Questions regarding Production

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
CHITENG. When he finds a "hobby horse" he likes, he rides
that sucker totally into the ground. But even if he's right about
his B-17's..., he's wrong! He shouldn't build B-17's, but B-24's.
Longer range, better bomb laod, and also very heavy defensive
armament. Historically, the US realized this, which is why more
than twice as many B-24's as B-17's were built.

What he really needs to complain about is the historical rep-
resentation of the "heavies" in the game. They weren't nearly
as good as the Mediums in anti-shipping, ground support,
attacking airfields, and the like. What they could do is go a
long way and hit large targets with heavy loads. And the real
large targets for which they were designed (Cities and major
Industrial complexes) were few and far between until the B-29
brought Jaqpan itself in range. He needs to complain about the
unrealistic use that the game makes them capable of.

To paraphrase what a critic of mine once said, "It was implicit
in my suggestion of building the best aircraft types available at
any time that the IJA and the IJN would come to an understand-
ing which would give Army pilots access to the Zero rather than
the pitifully armed Oscar until something better came down the
line. The Navy has to have something to fly off of carriers, so
their choices are somewhat more restrictive. But Nakajima could
have built Zeros under licence for the army instead of Oscars.
Mostly I was looking for something that might improve Japanese
chances early in the war when things were still relatively even.

I have attacked the B-17 modeling. But you see, too many
B-17 promoters exist, they drown out the dissent.
The fact is that the B-17 is the lazy mans answer. You dont need
to work for victory. The UV B-17 will simply hand it to you.

I am well aware that the B-24 was a better plane, BUT in UV it
CAN be shot down. So no one uses it like they use the B-17.

The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. It wasnt used the
way UV allows it to be used.

[Aussie]

CHITENG. When he finds a "hobby horse" he likes, he rides
that sucker totally into the ground.

And continues to flog it after that...

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I have attacked the B-17 modeling. But you see, too many
B-17 promoters exist, they drown out the dissent.
The fact is that the B-17 is the lazy mans answer. You dont need
to work for victory. The UV B-17 will simply hand it to you.

I am well aware that the B-24 was a better plane, BUT in UV it
CAN be shot down. So no one uses it like they use the B-17.

The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. It wasnt used the
way UV allows it to be used.

My second paragraph backs your case totally. A-historic use
of the Heavies is a real threat to rational play in both UV and
WITP---AND MATRIX NEEDS TO DO SOME SERIOUS WORK ON IT
OR BOTH GAMES WILL BE TOTAL FAILURES!.

My first paragraph was a plea for you to stop wringing your
hands and whining about it (which is doing our case NO good
whatsoever) and go back to offering serious discussion and
researched commentary to disprove the lazy morons who want
to ignore history and reality in favor of making a joke out of any
serious game. One of the main reasons I proposed putting air-
craft altitudes in the hands of base commanders in another thread
was to give Matrix a way to dump this nonsense. Our case needs
serious support, not just a bunch of "sour grapes".

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
My second paragraph backs your case totally. A-historic use
of the Heavies is a real threat to rational play in both UV and
WITP---AND MATRIX NEEDS TO DO SOME SERIOUS WORK ON IT
OR BOTH GAMES WILL BE TOTAL FAILURES!.

My first paragraph was a plea for you to stop wringing your
hands and whining about it (which is doing our case NO good
whatsoever) and go back to offering serious discussion and
researched commentary to disprove the lazy morons who want
to ignore history and reality in favor of making a joke out of any
serious game. One of the main reasons I proposed putting air-
craft altitudes in the hands of base commanders in another thread
was to give Matrix a way to dump this nonsense. Our case needs
serious support, not just a bunch of "sour grapes".

Well you know....I think Gary has written ALOT of games,
I own most of them. I think he knows REAL critique from hype.
I will even go out on a limb and assume he reads this board
and these threads. Since I have played his games I know he is a
REAL wargamer. That means, he knows the impact of his design.

Now call me an optimist, but I think that my complaints about the B-17 modeling DO have an impact, in fact the extreme reaction
from the B-17 promoters confirms that THEY think it has an impact also.

I could of course be totally wrong, and the end product may indeed suck. But at least I tried =)

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Chiteng


The B-17 was an expensive weapon system. It wasnt used the
way UV allows it to be used.

:rolleyes: Here we go AGAIN:rolleyes: And what about the way IJN players "use" their CVs with 9 and even 11 CVs in one TF?

