RHS 5, 6 & 7 .760 Economic Utilities uploaded

[mlees]

Hi.

Earlier upthread, I asked about where to download RHS, and I got that all ironed out. Thanks!

I really am impressed with all the hard work and dedication you folks have out into the mod.

I downloaded RHSCVO ver5 (S050), the various artwork and stuff, and Andrew Browns Extended Map #3. (I intend to play the Allies, with a IJN run by AI.) I briefly browsed around to make sure that everything was there, and ran a first turn (without issuing orders) to ensure that everything runs. Ok so far.

I started to issue orders to all my stuff, when I noticed that the port/base of Darwin was offset 1 hex to the left/west of the road terminus artwork. I hit the "r" key to see the real underlying road network, and sure enough, the roads don't connect Darwin to the rest of the continent. I glanced around the rest of the map, and saw that, indeed, the roads did not match the artwork in a lot of the areas, primarily around the periphery of the map. (The roads in India are offset to the east, the roads in California are offset to the west.)

The location of the bases themselves (Pearl, Singapore, Aden, San Diego, Brisbane, Colombo, Panama Canal, etc.) are ok, in that the bases appear on the map where they should, and the units that start in those bases are also properly located (except for Darwin [:'(], which the base and it's units are not on the road).

I am not a modder, so I don't know which file is the one that defines the roads in the game. I thought it would be the same one that defines the location and status of the bases in the game, but I guess not.

Please be gentle, and tell me where I goofed.

Thanks!

[witpqs]

Well, I only have version 7 loaded (in a dedicated install so I don't have to do any switching of things back and forth), but what you wrote I think indicates a couple of problems.

1) "Andrew Browns Extended Map #3" - RHS is based on Andrew Brown's map, but there were some modifications to the art work, and definitely to the Pwhex.dat. So, download the map panels for the version of RHS that you have.

2) If you haven't already, download the Pwhex.dat for the version of RHS that you have.

Just to explain a bit, it's the Pwhex.dat that actually defines the 'real' map - roads, terrain, and hex sides. The map panels are just art work for humans to see. Of course, without them humans get lost pretty quick, so you must have both up to date, and they must be the right one for the scenario. If not, units that are meant to start in a base can actually start in the water next to the base, for example.

[el cid again]

Good explanation.

But to clarify- if he is running Level 5 - he CAN use Andrew's map if he wants to do so. But in that case he needs to use Andrew's pwhex file. There are a number of additional locations in RHS now - so this may somewhere produce a problem - but I am not aware of it - and I sometimes test using Andrew's maps.

Naturally I recommend using the RHS map and pwhex file. With Andrew's pwhex you won't get interior river systems - and your inshore naval units will be captured, bombed, but never able to move! Unless you play RHSAIO (scenario 56) - which has got rid of the interior river systems. We also give you "ferries" between islands, and other features - and of course our pwhex should line up with our map. If it does not - I will fix pwhex for you - and all. Just tell me where?

[Historiker]

Sid (that's your name el cid, right?)
What you write is understandable to me, so far. But in EOS, you consider the Japanese side to have significant more CVs and no rivalry between the Navy and the Army. This changes the situation strongly! So (nearlly) no Ki-43 will get to combat as even the army will use A6M2, and after that, even the Navy units will upgrade to Ki-44 and Ki-61.
This fact - together with the much stronger naval power wich will - without any losses on both sides - still exist in early 43, must have forced the US High Command to change their "Europe/Germany first" doctrine. With the Japanese forces this strong, it is possible to endanger both India and Australia much more than it was endangered in history.
Having this "what if" situation that you construct in EOS, the Allied side has no choice but to react! Ships can't be built much faster, but it is i.e. possible to send less B-17 to Europe and delivering no P-40 to the British troops in Africa, as they are strongly needed in the Pacific.
No US high command woud have taken the risk to loose Australia and India just for sending some more Planes to Britain!

Following this, the reinforcement rate for allied planes must be significant higher in the first two years, as in EOS their is no place for a wide "Europe first" strategy.

If you find fault the ongoing production of i.e. the P-40E throughout the war - why don't you let them get produced in factories at the West Coast then? Their it shall be possible to let this production upgrade to another, wich then also gets an off-map-reinforcement to simulate the arising production.
Or isn't that possible due to lacking slots?

