untouched as is USN its RAAF and USAAF that has me slightly concerned)

i.e. the apparent change to Wirraways to prevent the upgrade to Hurricanes or Spits in fact until Boomerangs come along there is no upgrade for these useless aircraft even if using user defined upgrades which is suposed to free up options.

My concern is that if the Japanese were restricted to historic production then this probably wouldnt be an issue but by striving for historical accuracy in this mod given the faster pace in general of WITP and the inevitable concentration/ reorganisation of Japanese fighter production I just am concerned that the Japanese will run roughshod over the allies well beyond Summer 43 dues to the allies having sqns with no planes.

My other concern is the bombers I have no real probelm with cutting heavies but given the inability of allied aircraft to damage anything with a 500lber the severe cutting in numbers of Beauforts leaves me a little concerned. Torpedo bombers are a neccesity for stopping enemy shipping far more than in real life by my count the allies will only recieve 150 ish of this type which is not enough to fight it out.

I would really like to hear the views of any players that have a PBEM in mid to late 42 as my initial reaction is trouble coming for me.

As I said I am not disputing historical accuracy merely worried about the impact of Japanese production, the pace of PBEM's and the ability of the allies to fight anywhere against concentration of force i.e. has the quest for historical accuracy on one side without the ability to balance it on the other side shortchanged the allies ?

Sorry if I am re raising old ground

Andy

[Andy Mac]

ps I had more examples on my list but the more I looked at it the more I saw the compensations and tradeoffs so I may just be missing something blatently obvious !!!!

[Andy Mac]

Just noticved the pushing back of Beaufighter arrival so my Beaufort point may be crap....


Note to self....triple check before posting

Andy

[jwilkerson]

My CHS PBEM is in June 43 ... but we are playing prior to the major reductions. But if you're worried about the levels then as you almost suggest - have Japanese player play with more historical upgrades ( i.e. non-PDU ) ... I am playing Japanese with non-PDU ( and also both of my stock PBEMs I'm playing non-PDU ). Nothing says you MUST play with PDU on. Once you get more comfortable with the system you may enjoy the challenge of allowing your IJ opponent to have PDU on.

[Andrew Brown]

You raise valid concerns, but I think we need results from actual playtesting, as well as a look at the production figures. The idea of CHS it to make the game more accurate. If the Allied production levels are more accurate, but the Japanese levels are not, then that would need to be looked at as well.

I am no expert in these things, and I don't have a lot of free time, so I can't contribute much myself. If there is evidence of Japanese overproduction relative to the Allies (or not), then I would be interested to see it.

[Andy Mac]

Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!)

My gut tells me the USAAF especially is going to be in a world of pain. Ill check back in 6 months after my opponent has kicked me all over the Pacific and let you know how it went !!!!

(I think even 30 or 40 of those P26's in the pool would help to allow P40 Sqns to crossover to P39D's in PDU games....the old downgrade upgrade trick ;P)

[Andy Mac]

And yes I missed another one 10 Lancers a month...

Its going to be a diverse Gp of USAAF fighter aircraft but there are compensations for the loss !!!

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!)

Kool. Only a little over 7 months to equip 1 group. Hope you dont have any op losses.

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!)

Kool. Only a little over 7 months to equip 1 group. Hope you dont have any op losses.

If the weather is anywhere as "wet" in the CHS version as it is in the Official 1.604 then the Allied player will be lucky to ever have any fighters in the air. [8|]

I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. And why would someone want to play the Japanese side under these conditions when all the Allies can do is run away as fast as possible for at least the first game year? Ask Tophat how he likes the fact that day after day, month after month I don't let him catch any of my US units? He's bored silly and keeps on asking me to send out the carriers. But why should I when I don't have a chance to win with them?

How many folks remember how a year or so ago I posted a thread asking, "Can an Allied Player Win this Game?" and I got jumped on by tons of people. Now you have folks like Nomad making comments like, "If you are the Allied player, and the Japanese haven't reach Autovictory, you are winning."

Years ago Pacwar got screwed up by amateurs who wanted to make things both more "historic" and more "playable" so that the Japanese had a "chance to win". Don't fall into the same trap guys...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

If the weather is anywhere as "wet" in the CHS version as it is in the Official 1.604 then the Allied player will be lucky to ever have any fighters in the air. [8|]

I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. And why would someone want to play the Japanese side under these conditions when all the Allies can do is run away as fast as possible for at least the first game year? Ask Tophat how he likes the fact that day after day, month after month I don't let him catch any of my US units? He's bored silly and keeps on asking me to send out the carriers. But why should I when I don't have a chance to win with them?

How many folks remember how a year or so ago I posted a thread asking, "Can an Allied Player Win this Game?" and I got jumped on by tons of people. Now you have folks like Nomad making comments like, "If you are the Allied player, and the Japanese haven't reach Autovictory, you are winning."

Years ago Pacwar got screwed up by amateurs who wanted to make things both more "historic" and more "playable" so that the Japanese had a "chance to win". Don't fall into the same trap guys...
Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. During the real war even the Japanese High Command knew they couldn't take on the US (yes, just the US who they considered their main rivals in the Pacific) for a long haul. I posted some charts earlier (which I can again if asked), where it showed that within 6 months of the war the US was already outproducing the Japanese in every category. But yet, you have people here who think the Japanese can launch attacks in China, India, DEI, the South Pacific and against the West Coast all at the same time ... and win.