Is THAT historical??? Should we ban that as well?????

Your dis-like of the current modelling of the B-17 is well documented......everyone here knows where you stand. Now can we stop rail-roading good discussions and move back to the topic? Please?

[mdiehl]

That's right, Raverdave. The funny thing is that although the B17s weren't generally used this way, there's all this carping about the fact that people in UV may use them in this manner from the same folks who want IJN CV flotillas with hundreds of a/c on CAP, and who want pinpoint accuracy with bunker-busters dropped from pattern-bombing Kates. Frankly, had B17s routinely bombed from 6000 feet, they might well have turned into the ship killers that they were originally advertised to be.

IMO, there should be NO production options. All players get what the factories provide.

On an unrelated note, a previous post said that Army pilots can only fly army planes and so forth. May we assume that the production or distribution mechanism will give the Army the navy planes that it flew (like the A24 -- "SBD" by another name), the PB4Y, the naval operated B25s (I forget, for the moment, their USN designation) and so forth?

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
To paraphrase what a critic of mine once said, "It was implicit
in my suggestion of building the best aircraft types available at
any time that the IJA and the IJN would come to an understand-
ing which would give Army pilots access to the Zero rather than
the pitifully armed Oscar until something better came down the
line. The Navy has to have something to fly off of carriers, so
their choices are somewhat more restrictive. But Nakajima could
have built Zeros under licence for the army instead of Oscars.
Mostly I was looking for something that might improve Japanese
chances early in the war when things were still relatively even.

The only snag with assumptions like that is you totally ignore the reality of Japanese procurement and interservice rivalry. IIRC, the IJN and IJA didn't only have completely separate specification and procurement teams and policies, they tended to keep suppliers more or less tied to one service (Mitsubishi, IJN, Nakajima IJA for example). If you change this, or allow it to be ignored, you ignore one of the key constraints in the Japanese war capabilty. IMHO it is in the same league as allowing formation on the USAF in 1940 - just wasn't going to happen. If you ignore these issues, might as well allow Japan to be democracy, and not be prone to hopeless last stands! (I.E. it isn't then Japan!)

[Bulldog61]

I'm still waiting for someone to mention the the Japanesse should be allowed to produce Tiger and Panther Tanks. I mean it was possible.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
:rolleyes: Here we go AGAIN:rolleyes: And what about the way IJN players "use" their CVs with 9 and even 11 CVs in one TF?

Is THAT historical??? Should we ban that as well?????

Your dis-like of the current modelling of the B-17 is well documented......everyone here knows where you stand. Now can we stop rail-roading good discussions and move back to the topic? Please?

Jap CV can be destroyed. B-17 cant be shot down unless you are REAL lucky.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by mdiehl
That's right, Raverdave. The funny thing is that although the B17s weren't generally used this way, there's all this carping about the fact that people in UV may use them in this manner from the same folks who want IJN CV flotillas with hundreds of a/c on CAP, and who want pinpoint accuracy with bunker-busters dropped from pattern-bombing Kates. Frankly, had B17s routinely bombed from 6000 feet, they might well have turned into the ship killers that they were originally advertised to be.

IMO, there should be NO production options. All players get what the factories provide.

On an unrelated note, a previous post said that Army pilots can only fly army planes and so forth. May we assume that the production or distribution mechanism will give the Army the navy planes that it flew (like the A24 -- "SBD" by another name), the PB4Y, the naval operated B25s (I forget, for the moment, their USN designation) and so forth?

Sounds like Mdeihl doesnt want a game with production.
I am not surprised =)

[Flying fortress]

Well, but with the Japanese industry being so weak, they could not even produce the special armor that the tiger or the Panther used, much less could they produce the 75mmL/71nor the 88mmL/50 with the industry they had unless they decided to improve their industry. (Which of course would have taken at the very least a couple of years). But if given enough time and enough thought, it could have been possible, just not in 42 or 43, but maybe, juuuuuust mayyyybe late45~46? Who knows, we could argue about what country having this or that, but, I think that the best thing to do is to have a system which allows a player to choose his production (WITHIN REASON). The reason I say this is because war is fluid. Both sides continuously learned lessons and improved upon them, it was a question of who decided to put more money into the lessons that they learned in war. (More AA guns on ships instead of large caliber guns, radar, so on and so on). So would it not be best to allow the player play in a fluid environment where he could make the decisions (TO A CERTAIN EXTENT) and perhaps make a small decision which may change the outcome of a battle? (I.e. Japanese building submachineguns or semi-automatic rifles). Had the timeperiod of the game been less than 2~3years, I would not argue with being able to change/control production (Can't do much in such a short amount of time). But because this game focuses on a long time period, people should be able to control production.