[mlees]

witpqs, el cid:

Yup. That got it. I neglected to copy the pwhex.dat file I downloaded over to my WiTP_RHS folder. Roads now connect the bases properly again. Sorry for the noob mistake. :foreheadsmack:

Naturally I recommend using the RHS map and pwhex file. With Andrew's pwhex you won't get interior river systems - and your inshore naval units will be captured, bombed, but never able to move! Unless you play RHSAIO (scenario 56) - which has got rid of the interior river systems.

Ok. I see some of what... and where... you are talking about. Hmmm... Let me try the alternative map first for a few turns, and see if it's doable or not. (I like the alternative map, 'cause it's easier on my old eyes. The digital map is just varying shades of green, and it is a little bit of work for me to make out the terrain differences.)

Thanks for the help gents!

[Historiker]

No reaction, el cid?

You can't change history only on one side without considering the reactions of the other side!
The same with your intended first turn to conquer Hawai. Having this islands conquered, it is strongly nonscientific to let the allied forces go on as before - as in the stock games. A conquered Hawai would endanger the West Coast - but the US will still send most of their material to Europe?

With a Japanese superiority in CVs even in early 1943 you believe, that the British wouldn't have sent more carriers and also more planes able to attack carriers to India?

[witpqs]

There is only so much you can do in building a scenario in this game engine. What if the invasion of Hawaii fails? There is no mechanism for variable reinforcements based upon how the campaign is going (carrier and cruiser re-spawn not withstanding).

[Ol_Dog]

There are a few threads which discuss the EOS plan - see threads which begin with Yamamoto's Plan

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Something to EOS:
Don't you think, you should raise the replacement rates of the allied aircraft? At least for the aircraft of the first two years. The Japanese can built without any problems around 600-900 fighters a month and with the high pilot replacement rate, they stay competititve! Compared with that, the allies don't even have any chance, with the actual small replacement rates.

Interesting observation. Actual historic Japanese production of ALL types of aircraft in 1942 was 8,861; and of trained pilots, Army and Navy, approximately 5,000. So when it's observed that Japan can build between 7200 and 10,800 Fighters "without any problems", "and with the high pilot replacement rate they stay competative", it makes accuracy of the scenario that allows it seem suspect. Or perhaps the term should be "ludicrously pro-Japanese". Doesn't seem like a request to "up the ante" for the Allied side should be "out of line".

It's a very odd situation. Lots of players seem eager to play the Japanese in this game and it's varients---but no-one seems to want to do it under the real conditions the Japanese imposed on themselves. They started the War in the Pacific, and were evidently producing and fielding what they thought would give them a chance at "winning". The original game already improves their chances from the historical in many ways..., but almost every extra "scenario" offered improves it more. I'm not "knocking it", simply making an observation that in reality, no-one seems to want to play the historic Japanese. But most of them still want to count "VP's" based (if such a term can be used for such arbitrary statistics) on an "improvement to historic performance"---even after removing history from the equasion. I find it all quite amusing....

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is only so much you can do in building a scenario in this game engine. What if the invasion of Hawaii fails? There is no mechanism for variable reinforcements based upon how the campaign is going (carrier and cruiser re-spawn not withstanding).

A failing invasion would show the US Command, that it is serious in danger. So there would also be more replacement for Asia - I believe [;)]

But bar of that, one must not ignore allied reactions of the japanese changes in EOS - so improved plane types and the possibility to refit navy units with army types together witch more CVs.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sid (that's your name el cid, right?)
What you write is understandable to me, so far. But in EOS, you consider the Japanese side to have significant more CVs and no rivalry between the Navy and the Army. T

Actually not quite right.

In EOS there are FEWER Japanese carriers than in CVO (and its clone RAO).

The Japanese do not elect to build nearly as many Unryu class, nor does the Army build carriers at all late in the war. The carriers in EOS are more closely related to those in BBO (and its clones RPO and PPO) - although not exactly the same either. The BBO carrier set represents (mainly) what was planned pre-war, and early in 1942 (that is, pre-Midway) - with some logical follow on's. But because there IS better cooperation betwen Army and Navy, EOS actually reduces this carrier count - and the Army does not build carriers - either for escort - or for troop support (see the final variation of Akitsu Maru, for example).

