CHS Base Question

[Wineguy]

Just started a new game as Allies and I no longer have a Middle East base. Aden is still there. I looked at CHS site but couldn't find this change. Is this correct? If so what happened to all the supplies that used to be at Middle East location?

Thanks, Steve.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Wineguy

Just started a new game as Allies and I no longer have a Middle East base. Aden is still there. I looked at CHS site but couldn't find this change. Is this correct? If so what happened to all the supplies that used to be at Middle East location?

Thanks, Steve.

Before the release of the new CHS, Andrew wrote me he planned to get rid of Middle East. It has no function. All functions were performed by Aden. In keeping with our general practice, we deleted Middle East from the RHS map - to insure it was compatable with Andrew Brown's Extended map. RHS released first - but the idea to do away with Middle East came from Andrew - and RHS just adopted it. CHS really did it first - even if it didn't first appear in CHS.

Most of the things that appeared at Middle East - including supplies - appear at Aden. Andrew (and separately I) have revised just what that is.
And in RHS some things that used to appear at Middle East appear in other places - because it appears that there is a better place. RHSEOS and RHSPPO go a step farther: many units that DO appear at Middle East in regular RHS appear in United States - and are assigned home commands. You must pay political points and ship the units to another theater.

This change - deleting Middle East - has been a bit of a problem: a number of ships, land units and air units didn't get changed - and appear in the desert where Middle East used to be (at least in RHS). All this should be fixed now - but may still be an issue for an obscure unit or two. I suspect CHS has this issue as well.

In a forum discussion Andrew wrote he agreed with my conception that entry hexes represent everything "behind" the hex. Supply points (or whatever) that appear there only enter the map there - they are not literally made in the hex. For some reason many people think Aden is off limits to attack - but Panama may properly be attacked. I disagree - I think Aden may be attacked - and should be defended.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Wineguy
Just started a new game as Allies and I no longer have a Middle East base. Aden is still there. I looked at CHS site but couldn't find this change. Is this correct? If so what happened to all the supplies that used to be at Middle East location?

The change is in the revision history document. CHS 2.00 update point 80:

80. The "Middle East" base has been removed. All air, sea and land units that formerly were based at, or arrived at, that base now appear at Aden. Aden is also now a source of daily oil and supplies for the Allies.

Note that the supplies etc. appearing at Aden were not correct until CHS 2.02.

Edit: It was first fixed in 2.02, then fixed again in 2.04.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This change - deleting Middle East - has been a bit of a problem: a number of ships, land units and air units didn't get changed - and appear in the desert where Middle East used to be (at least in RHS). All this should be fixed now - but may still be an issue for an obscure unit or two. I suspect CHS has this issue as well.

I am not aware of any such problem in CHS. I think there was one squadron I forgot to move but it was fixed. If you (or anyone) see a problem please let me know.

In a forum discussion Andrew wrote he agreed with my conception that entry hexes represent everything "behind" the hex. Supply points (or whatever) that appear there only enter the map there - they are not literally made in the hex. For some reason many people think Aden is off limits to attack - but Panama may properly be attacked. I disagree - I think Aden may be attacked - and should be defended.

"Edge" bases have always represented things "behind" the hex, including in stock scenarios. This is my understanding, anyway. Consider the problems that have occurred due to people attacking Karachi and complaining about the daily fuel/resources arriving there.

On my map Aden replaces Karachi in that function, but my assumption remains that the hex really represents British assets in the Middle East and Africa. That is also the reason why it should be off limits to attack by the Japanese: Could the Japanese have sent a few divisions to conquer all of the Middle East, Egypt and British Africa? I don't think so.

As you say Panama is different. It only represents Panama itself, and I believe it should be open to attack by the Japanese. The US "edge" base is the "United States" base.

Andrew

[el cid again]

I reviewed this matter with Cobra, and we agreed that it makes no sense to award victory points for a base (as CHS does in Aden) and then say it is not in the game. We decided the de facto decision implied by those victory points was right - left them as is - and advise Aden be defended.