The reason I say this is, if by some miracle, one could bomb Japan significantly in the early years of the war, production would be altered, Air defence would be improved, but most importantly of all production and R&D efforts would be delayed (small but noticeable differences. This is what HOI (hearts of Iron) did so well. Would it be realistic to have a preset schedule that the game follows when a country's production centers are being pounded? After all hurting a country's industry does hurt production and any schedules that may have been set before.

Personally, this is the reason for my support of a controllable production system. By having a pre-set production system, it would take away the fluid reality of war, and make it a more static game in which you could simply allow your production centers to be dusted off the face of the map and still get your 20 Zeros a week ( or what ever the number may be), or get your ships when your shipyards have been torn into pieces, etc, etc.

Just my .02c

[mogami]

Hi, All production (aircraft, ships, equipment) have points of origin.
(Factories, shipyards, resource/oil/manpower)
If you bomb these you will impact production.

A ship under construction advances via expending construction points produced by the shipyards and other industry. If none are produced the ship does not move towards completion.
If there are no engines aircraft do not get built.

The set production schedule is still subject to events. (less damage more resources they will finish sooner. More damage less resource they will finish slower.

The AI will not stop producing Oscars to build more Zeros but a human could order this change. It will result in a period of no or low production while the factory changes.

I'm uncertain if any unit/ship can be introduced that was not built or under construction in the actual war. But the production system is just now being integrated into the alpha version.

However, I do not look for changes in production to bring victory when planning the Japanese. I'd like it to make a few changes for specific areas (ASW and support ships (subtender, destroyer tender, ammunition, repair) I don't think I would try for more carriers. (But I'd build the historical ones)

[HMSWarspite]

The thing with flexibility of production, is that the more you allow, the more modelling of things outside the 'pure wargame' that you need. If you stick to historical production, you run the risk of not supporting the needs of the war. To use the example above, heavy bombing of the homeland, not resulting in an increase in AA, and heavy bomber destroyers.
If you allow typical 'wargamer' production, you get the player wanting to build nothing but the best fighter, or bomber, or whatever, based on knowledge of game stats, history or both. In reality, it did not happen. Why? Well, obviously, RL production directors don't have luxury of stats, so they don't know that the P4F has a manoevre of 34, which is one better than the Spiteful Mk 4.5, so they should build more of them. But more importantly, no one person (even in Germany) had full control of production. Even Speer, or the USSR, had constraints. UK aircraft production is a case in point. Spitfire better than Hurricane? But Hurri was in prod til 1943 (at least, Sea Hurri, 1944 IIRC). I know it changed role, but there were better aircraft for ground attack by 1943. Lancaster was the best British heavy bomber. Halifax was in prod til the end of the war. Need I go on? And why was this? Because there were constraints on changing production - both physical (tooling etc), and political/human (company jealousy, inter service rivalry etc).
I suggest that until you include all these constraints (or simulations of them), the production system has to be held on the inflexible side, if you want a reasonably realistic game.

Final question (relative to the Oscar/Zero question earlier. What do you think would have happened if the Emperor (or someone) had ordered the IJA to adopt the Zero, and licence it to Nakajima? I don't know, but my guess is that an army special version (probably inferior, maybe a different engine, or armament or something) produced late, would stagger in to limited service, and get a bad press in the army bosses. Maybe I am a pessimist on human nature, but thats my 2p.
Look at how many countries post war adopted what is often described as the best all round tank of the war (Panther). Or even a development of it. Remarkably few. France briefly IIRC, maybe a few others. No one put it in production for long, if at all. T34 was more successful, but only because USSR cloned client state armies.

[Drongo]

Posted by HMASWarspite

I suggest that until you include all these constraints (or simulations of them), the production system has to be held on the inflexible side, if you want a reasonably realistic game.