Two things, however:

a) In EOS (and its clone AIO) the Japanese probably get a better carrier/air unit set for technical reasons. These include better aircraft, more types of aircraft, better (particularly later) AA armament, etc..

b) In EOS the Japanese can implement the IRL HISTORICAL plans to convert large ships to carriers - not that they get air groups - or that all should be so converted. It is to give the players OPTIONS. EVERY class of battleship was drawn up with THREE different carrier conversion plans - including semi-carriers and full carriers. EVERY class of cruiser was drawn up as a full carrier conversion plan - except one class also had a semi-carrier variant - and that was actually done. [The Ise's were also actually done to a semi-carrier form.] We don't quite implement all these plans - in fact only about 1/3 of them - and I think we still force Ise to a semi-carrier (it is in hard code - everyone expects it - and it is easy to leave alone).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sid (that's your name el cid, right?)
What you write is understandable to me, so far. But in EOS, you consider the Japanese side to have significant more CVs and no rivalry between the Navy and the Army. This changes the situation strongly! So (nearlly) no Ki-43 will get to combat as even the army will use A6M2, and after that, even the Navy units will upgrade to Ki-44 and Ki-61.

Since the Ki-61 is NOT present, pretty much it will not be used in EOS! [But its derivitive Ki-100 I think it is called will eventually show up.] Surely the Ki-44 will be stressed - as it should be - and in human games is in all forms of WITP where players pay attention to options.

The Ki-43 in its early form is essential - you cannot produce enough A6M2 soon enough otherwise. In its later form it is a fine fighter with a bomb load - and should also be produced. But it is up to players - unless AIO is used under AI control - in which case I force both to be built.

But you are quite right: the MAIN thing EOS/AIO do to make Japan stronger is permit Army/Navy cooperation in aircraft. This isn't total - for technical reasons you cannot outfit any unit with any aircraft. In fact, a number of things I wish could be done - and are reasonable - are not possible. But many combinations are possible. Now this is based in part on IRL practice insofar as SOME aircraft were used by both services. Ultimately even weapons, engines, radio equipment, name it got standardized - but far too late. So wartime Japan COULD cross that bridge - because it DID cross it. We just put some sensible people in charge up front - and it starts to cross it sooner. Even so, very little has changed by the start of the war - and the conversion goes on throughout the war - and is never complete. But this is the key "enhancement" done for the "Japan enhanced scenario."

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sid (that's your name el cid, right?)
What you write is understandable to me, so far. But in EOS, you consider the Japanese side to have significant more CVs and no rivalry between the Navy and the Army. This changes the situation strongly! So (nearlly) no Ki-43 will get to combat as even the army will use A6M2, and after that, even the Navy units will upgrade to Ki-44 and Ki-61.
This fact - together with the much stronger naval power wich will - without any losses on both sides - still exist in early 43, must have forced the US High Command to change their "Europe/Germany first" doctrine. With the Japanese forces this strong, it is possible to endanger both India and Australia much more than it was endangered in history.
Having this "what if" situation that you construct in EOS, the Allied side has no choice but to react! Ships can't be built much faster, but it is i.e. possible to send less B-17 to Europe and delivering no P-40 to the British troops in Africa, as they are strongly needed in the Pacific.
No US high command woud have taken the risk to loose Australia and India just for sending some more Planes to Britain!

It isn't quite that simple, and in two completely different senses.

First - we DO assume changes in US wartime priorities and there is a number of changes to the US building programs. A number of additional Essex type carriers show up in time to matter (in leiu of Midway's or Iowa's too late IRL), and three additional Independence show up earlier (in leiu of 3 CLs). But those three CLs are replaced by additional Baltimores (in place of Alaska class) and, similarly, a British CL shows up (vice a too late Vanguard). This isn't exhaustive, but it is the sort of thing done - partly at the request of the Allied Tag Team - partly suggested by Nemo. We also doubled the atomic bomb rate - which isn't technically quite right - but might have been if we had focused more effort on figuring things out sooner. Air groups for the extra carriers were worked in (unlike for Japan where they were not for the conversions).

