If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply.
It was not contemplated. By 1944 Japan could not have attempted it by sea. In 1942 it probably could not have been stopped -
but only the Bengal Field Force of the INA would have been available in support. India is a sleeper in history - only since the 1980s
have serious historians been looking at it (see Total War, Calvocorricci et al and The Encyclopedia of Revolutions). Japan didn't
have the kind of pre war plan often assumed - and was somewhat surprised how well the first campaigns came off. This is why "what
to do next" became a debate - there was no master plan to stick to. The INA might really have mattered - it is why Germany sent
Chandra Bose in mid war - but Japan was never entirely supportive of it (although at least one Japanese from the Nakano School
was - and he formed the first INA in 1942 from prisoners in Malaya). The British were dreadfully afraid of the impact and considered it
treason - but attempts to try INA soldiers as traitors ("the Red Fort Trials") rendered India ungovernable and led to independence.
Not that this stuff is easy to represent in the game. India was not really going to be an Axis power, and at best would simply stop
being a provider of CW troops, supplies and bases - unless Japan was stupid (which happened from time to time) - in which case India
might become genuinely Allied. Had the British promised independence, India would have been far more Allied than it was: the Japanese
had no monopoly on being stupid.
The 1944 offensive was of course a logistical nightmare. But the bigger problem is that by 1944 the Allied position in NE India is
vastly too strong for the forces available to succeed. The Bengal and Assam RR has been upgraded in capacity - and a major Bhramaputra
river barrier effectively removed from the logistical trail. Allied units in numbers exist with modern weapons - and they hold the high
ground when the Japanese (and INA) comes out of the trail system. An amphibious invasion - as occurs in many games - is much more
feasible because the Allies do not know where to concentrate their defense? There are literally thousands of miles of potential landing sites -
and areas much less defensible to attack which also have far less defending them. Once captured, these areas also tend to be some semi-supply independent - India is productive in many respects. The game is quite good in this respect - and history did not have to involve the choices it did.
Monsoon effects - and other seasonal effects - probably are something that can be better modeled. Changing game files is less likely to work than changing code or changing pwhexe.dat files would - since Monsoon is a seasonal thing - not "once you get it, you keep it" sort of thing. But PLAYERS are always free NOT to try an offensive in the wrong season - if they want to play "fairly" and "historically" - always subjective concepts.
