CHS Pending Change List

[Don Bowen]

Attached is the Pending Change List for CHS. This includes items from V1.5 OOB changes and accumulated changes and errata from the CHS Alpha.

There are one or two items still being considered (primarily aircraft attributes) and the values and garrisons for the new bases are not yet established.

The list is presented for comments - no changes have yet been made. I hope to begin making these changes Monday. Your input is appreciated.

Don

[m10bob]

That's a heckuva good list Don!.Must have taken some serious time and study.(Still missing my C 54,but I suspect you are out of room).

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Attached is the Pending Change List for CHS. This includes items from V1.5 OOB changes and accumulated changes and errata from the CHS Alpha.

There are one or two items still being considered (primarily aircraft attributes) and the values and garrisons for the new bases are not yet established.

The list is presented for comments - no changes have yet been made. I hope to begin making these changes Monday. Your input is appreciated.

Don

Don,

I have finished reviewing the additional Chinese bases suggested by bstarr. I think that they should all be included.

In fact now that I have been looking a bit more closely at China I am getting more interested in it, and I am considering doing a complete review of the Chinese bases and industry/resources/manpower. This will take a while though, so IF it gets done and IF others think it is worthwhile it could be added in a future CHS update.

A big thankyou to bstarr for highlighting China...

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Don,

I have finished reviewing the additional Chinese bases suggested by bstarr. I think that they should all be included.

In fact now that I have been looking a bit more closely at China I am getting more interested in it, and I am considering doing a complete review of the Chinese bases and industry/resources/manpower. This will take a while though, so IF it gets done and IF others think it is worthwhile it could be added in a future CHS update.

A big thankyou to bstarr for highlighting China...

Great. Please send along the data for the "bstarr" bases when ready. There's been a lot of comments on China and I believe your review idea is a very good one. Putting in the half-dozen additional bases right away is a good start.

Oh, and bstarr - how about troops at these cities??

Don

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Don,

I have finished reviewing the additional Chinese bases suggested by bstarr. I think that they should all be included.

In fact now that I have been looking a bit more closely at China I am getting more interested in it, and I am considering doing a complete review of the Chinese bases and industry/resources/manpower. This will take a while though, so IF it gets done and IF others think it is worthwhile it could be added in a future CHS update.

A big thankyou to bstarr for highlighting China...

Andrew ... I am also reviewing Chinese bases, industry/manpower/resource and order of battle ... shall we divide and conqueror ?

I have a lot of disparate data - biggest problem is most Chinese sources don't zero in on 7 Dec 41 as a date of great importance. But if you like tell me where you want to play and I'll try to focus my efforts around yours ... BTW currently I'm thinking the "garrison" number assigned to the Chinese bases represents roughly 10,000 times the population ... so a garrision number of 40 would mean 400,000 pop. such as Nanning. Do you agree or have you found another number. I have some data on resource production 1937-45 ... Hsiung, J and Levine, S. CHINA'S BITTER VICTORY, Sharpe, 1992, NYC. And also the yearbooks on minerals productions are of good use ... http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/

Just let me know how you want to proceed.

For the next few days, per Don's request, I'm just focusing on the 6 new cities and anything I can find on those.

Linfin (Location 382): New Base at 50, 30.
Ningpo (Location 383): New Base at 52, 40.
Tsinan Location 401): New base at 53, 32.
Suchow Location 402): New base at 52, 34.
Tuyun (Location 405): New Base at 41, 35.
Liuchow (Location 406): New base at 41, 37.

[jwilkerson]

Oh Don ... the hexes you provided for the 6 new Chinese cities are those 2b3 hexes or Andy Brown hexes ?



EDIT: Well after looking at the maps ... I've convinced myself that the new cities/hexes are Andy Brown hexes ... so I'll proceed from that perspective.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Oh Don ... the hexes you provided for the 6 new Chinese cities are those 2b3 hexes or Andy Brown hexes ?



EDIT: Well after looking at the maps ... I've convinced myself that the new cities/hexes are Andy Brown hexes ... so I'll proceed from that perspective.

Good question! I'm pretty sure they are Andrew's Map hexes. They came from research by bstarr, if he's around perhaps he will verify it.

