Heresey ......

[scout1]

Wondering whether anyone (to date) has a mod that permits the PDU's for aircraft to the extent of permitting the IJN to select IJA aircraft. I've come to really like my Tony's and Tojo's .... Just wish I could convince the boys wearing the Ice Cream suits to try these puppies out .......[:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, those are two separate nationalities...

[scout1]

They are in ALL countries, not just Japan. There is an Army/Navy thing in
Germany
Japan
USA
UK
Russia
.....
.....
.....

I think its the water that they serve ......

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, yeah... But I was talking about the game; what you're suggesting probably isn't possible under the game mechanics.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Wondering whether anyone (to date) has a mod that permits the PDU's for aircraft to the extent of permitting the IJN to select IJA aircraft. I've come to really like my Tony's and Tojo's .... Just wish I could convince the boys wearing the Ice Cream suits to try these puppies out .......[:D]

This is the most important feature of RHSEOS. No other concept for a "Japan enhanced scenario" is as effective as permitting sharing of aircraft across services. While this isn't quite universal - it is the normal case. This is quite difficult to achieve (unless we just do away with IJA or IJN and pretend everything belongs to just one service) - and we felt that in some cases it was not necessary.

We have a long term plan to do the same thing to the Allies - but await art for a common Allied scheme. However, that plan is partly implemented with respect to transport aircraft. Indeed, in all forms of RHS the very small transports are generic and not national - the art is generic - and they can upgrade to things like C-47s. If Cobra ever does the uniform Allied plane art - we will do the (large amount of) work required to convert the Allies to the same system. And we will gain slots for still more plane types. Not that the Allies are suffering much- an appeal for more Allied planes produced remarkably few and remarkably marginal responses - some of which were added in the "final" round in the present art scheme.

WARNING: Once you play where Japan can pick the best plane of any given type for most units, you won't want to play in the restricted way again.

[DuckofTindalos]

So much for the "Real Historical Scenario"...[8|]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, yeah... But I was talking about the game; what you're suggesting probably isn't possible under the game mechanics.

Sure it is. Here is how:

a) If you want a specific unit to be able to upgrade to a specific plane, just put that plane as the upgrade type for the air group definition;

b) If you want any unit with a specific plane to be able to upgrade to a different plane, just put that plane as the upgrade type for the aircraft definition;

Code has an undefined set of rules - and "nationality" (service) is one of the criteria - but only one of them. Other criteria are the upgrade paths listed above. There are still other criteria - Matrix says not but testing is conclusive there must be: rarely some units will be able to upgrade to planes other seemingly identical units can not; some units may "upgrade" to enemy plane types (not a real issue - the number of planes is always zero so upgrade never is possible - but it makes a wierd option list); some units can not upgrade to a plane that every other seemingly identical unit can upgrade to. The secret to doing this is test, test, test. Try things out - bearing in mind a and b above.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

So much for the "Real Historical Scenario"...[8|]

So much indeed. It is really historical - so why not? The best example is the Ki-67 - because it was of great operational significance. But other aircraft served - including the Ki-46 - which does not make a lot of headlines because did does not fight air battles.

RHS is concieved to be a smorgasboard of scenarios based on DIFFERENT assumptions about historical planning and policy. In the beginning these took two branches - CVO (carrier oriented) and BBO (battleship oriented) - which roughly translates "the war as planning got modified due to early battles" and "the war as planned before the war and early in 1942 when ships got ordered". Later someone came up with the idea of political point flexability - creating the PPO branch of BBO. Later still the idea (first expressed to me by Joe but apparently long extant) of "eventually someone may do a Japan Enhanced Scenario" led to the EOS thread (which also is the PPO form of CVO branch). To give it some flesh, the concept was specifically based on the historical planning for Malaya. This campaign was hastily crafted by a tiny group led by one Col Tsuji. The planning was notably joint and very integrated, and so was the execution. We simply created a similar group at the level of the theater, and only permitted ideas that could be implemented after mobilization (July 1941). This gives you almost the same start - but a lot more flexability.