[ADavidB]

IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. During the real war even the Japanese High Command knew they couldn't take on the US (yes, just the US who they considered their main rivals in the Pacific) for a long haul. I posted some charts earlier (which I can again if asked), where it showed that within 6 months of the war the US was already outproducing the Japanese in every category. But yet, you have people here who think the Japanese can launch attacks in China, India, DEI, the South Pacific and against the West Coast all at the same time ... and win.

The direction that WitP appears to be going is towards a "play balance" that will do exactly that - allow a Japanese player to win the game by lauching attacks everywhere at the same time. This is analogous to the situation that the Japanese player faces in 1944.

You know, we don't see a lot of AARs for 1944 or 1945 scenarios because most people don't want to play the Japanese side when the situation is hopeless. If the 1941/42 scenarios become equivalently one-sided, who will want to play the Allied side?

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!)

Kool. Only a little over 7 months to equip 1 group. Hope you dont have any op losses.

If the weather is anywhere as "wet" in the CHS version as it is in the Official 1.604 then the Allied player will be lucky to ever have any fighters in the air. [8|]

I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. And why would someone want to play the Japanese side under these conditions when all the Allies can do is run away as fast as possible for at least the first game year? Ask Tophat how he likes the fact that day after day, month after month I don't let him catch any of my US units? He's bored silly and keeps on asking me to send out the carriers. But why should I when I don't have a chance to win with them?

How many folks remember how a year or so ago I posted a thread asking, "Can an Allied Player Win this Game?" and I got jumped on by tons of people. Now you have folks like Nomad making comments like, "If you are the Allied player, and the Japanese haven't reach Autovictory, you are winning."

Years ago Pacwar got screwed up by amateurs who wanted to make things both more "historic" and more "playable" so that the Japanese had a "chance to win". Don't fall into the same trap guys...

Cheers -

Dave Baranyi

I guess you guys havent read all of those Oleg posts about CHS being an allied fanboy scenario...[8|]

all theyve tried to do is put in a correct OOB from historical research.

this back and forth stuff cracks me up [:D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB
I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604.

The idea behind CHS it to try to make the OOBs and TO&Es accurate. It is true that most of the effort so far in CHS has been directed at the Allies, but I think that is because that is where the interest (and expertise) of the contributors tends to lie.

If this has created imbalances in CHS, then they should be addressed, but I think that any changes should be based on research and play(test) results, rather than anecdote alone.

[Don Bowen]

Well, this has been an interesting thread. After all those rants about having favored the allies and screwed the Japanese it's very refreshing to see some allied teeth-gnashing. If everybody thinks their side got hurt, I'd say we did a very good job.

I'd also like to point out that there are a number of modified scenarios out there with different viewpoints and emphasis. Everyone can pick the one that suits them best.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: dereck
IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. During the real war even the Japanese High Command knew they couldn't take on the US (yes, just the US who they considered their main rivals in the Pacific) for a long haul. I posted some charts earlier (which I can again if asked), where it showed that within 6 months of the war the US was already outproducing the Japanese in every category. But yet, you have people here who think the Japanese can launch attacks in China, India, DEI, the South Pacific and against the West Coast all at the same time ... and win.

Yet that is precisely what a "HISTORICAL" scenario should offer. Historically the Japanese had approximately the same chance as a snowball in Hell---and that is what the CHS should be in it's BASIC form! Once they get that right, then you can start playing around with "options" and editors to make things more competative. But if you don't get the foundation right, nothing you build on it will stand for long.

[denisonh]

Historical OOBs without requiring garrisons in conquered territiories allows the Japanese to divert these forces towards offensive operations, creating a significant "ahistorical" effect. (the DEI and phillipines should require garrisons, something they do not currently require)

Just as much effort needs to be put into some of the modeling of effects that created the need for all the garrison forces or it will make all there effort to make it historical a waste.

[testarossa]

I’m in June 1943 and finally filled out last of my groups with P-40b, I still have around 6 groups with p-36, 8-10 groups with B-18. And this happened only because of P-40N.

Historical numbers represent production in response to the historical losses.

Allies produced whatever they needed. If they would’ve needed 5000 more P-40E they would’ve produced 5000 more P-40Es. Same for B-17 and P-38.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Yet that is precisely what a "HISTORICAL" scenario should offer. Historically the Japanese had approximately the same chance as a snowball in Hell---and that is what the CHS should be in it's BASIC form! Once they get that right, then you can start playing around with "options" and editors to make things more competative. But if you don't get the foundation right, nothing you build on it will stand for long.

That is exactly my view as well, Mike.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

I’m in June 1943 and finally filled out last of my groups with P-40b, I still have around 6 groups with p-36, 8-10 groups with B-18. And this happened only because of P-40N.

Historical numbers represent production in response to the historical losses.

Allies produced whatever they needed. If they would’ve needed 5000 more P-40E they would’ve produced 5000 more P-40Es. Same for B-17 and P-38.

In December 1941 the US only had 54% of the aircraft the Japanese did in the Pacific. Just six months later they had 290% of what the Japanese did.

[mlees]

The US industrial might was HUGE. Historically, the majority of the production went to Europe, and as lend lease to other allies.

If the Japanese had landed on Australia, I would like to think the US would have diverted ETO bound stuff to the PTO. I feel that it is reasonably safe to say they would have done that had the Japanese landed on the US west coast.

Just how much the US player should get in equipment and manpower allocated to the PTO, based on how well the Japanese player does in a particular game, is speculation at it's most enjoyable (and more suited to "World in Flames"), but not fun for the IJN player. Keeping it at the historical levels is well enough, as it does not penalise the Japanese player for doing well.