Second - I in any reality - you cannot compare things to another reality. You also do not know what the enemy is up to? [We built the Alaska's as a reply to non-existent Japanese ships. They in turn almost built a reply to the Alaska's - and if they had they would have ships we thought they had - but were wrong about!] I do not believe the strategy is likely to have changed priority of Germany first. We believed the stronger power was more dangerous - we were right - and it would have been a mistake to change it. But there may have been a shift in priorities - not due to the stuff of Japan (who knew the Ki-43 existed? And it was "almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero") - but to to the invasion of the Central Pacific in force. We are working out some of this in another thread. We might do an OIO with the fruit of that - if it isn't too much work - which adding too much would be. You can write "increase air power by 50%, 100%, 300% very fast - but we don't have the slots - and it would take too long to do. But we might figure out ways to respond - for example Andrew suggested getting rid of ETO to PTO transfer units - and that creates slots. [That because more to PTO early delays the end of Germany - so stuff that could transfer is still fighting in ETO]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sid (that's your name el cid, right?)
What you write is understandable to me, so far. But in EOS, you consider the Japanese side to have significant more CVs and no rivalry between the Navy and the Army. This changes the situation strongly! So (nearlly) no Ki-43 will get to combat as even the army will use A6M2, and after that, even the Navy units will upgrade to Ki-44 and Ki-61.
This fact - together with the much stronger naval power wich will - without any losses on both sides - still exist in early 43, must have forced the US High Command to change their "Europe/Germany first" doctrine. With the Japanese forces this strong, it is possible to endanger both India and Australia much more than it was endangered in history.
Having this "what if" situation that you construct in EOS, the Allied side has no choice but to react! Ships can't be built much faster, but it is i.e. possible to send less B-17 to Europe and delivering no P-40 to the British troops in Africa, as they are strongly needed in the Pacific.
No US high command woud have taken the risk to loose Australia and India just for sending some more Planes to Britain!

Following this, the reinforcement rate for allied planes must be significant higher in the first two years, as in EOS their is no place for a wide "Europe first" strategy.

Easy to say - hard to justify. Plane production and allocation is not just "build whatever you want, send it wherever you feel like" the way I do it. However, EOS is more flexable than the CVO or BBO families are - it is "less historically strict" and it DOES have the possibility DIFFERENT choices may be made. Those choices are not free or arbitrary: you have so much aluminum, so much plant capacity, and a need to send things to training, non-game uses, and ETO that must be addressed. BUT

a) I have decided to permit Allied cooperation in planes similar to JNAF/JAAF - and ONLY art is holding that up. WHEN we have a common Allied art scheme - we will increase the plane types for the Allies - because they will share many planes. I "cheated" and jumped the gun on this re transports - USN, USMC and USAAF now share transports - and you got a few more types already.

b) I have decided to call for DIFFERNT Allied production priorities. Come up with ideas - and we can ramp them in. This is not INCREASING things - it is CHANGING things. Trade the P-ab for the P-cd as it were.

c) Note that in EOS you have more political points - inherantly more ability to decide where things go than in the strictly historical scenarios. That should be a moderately big deal in its own right. You can respond to enemy actions, or come up with unexpected offensive options.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

No reaction, el cid?

You can't change history only on one side without considering the reactions of the other side!

REPLY: Aber naturlich mein herr. We completely concur on this point. I am a strategic - read long term impact - thinker. That is layman speak for a naval thinker - naval orientation is global - rather than national, local or continental like traditional military thinking is. But it is a two edged sword. And also you must remember any decision makers exist in only one reality - they cannot compare theirs to another history - nor do they know what the enemy is building (usually) in a difinitive sense. Their choices are made in ignorance - and modeling those choices on IRL choices is probably better than making radical changes in them - except when it is CLEAR they might make a change. But we - as modders - and with 20-20 hindsight - know way too much - and what is obvious to us would not be to them (often).


The same with your intended first turn to conquer Hawai. Having this islands conquered, it is strongly nonscientific to let the allied forces go on as before - as in the stock games. A conquered Hawai would endanger the West Coast - but the US will still send most of their material to Europe?

REPLY: Not sure I follow this. Many EXPECTED an invasion of Hawaii - and more than many believed the failure to do so was a strategic mistake. We did what we did in the light of that expectation - not knowing what was going to follow. And turns out that thinking was not as far from reality as we long believed: Japan DID decide to invade and DID try - we just won the first trick and it never got done (except for Attu and Kiska).

IN ADDITION: we did this in EOS - where the Allies have inherantly greater options due to the political point structure - if Japan can do things in other places - so can the Allies allocate to different places - if they want to. AND we added a number of things to insure greater in war power - in particular carrier air power - and at the end - if a player is willing to use them - more atomic bomb power (100% more). So - it isn't quite right to think or say we left it "allied forces go on as before." We didn't. We asked the Allied tag team for ideas - and implemented most of them.

With a Japanese superiority in CVs even in early 1943 you believe, that the British wouldn't have sent more carriers and also more planes able to attack carriers to India?