Now you do not have to like that. You don't have to install it or play it either. But it is certainly a valid option. I got into horrible arguments on and off the forum with one person who felt I was a "slave to history" and "not flexable enough" in allowing changes. Which is where I want to be - in the center. That is my politics and my philosophy. What you may not do - and be right - is charge that it isn't historical to assume that different choices might have been made. History is not the story of what inevitably had to happen. History is not the story of what was likely to happen. Instead, history is the story of what did happen IN THE CONTEXT of the choices of historical actors. Sometimes those choices were unlikely. Sometimes the choices of both sides and luck interact in quite unexpected ways. It creates a rich tapistry of possibilities that make simulation worthy of our time. If there is only one way to do things, we can only watch movies and read books - we could not play "historical" games since everything would be coded to come out exactly the same, anyway.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: scout1

Wondering whether anyone (to date) has a mod that permits the PDU's for aircraft to the extent of permitting the IJN to select IJA aircraft. I've come to really like my Tony's and Tojo's .... Just wish I could convince the boys wearing the Ice Cream suits to try these puppies out .......[:D]

This is the most important feature of RHSEOS. No other concept for a "Japan enhanced scenario" is as effective as permitting sharing of aircraft across services. While this isn't quite universal - it is the normal case. This is quite difficult to achieve (unless we just do away with IJA or IJN and pretend everything belongs to just one service) - and we felt that in some cases it was not necessary.

We have a long term plan to do the same thing to the Allies - but await art for a common Allied scheme. However, that plan is partly implemented with respect to transport aircraft. Indeed, in all forms of RHS the very small transports are generic and not national - the art is generic - and they can upgrade to things like C-47s. If Cobra ever does the uniform Allied plane art - we will do the (large amount of) work required to convert the Allies to the same system. And we will gain slots for still more plane types. Not that the Allies are suffering much- an appeal for more Allied planes produced remarkably few and remarkably marginal responses - some of which were added in the "final" round in the present art scheme.

WARNING: Once you play where Japan can pick the best plane of any given type for most units, you won't want to play in the restricted way again.

I may or may not qualify as a JFB, but this is pretty must technical (no disrespect intended) nonsense - presumably based on an ignorance of the aircraft technology available to the Japanese and to the Axis. The latter because by the later period of the war German/Japanese technical cooperation increased, and included exotic aircraft, engines, radars and weapons. For a sense of this in literature, see Rene Francillons Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. For a sense of this in the game, see the types you are unfamiliar with in the game listings. Some JFBs love to play 1945 games just so they can get these planes and eat up the Allies....

Need I quote more?

[el cid again]

Seems off topic to me. The topic was wether or no cross service cooperation was possible "historically"???

Look up the case of the Ki-51. This was a proposal (PRE WWII) by a JNAF captain. It was adopted and implemented as such exclusivly by the JAAF. That is how you addrss the question on the table. Or you could be philosophical, noting one can never proove a negative proposition. But a single case prooves a positive proposition is possible.

If we must digress and go into aviation technology - which is not the topic of the thread (rather service usage is) -
then it seems impossible to avoid mention of the wide observation in scholarly literature that the US and its allies seem to have been behind the technical curve. Rocket and jet propulsion was so far advanced that there was a veritable technical race to obtain from former Axis enemies people, machines and documents between the USSR, the US and the UK, in particular. You need to say a great deal more if you think it is wrong to set up Japan with great aviation potential late in the war - IF it has functional industry, and IF it is importing oil and resources. Surely this was the WITP design intent for Matrix - else why did they give us advanced aircraft which IRL were not operational? Precisely because the potential exists that they might be operational - if the players are able to get them produced.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: scout1

Wondering whether anyone (to date) has a mod that permits the PDU's for aircraft to the extent of permitting the IJN to select IJA aircraft. I've come to really like my Tony's and Tojo's .... Just wish I could convince the boys wearing the Ice Cream suits to try these puppies out .......[:D]

This is the most important feature of RHSEOS. No other concept for a "Japan enhanced scenario" is as effective as permitting sharing of aircraft across services. While this isn't quite universal - it is the normal case. This is quite difficult to achieve (unless we just do away with IJA or IJN and pretend everything belongs to just one service) - and we felt that in some cases it was not necessary.

We have a long term plan to do the same thing to the Allies - but await art for a common Allied scheme. However, that plan is partly implemented with respect to transport aircraft. Indeed, in all forms of RHS the very small transports are generic and not national - the art is generic - and they can upgrade to things like C-47s. If Cobra ever does the uniform Allied plane art - we will do the (large amount of) work required to convert the Allies to the same system. And we will gain slots for still more plane types. Not that the Allies are suffering much- an appeal for more Allied planes produced remarkably few and remarkably marginal responses - some of which were added in the "final" round in the present art scheme.

WARNING: Once you play where Japan can pick the best plane of any given type for most units, you won't want to play in the restricted way again.

I may or may not qualify as a JFB, but this is pretty must technical (no disrespect intended) nonsense - presumably based on an ignorance of the aircraft technology available to the Japanese and to the Axis. The latter because by the later period of the war German/Japanese technical cooperation increased, and included exotic aircraft, engines, radars and weapons. For a sense of this in literature, see Rene Francillons Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. For a sense of this in the game, see the types you are unfamiliar with in the game listings. Some JFBs love to play 1945 games just so they can get these planes and eat up the Allies....