As for the question "could Japan take the place" - well - surely they could if it isn't defended! And properly that question should be answered by the game itself. That is, if it cannot be done, let the Japanese lose when they try it. WITP in all forms - including CHS and RHS - does not permit the real anti-shipping campaign in the Indian Ocean - the only really long term effective one by the Axis in the war. In my view it is entirely proper that at least the line of communications be threatened (as by submarines).
In my view the idea you do not have to defend Aden or its sea approaches - no planes - no ships - no troops - means that many units are wrongly free to enter the big map. More than a small fraction of units in WITP were ONLY in the mideast - never on the map except near Aden.
IF we say it is off limits, and need not be defended, we probably should cull all these air squadrons, ships and land units out of the game. I am somewhat open to this concept: I find reducing unit count eases play - and I like the effects of drastically reducing AK and small craft counts.
[Also some AOs which feed the line of communications ports].

But one thing mystifies me: IF Aden is not really "on the map" -
aside from why does it have victory points for capture - what is its function? Why not make everything appear at Kerachi? Or perhaps a MOMP (mid ocean meeting point - a term from convoy organization)?
Why put it on the map if it is not in fact on the map in every sense? I like it on the map - but if it should not be there perhaps we can use that area for some other purpose (e.g. Madagascar).

[bradfordkay]

The reason that Aden was added to the map was to give the British a "safe" entry point. Early AARs were showing that an aggressive Japaniese player could put Britain completely out of the game by capturing Karachi - no Karachi, no reinforcements. The idea was that since Aden was off the indian subcontinent it would not be threatened by a Japanese conquering of India.

It was generally accepted on the forum that to capture a major nation's last reinforcement point, thus preventing all reinforcement's from arriving, is a little too gamey. YMMV

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
The reason that Aden was added to the map was to give the British a "safe" entry point. Early AARs were showing that an aggressive Japaniese player could put Britain completely out of the game by capturing Karachi - no Karachi, no reinforcements. The idea was that since Aden was off the indian subcontinent it would not be threatened by a Japanese conquering of India.

It was generally accepted on the forum that to capture a major nation's last reinforcement point, thus preventing all reinforcement's from arriving, is a little too gamey. YMMV

That is exactly correct. It is easier to use a house rule proclaiming that Aden is out of bounds, than to do the same with Karachi.

Also, the presence of Aden as a British entry point allows for the interdiction of British reinforcements and supplies by Japanese air and naval forces, if they can operate that far forward - something that is impossible if these things simply "appear" at Karachi.

As for the VP worth of Aden, it is worth 1 VP. I didn't reduce it to 0 because I was concerned that may introduce some strange effects. Aden used to be worth more in earlier versions of CHS because it WAS allowed to be attacked then - it was the old "Middle East" base that was considered out of bounds.

The only forces that are in Aden are a static base force and one squadron of aircraft (from memory). The Allied player could move that single squadron out, at the cost of losing the ability to conduct anti-shipping and ASW patrols, but I don't see that as a big advantage.

I would like to include Madagascar as well. I have looked at doing so in the past, but the map does not really allow it due to lack of room.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
As for the question "could Japan take the place" - well - surely they could if it isn't defended! And properly that question should be answered by the game itself.

The question I posed was not whether the Japanese could take Aden, but whether they could have taken what Aden represents - all of British East Africa, South Africa, the Middle East and Egypt. "Aden" is the name of that base, but the base really represents all of the areas that the British could have used as jumping off points for sending reinforcements to India.

The base could be renamed to a more proper title, such as "British Empire", but I prefer to stick with the name that comes from its geographical location.

[Wineguy]

Thanks for the clarification and Andrew thanks for all the work you have put into CHS, it is a marked improvement over stock. One last question, Aden appears to start with 18000 in fuel and 14126 in supplies, what happened to the 100's of thousands of supplies and fuel that the allieas used to get at the Middle East base?

Regards, Steve.

