More Allied losses = more reinforcements?

[Wirraway_Ace]

I get the sense that the more the allies lose in the long campaign scenarios, the more Pearl releases.

Looking at Borner vs Ike, round 2 and bigred vs tocaff, it appears that the high allied losses in combat ships have led to significant release of ships from Pearl.

Is this just chance or by game design?

It would make sense from a game design perspective. It would reward an aggressive allied commander, vs the sit back and wait strategy.

Does anybody have a better sense of this? I have little experience from which to draw conclusions...

[Nomad]

Here is a picture from the Campaign editor. It list the maximum commit value for player 1 and 2. Then the percentages that are setup for a game are use to modify these numbers. So, yes, if an Allied commander is more aggressive that more is released from Pearl Harbor, but if the Allied player is too aggresive the Japanese player could then take Noumea and then no reinforcements arrive at Noumea. Plus, being too aggresive can cost points. What the Allies can do is try to get damaged ships returned, then no longer count against the maximum. And of course, if the Allies can trade ships they will gain an advantage. The Japanese get most of there ships in the first few months, the Allies get theirs in much later and there is often more in PH than points will allow to be released.

edit=forgot pict