Need I quote more?

Oh no, you didn't![:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

Maybe RHS now stands for Really Hypothetical Scenario...

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: el cid again




This is the most important feature of RHSEOS. No other concept for a "Japan enhanced scenario" is as effective as permitting sharing of aircraft across services. While this isn't quite universal - it is the normal case. This is quite difficult to achieve (unless we just do away with IJA or IJN and pretend everything belongs to just one service) - and we felt that in some cases it was not necessary.

We have a long term plan to do the same thing to the Allies - but await art for a common Allied scheme. However, that plan is partly implemented with respect to transport aircraft. Indeed, in all forms of RHS the very small transports are generic and not national - the art is generic - and they can upgrade to things like C-47s. If Cobra ever does the uniform Allied plane art - we will do the (large amount of) work required to convert the Allies to the same system. And we will gain slots for still more plane types. Not that the Allies are suffering much- an appeal for more Allied planes produced remarkably few and remarkably marginal responses - some of which were added in the "final" round in the present art scheme.

WARNING: Once you play where Japan can pick the best plane of any given type for most units, you won't want to play in the restricted way again.

I may or may not qualify as a JFB, but this is pretty must technical (no disrespect intended) nonsense - presumably based on an ignorance of the aircraft technology available to the Japanese and to the Axis. The latter because by the later period of the war German/Japanese technical cooperation increased, and included exotic aircraft, engines, radars and weapons. For a sense of this in literature, see Rene Francillons Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. For a sense of this in the game, see the types you are unfamiliar with in the game listings. Some JFBs love to play 1945 games just so they can get these planes and eat up the Allies....

Need I quote more?

Oh no, you didn't![:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Oh it's been brung.....

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe RHS now stands for Really Hypothetical Scenario...

I like it. But I didn't coin the name. It is a variation of Real Sub Hunter (RSH) coined by Joe Wilkerson.
And you are somewhat misleading to imply (by omission) that the criticism you have of EOS applies to
RHS as a whole. We call the other five scenarios "strictly historical" and EOS could indeed be classified
as more hypothetical.

I also note that I responded in the context of the thread. EOS is what was asked for. Being negative about it is not really germane: it is what he was looking for - a scenario that permits cross service aircraft usage. It is hard to understand what you are unhappy about? Unless you are not happy unless you can be negative, in which case, cheers.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe RHS now stands for Really Hypothetical Scenario...

I also note that I responded in the context of the thread. EOS is what was asked for. Being negative about it is not really germane: it is what he was looking for - a scenario that permits cross service aircraft usage. It is hard to understand what you are unhappy about? Unless you are not happy unless you can be negative, in which case, cheers.

Perhaps he was merely attempting humor. Blasted "spammers" have everyone "on edge".

[DuckofTindalos]

Or maybe I'm pointing out the colossal hypocrisy of Sid puking on somebody else's idea while doing exactly the same thing himself...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe RHS now stands for Really Hypothetical Scenario...

I also note that I responded in the context of the thread. EOS is what was asked for. Being negative about it is not really germane: it is what he was looking for - a scenario that permits cross service aircraft usage. It is hard to understand what you are unhappy about? Unless you are not happy unless you can be negative, in which case, cheers.

Perhaps he was merely attempting humor. Blasted "spammers" have everyone "on edge".

To which you can add a bad habit of mine - which is to take everything seriously - and to miss subtile attempts at humor.
Once that was just the way it was, period. Many decades (too many decades) have mellowed me to the point I actually get it sometimes - maybe even often - but probably I still miss it from time to time.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Or maybe I'm pointing out the colossal hypocrisy of Sid puking on somebody else's idea while doing exactly the same thing himself...

This sounds more like our Terminus. Once for some security clearence reason I had to have a mental examination - and the remarkable conclusion had only one "negative" finding - that I have "an excessive concern for what is ethical."
[In my view it is impossible to be excessively concerned with ethics] That I would not ever be guilty of hypocracy (different spelling note - and a real mental defect of mine is I cannot spell in English) in my heart would never occur to Terminus. I think he really loves to be negative in general, and about Sid in particular. Not because it is justified - but because Sid dares to tread on assumptions sacred to him. In this case - note I did NOT 'puke' on the idea suggested - and instead merely answered the question posed at the thread start. You have to work hard to get 'puke' out of merely saying 'here is the answer you asked for.' But big T can get there - there is no limit to the capacity of the human mind to rationalize - provided only an attitude of fairness and reasonableness is absent.

[Mike Scholl]

Well, you can be an opinionated "so-and-so" at times, Sid. But this time the "Big T" was the one who "stepped in it". My appologies....