REPLY: It is not clear to me there will be a Japanese superiority in CVs in 1943. How can you know that? We cannot know how many carriers will be sunk on either side. POTENTIAL carriers (see the RHS carrier spreadsheet) are thus:


By 1 Jan 1943
IJN 8 CV 8 CVL 5 CVE 1 CVS

USN 7 CV 5 CVE
RN 3 CV 1 CVL 1 CVS
Total 10 CV 9 CVL 5 CVE 1 CVS

By the end of spring 1943

IJN 9 CV (1 on 19 Feb) 8 CVL 7 CVE (15 Mar & 15 Apr) 1 CVS

USN 8 CV (1 on 15 Apr) 4 CVL (1 Jan, 25 Feb, 31 Mar, 5 May) 7 CVE (2x 15 Jan)
RN 4 CV (1 on 15 Feb) 2 CVL (15 Feb) 1 CVE (15 Apr) 1 CVS
Total 12 CV 6 CVL 8 CVE 1 CVS

Early 1943 seems to me to be the time the Allies go from marginal carrier superiority potential to clear superiority.

Now I grant you - foolish USN and RN behaviors - engaging single carriers against KB or large land based air assets - may cost the Allies 3 to 6 CV - and THAT would give Japan a superiority in early 1943 (by early 1944 they will have lost it in any case) - if it didn't lose many during 1942. And THAT is why Japan wants to invade the Central Pacific in force - to get rid of the carriers and battlefleet before they are properly formed up. [USN has NOT YET thought up a major carrier task force. IJN invented the idea and the KB is the first major carrier task force in the world. It isn't an accident - it is doctrine - and like all good ideas - it got imitated.) Smart Allied players are going to wait until Lex, Sara, Enterprise, Hornet and Yorktown are all in one force before engaging - and maybe they add Wasp as well. But that is not for us as modders to decide.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is only so much you can do in building a scenario in this game engine. What if the invasion of Hawaii fails? There is no mechanism for variable reinforcements based upon how the campaign is going (carrier and cruiser re-spawn not withstanding).

And I promise - in AIO it WILL fail. In fact, AI won't even try. It will do all the preliminaries - but it won't follow up in spite of units planned up for it.

And I have not yet seen a human do it either. It won't happen often - or easy. It is true the US is worse off - it is horribly pinned by the effort. But it isn't clear it will actually lose the battle? What it will lose is time - and probably units that otherwise would be messing things up in 1942 (remember Coral Sea anyone? Guadalcanal?)

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Something to EOS:
Don't you think, you should raise the replacement rates of the allied aircraft? At least for the aircraft of the first two years. The Japanese can built without any problems around 600-900 fighters a month and with the high pilot replacement rate, they stay competititve! Compared with that, the allies don't even have any chance, with the actual small replacement rates.

Interesting observation. Actual historic Japanese production of ALL types of aircraft in 1942 was 8,861; and of trained pilots, Army and Navy, approximately 5,000. So when it's observed that Japan can build between 7200 and 10,800 Fighters "without any problems", "and with the high pilot replacement rate they stay competative", it makes accuracy of the scenario that allows it seem suspect. Or perhaps the term should be "ludicrously pro-Japanese". Doesn't seem like a request to "up the ante" for the Allied side should be "out of line".


REPLY: I don't know any of these numbers. I DO know that I have cut Japanese plant capacity significantly - because running lines at the numbers set in CHS does not work economically (in purely mechanical game terms). I have run 219 long game tests without seeing such numbers either. Nor does pilot replacement rate permit servicing such numbers. Do the math for that. While IRL Japan went over to a system that produced vast numbers of pilots (although by then they lacked the fuel to train them fully), in the game they are stuck with the start of war rate (which is more or less forced on us). If Allied players cannot cope with early war replacement rates, they could not with later higher rates - particularly if Japan had got the fuel it needed to Japan to train them.

Note also that no one seems to be noticing the Allies HAVE been made stronger - and in fundamentally different ways. We nave NOT done a strictly historical variant of the Hawaii start scenario yet - and in EOS the Allies get a lot of political points = flexability. By 1945 - if they are in trouble - they get twice the number of atomic bombs. In between, they get a significant increase in naval power - focused on naval air power. We have planned to increase plane types - and ability to upgrade air units - to compliment JAAF/JNAF changes - but that plan is waiting the art required - because so MUCH is required to do it. [Cobra says some day...]