Don

[jwilkerson]

Ok, first cut at population , garrison, base data appears below. Note I have not found anything I'd call a "audit ready census" as of 8 Dec 1941 for populations of Chinese cities [;)] hence the below are estimates though they are based on multiple sources and essentially using a relative sizing technique ( A is larger than B but smaller than C ) ... if someone HAS found an "audit ready census" for China in 1941 please post !!!

City / Andy Hex /Population Est. /Garrison /Airbase /Port
Liuchow /41,37 /200,000 /20 /1(4) /0(0)
Linfin /50,30 /500,000 /50 /1(3) /0(0)
Ningpo /52,40 /500,000 /50 /1(3) /1(3)
Tsinan /53,32 /1,600,000 /160 /2(4) /0(0)
Suchow /52,34 /700,000 /70 /1(4) /0(0)
Tuyun /41,35 /100,000 /10 /0(0) /0(0)

Note I was not involved in the decision to add these so I'm not commenting on that - just trying to help get the data.

I would say that many things with the map and the order of battle in China are ( shall we say ) "very debatable" at this point. For example the IJA incursion into the Pakhoi/Nanning area began in Nov 1939 and ended with complete withdrawal in Nov 1940 ... thus there should be NO Japanese troops in this area at all on Dec 8, 1941. The 19 Mx Bde for example should be in Canton at the start of the game. Obviously, we do not have enough time to fix all [ or any ] of these items before the next CHS release but major improvements are possible before the release after. Second example, the "coastal road" network between Shanghai and Hanoi is for the most part a fantasy. As a preliminary fix I'd suggest no road or trail in the following hexes [ all hexes are Andy Brown map ] 41,40; 41,41; 44,42; 46,42; 47, 42; 48,42; 48,41; 48,40 and add road in 44,41. Again, these are just small examples of things that need to be done.

EDIT: Also, everything I've seen so far spells Linfin as Linfen ... so I'd suggest making that spelling change ... but at some point we have to decide if we're going with Pinyin or Wade-Giles and then get consistent. I'd suggest Wade-Giles because it matches the period.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Oh Don ... the hexes you provided for the 6 new Chinese cities are those 2b3 hexes or Andy Brown hexes ?



EDIT: Well after looking at the maps ... I've convinced myself that the new cities/hexes are Andy Brown hexes ... so I'll proceed from that perspective.

Good question! I'm pretty sure they are Andrew's Map hexes. They came from research by bstarr, if he's around perhaps he will verify it.

Don

Yes, they are for my map.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Andrew ... I am also reviewing Chinese bases, industry/manpower/resource and order of battle ... shall we divide and conqueror ?

I have a lot of disparate data - biggest problem is most Chinese sources don't zero in on 7 Dec 41 as a date of great importance. But if you like tell me where you want to play and I'll try to focus my efforts around yours ...

I think a cooperative effort is the way to go.

I have no sources myself (apart from a great map sent by bstarr), so for population etc. you may have the best chance of coming up with revised values. I am going to look at resource placement, transport infratructure (I think the Chinese railway network on my map may be a bit generous) and also the possibility of adding small amounts of intrinsic supply to most (non-occupied) Chinese bases.

As for naming conventions, I think that we should use Wade-Giles. I don't know if all of the names used currently are consistent though. I also have "Linfen" instead of "Linfin" by the way.

[Lemurs!]

Andrew, what is the decision on Darwin? I feel a 1(3) or 1(4) is good but what are your thoughts? Derby and Broome were in similar situation.

Mike

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Andrew ... I am also reviewing Chinese bases, industry/manpower/resource and order of battle ... shall we divide and conqueror ?

I have a lot of disparate data - biggest problem is most Chinese sources don't zero in on 7 Dec 41 as a date of great importance. But if you like tell me where you want to play and I'll try to focus my efforts around yours ...

I think a cooperative effort is the way to go.

I have no sources myself (apart from a great map sent by bstarr), so for population etc. you may have the best chance of coming up with revised values. I am going to look at resource placement, transport infratructure (I think the Chinese railway network on my map may be a bit generous) and also the possibility of adding small amounts of intrinsic supply to most (non-occupied) Chinese bases.

As for naming conventions, I think that we should use Wade-Giles. I don't know if all of the names used currently are consistent though. I also have "Linfen" instead of "Linfin" by the way.