[rockmedic109]

It builds up fast enough.  I always pull every U.S. AK in the Indian Ocean and wait for enough supplies to be built up at Aden {About a month and a half} and send them to Australia to drop off supplies on their way back to the states.

[Gen.Hoepner]

I have a question: Panama doesn't produce fuel, nor oil..while the other base (don't remember the name), close to Panama but facing the atlantic ocean, produces fuel...that fuel isn't moving along the railway, right? So why it is there? It's completely useless and Panama gets no fuel...or i am missing something??

[rockmedic109]

Have to refuel the transports bringing in all those troops to Panama. Have to remember to leave enough shipping in Panama to get all the troops from there to the front.

[Sardaukar]

Hmmm...it might have been beneficial to make those shipping lines to Panama and Aden as shallow to disencourage players stacking subs into the lines. But then, I don't think it's too impoerant and can be adressed by house rules.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Wineguy
One last question, Aden appears to start with 18000 in fuel and 14126 in supplies, what happened to the 100's of thousands of supplies and fuel that the allieas used to get at the Middle East base?

You are right. The huge fuel stockpile is not there. But with the daily fuel supply, it soon builds up as mentioned.

I might bump up the starting fuel level a bit for the next update.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
I have a question: Panama doesn't produce fuel, nor oil..while the other base (don't remember the name), close to Panama but facing the atlantic ocean, produces fuel...that fuel isn't moving along the railway, right? So why it is there? It's completely useless and Panama gets no fuel...or i am missing something??

Fuel and oil will move along a railway between bases, so it is not useless. It will move to Panama City, although not necessarily immediately.

Andrew

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

You are right. The huge fuel stockpile is not there. But with the daily fuel supply, it soon builds up as mentioned.

I might bump up the starting fuel level a bit for the next update.

Andrew

In my opinion there's really no need to bump the daily fuel at Aden, it's building up incredibly fast. I noticed, however, that the "oil balance" (oil produced - oil consumed) in India is quite negative: -1120 oil points per day (this is with Aden's +600 daily oil included into the calculation). Burma produces a surplus of 670 oil points, so even with Burma under Allied control there's not enough oil for India.

Is this negative oil balance intended?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: VSWG
In my opinion there's really no need to bump the daily fuel at Aden, it's building up incredibly fast. I noticed, however, that the "oil balance" (oil produced - oil consumed) in India is quite negative: -1120 oil points per day (this is with Aden's +600 daily oil included into the calculation). Burma produces a surplus of 670 oil points, so even with Burma under Allied control there's not enough oil for India.

Is this negative oil balance intended?

In general, the intention with India was that it would provide about 50% (roughly) of the supply points as compared to stock. I can't remember the specifics - I will have to check - but if the total supply point generation (including Aden) is much less or much greater than that, then some further adjustment may have to be made. The intention was not to starve the British, but prevent massive supply abundance from building up too quickly.

[Graycompany]

Andrew or anybody who knows, If I have a game going under CHS and I update, will this mess the game up and I will have to start over?

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Andrew or anybody who knows, If I have a game going under CHS and I update, will this mess the game up and I will have to start over?

You can update the art without any problems. You can put the new data files for a scenario in, but any current game will only use the database that the game was started with. Updating a game in progress will do nothing for you unless it is art.

[el cid again]

I confirm rockmedic's advice - he is correct.

I will add that you may change the pwhex file at any time as well without any problems.

I have machines running under different versions of WITP - because some are not updated to 1.8 -
and I can copy turns between them and run without a problem. Some AI vs AI games I like to run
all the time - 24 hours a day - so I get a long way fast - to learn about events in later game years -
and so when I am done looking at one - I put it on an older machine and let it go on. Never a
problem.

What does not change is the OB of an older game. It does not matter if you update a scenario -
the game started before the update does not see the updated OB. But that does not apply to the
art - you can change the art and it appears. I actually have different map art on different machines,
and if I change which machine a game is on, it displays the art of the current machine without
regard to the art it had on the last machine.