It's a very odd situation. Lots of players seem eager to play the Japanese in this game and it's varients---but no-one seems to want to do it under the real conditions the Japanese imposed on themselves. They started the War in the Pacific, and were evidently producing and fielding what they thought would give them a chance at "winning". The original game already improves their chances from the historical in many ways..., but almost every extra "scenario" offered improves it more. I'm not "knocking it", simply making an observation that in reality, no-one seems to want to play the historic Japanese. But most of them still want to count "VP's" based (if such a term can be used for such arbitrary statistics) on an "improvement to historic performance"---even after removing history from the equasion. I find it all quite amusing....

REPLY: I don't think you are right. Apparently a majority of players prefer to be the Allies vs Japan. Further - many got tired of winning too easily - and wanted a 'stronger Japan' so it would be harder to beat. That is one reason for EOS - and it had to be modified into AIO - for technical reasons - to give them the option. Apparently most players do not do PBEM or head to head - and they pretty much have to let AI run Japan - since it isn't good enough to do the Allies. Also apprently there is a lot of Allied patriotism out there - and people love their ships/planes/units. Then there are the "play balance" people. The war is NOT balanced - nothing we can do balances it - and all efforts along those lines must be to make the weaker side stronger. One reason many play Allies - I know an experienced gamer AFRAID to try Japan -
is it is too humiliating to know you pretty much must lose.

[el cid again]

An additional comment to the above:

I have added literally hundreds of things to the Allies - albiet not just in EOS in most cases. When I began the Allies had no heavy transports, no blimps, no guerillas independent of supply lines - the list is very long. I did an integrated and systematic study - we changed terrain to help the Allies many places. We added many types of aircraft and several kinds of weapons. We changed the way naval units are presented, opening up slots in four figures, and added vast numbers of LSTs, LSMs, other landing craft, and more than a few other vessels - including so many PTs that the game code may make it unrealistic (if it regenerates them - although we probably could have built more if we needed them). More than a few airborne and special formations were added. Two whole air forces and the entire navy were added to the USSR. The Soviet tank corps was no where near the size it should have been, nor were there any airborne or naval infantry, and more than a few regular formations and air units not part of naval aviation or long range aviation were also added. Allied bombers were deliberately imitiated in both range and payload in CHS - but we returned to the standard of using actual data - no matter if the bombers were "too powerful" or not. We also reviewed every USAAF squadron - because we have their details - to find omitted ones - and added those. The Indian army and the Chinese army were enhanced several times - and so were their air forces (most of India's got added) - and much of the RIN. A number of other Allied minor nations were added - including even the Viet Minh - systematic reworking of New Zealand, NEI, Canada and generic Commonwealth forces from other places - and tiny Free French land and air units. The idea we have only been changing things for the Japanese is possibly only if you have not looked at our work.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
REPLY: I don't know any of these numbers. I DO know that I have cut Japanese plant capacity significantly - because running lines at the numbers set in CHS does not work economically (in purely mechanical game terms). I have run 219 long game tests without seeing such numbers either. Nor does pilot replacement rate permit servicing such numbers. Do the math for that. While IRL Japan went over to a system that produced vast numbers of pilots (although by then they lacked the fuel to train them fully), in the game they are stuck with the start of war rate (which is more or less forced on us). If Allied players cannot cope with early war replacement rates, they could not with later higher rates - particularly if Japan had got the fuel it needed to Japan to train them.

Note also that no one seems to be noticing the Allies HAVE been made stronger - and in fundamentally different ways. We nave NOT done a strictly historical variant of the Hawaii start scenario yet - and in EOS the Allies get a lot of political points = flexability. By 1945 - if they are in trouble - they get twice the number of atomic bombs. In between, they get a significant increase in naval power - focused on naval air power. We have planned to increase plane types - and ability to upgrade air units - to compliment JAAF/JNAF changes - but that plan is waiting the art required - because so MUCH is required to do it. [Cobra says some day...]

I find it all quite amusing....

[/quote]


You are taking my observations much too personally, Sid. Maybe you have a right to be a bit paranoid given the number of "personal shots" directed your way, but I've only had issues with some of your ideas.

Please read the last line above again and "lighten up".

[el cid again]

OK - it is true you are even handed and level headed - and it may by you were not attacking. I do have a tendency to take everything very seriously - and lighten up is a standard comment headed my way. I read your remarks narrowly - and suspected you might not understand we probably added more to the Allies - just because there was so much more to add. It has always been "anyone raises anything, we use it if we can, every place we can" regardless of side.