If the current alpha is an indication of the final product, there will be substantial penalties for changing production from one aircraft type to another. Switching from one type to another is a costly and time consuming process and wouldn't be done on a whim.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
The only snag with assumptions like that is you totally ignore the reality of Japanese procurement and interservice rivalry. IIRC, the IJN and IJA didn't only have completely separate specification and procurement teams and policies, they tended to keep suppliers more or less tied to one service (Mitsubishi, IJN, Nakajima IJA for example). If you change this, or allow it to be ignored, you ignore one of the key constraints in the Japanese war capabilty. IMHO it is in the same league as allowing formation on the USAF in 1940 - just wasn't going to happen. If you ignore these issues, might as well allow Japan to be democracy, and not be prone to hopeless last stands! (I.E. it isn't then Japan!)

Yes, you are right, and I know all this. The two services
couldn't even agree on a common electrical voltage. But we
were in a "what if" discussion---and it is certainly more within
the realms of possibility (not probability) that the Army, recogni-
zing the inadequacies of their own designs and the need for
an immediate improvement, could adopt an "Army Version" of
some of the more successful Naval designs. Makes more sense
than Japanese industry being able to crank out a BB in two years ond/or some of the other suggestions floating around. My point
was that even the "variants" should be held within the realms
of the physically possible.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Jap CV can be destroyed. B-17 cant be shot down unless you are REAL lucky.

Well I would suggest that you read the current AAR that Luskan and I have running. Luskan has done very good job in blunting my LRB attacks against Lugna with his Zeros. I would not call Luskan lucky, more like good planning and tactics.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
The thing with flexibility of production, is that the more you allow, the more modelling of things outside the 'pure wargame' that you need. If you stick to historical production, you run the risk of not supporting the needs of the war. To use the example above, heavy bombing of the homeland, not resulting in an increase in AA, and heavy bomber destroyers.
If you allow typical 'wargamer' production, you get the player wanting to build nothing but the best fighter, or bomber, or whatever, based on knowledge of game stats, history or both. In reality, it did not happen. Why? Well, obviously, RL production directors don't have luxury of stats, so they don't know that the P4F has a manoevre of 34, which is one better than the Spiteful Mk 4.5, so they should build more of them. But more importantly, no one person (even in Germany) had full control of production. Even Speer, or the USSR, had constraints. UK aircraft production is a case in point. Spitfire better than Hurricane? But Hurri was in prod til 1943 (at least, Sea Hurri, 1944 IIRC). I know it changed role, but there were better aircraft for ground attack by 1943. Lancaster was the best British heavy bomber. Halifax was in prod til the end of the war. Need I go on? And why was this? Because there were constraints on changing production - both physical (tooling etc), and political/human (company jealousy, inter service rivalry etc).
I suggest that until you include all these constraints (or simulations of them), the production system has to be held on the inflexible side, if you want a reasonably realistic game.

Final question (relative to the Oscar/Zero question earlier. What do you think would have happened if the Emperor (or someone) had ordered the IJA to adopt the Zero, and licence it to Nakajima? I don't know, but my guess is that an army special version (probably inferior, maybe a different engine, or armament or something) produced late, would stagger in to limited service, and get a bad press in the army bosses. Maybe I am a pessimist on human nature, but thats my 2p.
Look at how many countries post war adopted what is often described as the best all round tank of the war (Panther). Or even a development of it. Remarkably few. France briefly IIRC, maybe a few others. No one put it in production for long, if at all. T34 was more successful, but only because USSR cloned client state armies.

That was the point I was trying to get across - you did a much better job. We have too much hindsight/knowledge (i.e. stats) and are able to make much better informed decisions and too much absolute power (i.e. no political consequences).

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Well I would suggest that you read the current AAR that Luskan and I have running. Luskan has done very good job in blunting my LRB attacks against Lugna with his Zeros. I would not call Luskan lucky, more like good planning and tactics.

In the AAR I posted I intercepted 9 B-17 with 55 planes
at ZERO distance and with fatigue less than 10

Good Planning and tactics (whatever that means to you)
would NOT have given anyone a better chance.
No B-17 were lost.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by Chiteng
In the AAR I posted I intercepted 9 B-17 with 55 planes
at ZERO distance and with fatigue less than 10

Good Planning and tactics (whatever that means to you)
would NOT have given anyone a better chance.
No B-17 were lost.

Enough with the shameless plug for you opinion on the B-17.

We all know your opinion, no need to post it on every thread in the forum.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by denisonh
Enough with the shameless plug for you opinion on the B-17.

We all know your opinion, no need to post it on every thread in the forum.

Tell the people that I am replying to that they can stop challenging me on every thread. Until then I will defend my position =)