Heretical idea???

[el cid again]

FYI RHSEOS is a Japan enhanced scenario. It is very full of things to make Japan more effective. Since I believe in air power, you find this most of all.

The critical change I made was to allow many aircraft to serve in either service. That is harder than it sounds like - unless you define Japan as one service - but you can do a lot anyway.

Another change was to put rump production facilities for aircraft or engines in other places. Some of these were really there - e.g. the Royal Thai Aircraft factory in Bangkok or the former Chinese aircraft factory at Canton. Because of an interest in history, these facilities are not set to produce in any quantity - but you could assume that had been changed since mobilization and set them to produce useful things in modest quantities.

I do not favor making up fictional oil. The synthetic oil industry worked better than anywhere else - we considered adopting its technology in the Carter administration - a long time later after much more was known. I don't think it is realistic to expand it. Oil from fields takes a long time to develop - so it isn't realistic to put them in either. And the whole point of "strike south" was to get the oil - and move it to Japan. Indeed, that was the point of the oil embargo. If Japan does not need oil - it won't be at war - or it will strike north.

Other things I did were technical. Experimental armament for the A5M4 was made standard for example. And the A5M4 was given the 'zero advantage' as well. We solved the problem of the G5N bomber by upgrading it to the engines used on the Ki-21 II. Lots of things like that you can do.

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The general result of testing, and playtester reports, is that fighters are much less likely to wipe out attacking aircraft, and "there almost always are a few penetrators." Even as late as 1945 this was the case with radar and F6F CAP - penetration was a regular event.

Fighter vs fighter combat is now greatly variable - and substantially under player control. American fighters will do better if you have them supported by flights on high CAP - as IRL. If nothing else works, penetrate right on the deck: almost none will be lost (to enemy fighters anyway - AAA is a different subject). In strait up air combat at medium altitude, a P-40 has no business tangling with a Zero - and that also is well modeled. On the other hand, the reverse is true of a Zero vs an F6F or a Corsair - but it won't be 20:1 reversed.

-el cId, I make limited playtest of RHS....and pretty extensive playtest of Nik mod (I actually play only Nik mod). The impression I have of your mod is that A2A is bloodier than NM (but less bloody than stock). I didn´t have the opportunity to test your mod for enough time because my opponent gave up, so any opinion I have on the matter is probably biased. The big decrease you did in dur values eliminated much of the improvement you eventually achieved. I found that Zeroes in the early game achieve easily a 20:1 kill rate against the enemies. These are only impressions. A good thing is that bombers can shot down fighters, but it seems to be restricted to gun armed bombers (like the G4M). Maybe you could provide us with some AAR´s of your mod.

[highblooded]

Hello,

Oil was not the only reason for the 'strike south'. DEI, Malaya and Burma had a great deal of other resources Japan needed for her war industries.

While I agree that oil fields take a long time to exploite, I believe that if the money, efforts and research that went into Synthetics oils was placed into the Daquing Fields they would have a far better return on the investment. In 10 years the Japanese Synthetic program was producing far less oil than a similar time frame in the Sakhalin Oilfields(which were very inefficient- hundreds of well producing very small totals) The Daquing fields although somewhat deep have very high production wells(daily yields that are higher than all the Sakhalin wells combined) and were in 'full speed' production within 4 years(haven't yet figured out what 'full speed' amounts are).

My Idea for Daquing was just to provide a basis for assisting the AI that is not complete fantasy. I have placed oil and resources in Manchuria in AI games of my own and it helped tremendously.

just another two cents...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bombur

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The general result of testing, and playtester reports, is that fighters are much less likely to wipe out attacking aircraft, and "there almost always are a few penetrators." Even as late as 1945 this was the case with radar and F6F CAP - penetration was a regular event.

Fighter vs fighter combat is now greatly variable - and substantially under player control. American fighters will do better if you have them supported by flights on high CAP - as IRL. If nothing else works, penetrate right on the deck: almost none will be lost (to enemy fighters anyway - AAA is a different subject). In strait up air combat at medium altitude, a P-40 has no business tangling with a Zero - and that also is well modeled. On the other hand, the reverse is true of a Zero vs an F6F or a Corsair - but it won't be 20:1 reversed.

-el cId, I make limited playtest of RHS....and pretty extensive playtest of Nik mod (I actually play only Nik mod). The impression I have of your mod is that A2A is bloodier than NM (but less bloody than stock). I didn´t have the opportunity to test your mod for enough time because my opponent gave up, so any opinion I have on the matter is probably biased. The big decrease you did in dur values eliminated much of the improvement you eventually achieved. I found that Zeroes in the early game achieve easily a 20:1 kill rate against the enemies. These are only impressions. A good thing is that bombers can shot down fighters, but it seems to be restricted to gun armed bombers (like the G4M). Maybe you could provide us with some AAR´s of your mod.

It may be this is changed. While we deliberately reduced durability - to increase AAA losses - which are grossly too low - and while we found relative loss rates were improved by the new system - we did find we should apply a modifier (k factor or constant) - and we multiplied them by 2. This may have occurred after you tested. Regardless - we were not trying to "beat" Nik mod in making air combat less bloody - and we "calibrated" on real values - which is how we figured out the correct K (constant).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: highblooded

Hello,

Oil was not the only reason for the 'strike south'. DEI, Malaya and Burma had a great deal of other resources Japan needed for her war industries.

While I agree that oil fields take a long time to exploite, I believe that if the money, efforts and research that went into Synthetics oils was placed into the Daquing Fields they would have a far better return on the investment. In 10 years the Japanese Synthetic program was producing far less oil than a similar time frame in the Sakhalin Oilfields(which were very inefficient- hundreds of well producing very small totals) The Daquing fields although somewhat deep have very high production wells(daily yields that are higher than all the Sakhalin wells combined) and were in 'full speed' production within 4 years(haven't yet figured out what 'full speed' amounts are).

My Idea for Daquing was just to provide a basis for assisting the AI that is not complete fantasy. I have placed oil and resources in Manchuria in AI games of my own and it helped tremendously.

just another two cents...

The Army wanted to strike north and planned for years to do so. It would never have agreed to strike south except for the problem of oil: without it operations could not be sustained. Granted rubber was also embargoed - so was iron - but iron was available in Manchuria and China. Rubber is not needed in great quantities - and there was a glut of it in the Asia markets. [You could buy it via China or Thailand via third parties in adequate amounts. Oil was also bought in that way - but not enough to run the industry and military complex.]