As to Chinese resources ( specifically resource generation, supply generation, oil and heavy industry ) ... one key issue is we can't just toss in all the resource points the Chinese could generate ... many of these "resource points" represent items like coal which were consumed by entities outside the control of the central government [ KMT ] ... hence there have to be some "supply eaters" or we have to scale back the resource generation to reflect "automatic" consumption. Further this formula needs to be applied consistantly all across the map, not just in China. Also, I've seen MOG say that some of the Chinese resources represent Rice which again would be to a large extent, consumed by the population if at all possible. So we have to decide between (A) Absolute resources with requisite consumers or (B) Net resources ... any thoughts on what the original designers did based on your research to date ?

As to transport network ... keep in mind that we have 4 flavors to work with and should probably think of them more abstractly than we have been ... the "RR" on the map should be a double tracked or single tracked with lots of sidings and should be of the main line guage ... the "Paved road" could represent low capacity railroads an also attested metaled roads. And the trail represents non-metaled roads in rough terrain. Further were significant river borne transport exists these need to be factored in ... for example in NE India ... the ability to utilize and increase the river borne traffic could justify an upgrade to the railnet in that area ( as I think has already been done ).

What medium should we use to exchange data ... this forum .. with a new thread ? Or PM ... or regular email ... ( I'd vote for regular email before PM because of attachment and character limits ) ... but am ok with this forum with a new thread .. call it CHS China or something to that effect.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Andrew, what is the decision on Darwin? I feel a 1(3) or 1(4) is good but what are your thoughts? Derby and Broome were in similar situation.

Mike

In my scenarios I have the following at the moment:

Darwin: 2(3)
Wyndham: 1(2)
Derby: 1(2)
Broome: 1(3)

I think that Darwin should be "bigger" than the other three, which were tiny backwaters, but then again Darwin would have been a LOT smaller in 1941 than it is today. I think either leaving it at 2(3), or changing it to 1(3) would be OK.

I also wonder whether Noumea should be further reduced from 3(3) to a 2(3)?

Port Moresby should also be reduced. It should probably be reduced to match Darwin - 2(3) or 1(3). This would also mean reducing Rabaul as well I think.

[Halsey]

Yes! With Midway too![:D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
City / Andy Hex /Population Est. /Garrison /Airbase /Port
Liuchow /41,37 /200,000 /20 /1(4) /0(0)
Linfin /50,30 /500,000 /50 /1(3) /0(0)
Ningpo /52,40 /500,000 /50 /1(3) /1(3)
Tsinan /53,32 /1,600,000 /160 /2(4) /0(0)
Suchow /52,34 /700,000 /70 /1(4) /0(0)
Tuyun /41,35 /100,000 /10 /0(0) /0(0)

These values look virtaully the same as ones I have come up with myself. One question though - Should Tuyun really be a 0(0) or is that a typo? I have it as a 1(4).

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
City / Andy Hex /Population Est. /Garrison /Airbase /Port
Liuchow /41,37 /200,000 /20 /1(4) /0(0)
Linfin /50,30 /500,000 /50 /1(3) /0(0)
Ningpo /52,40 /500,000 /50 /1(3) /1(3)
Tsinan /53,32 /1,600,000 /160 /2(4) /0(0)
Suchow /52,34 /700,000 /70 /1(4) /0(0)
Tuyun /41,35 /100,000 /10 /0(0) /0(0)

These values look virtaully the same as ones I have come up with myself. One question though - Should Tuyun really be a 0(0) or is that a typo? I have it as a 1(4).

I made Liuchow a 1(4) because I have data showing 14th Airforce used this as one of its primary bases. Tsinan and Suchow I gave level 7 reachability because they are very large cities / areas and had the infrastructure to support building large base complexes ( which a level 7 represents ).

I have Tuyun as being a tiny place ... in fact I can find very little on it ... actually I wonder .. if we want a city in this area maybe Kweiting would be a better choice ... Kweiting is exactly on the cross roads of the roadnet ( Tuyun is East of this cross roads ) and Kweiting has coal fields .. i.e. it is where the resources are. As a "city" it is just as tiny as Tuyun ... but it has resources !

But is Tuyun famous for something ? Like do we know that B29s flew from here ? If so then I'm fine with your numbers ( which allow a level 7 ). If not, if there is no data indicating significant air assets operated from here .. then I'd stick with the 0(0). I haven't checked for significant air operations basing from Tuyun ... I could do so .. or let you do it if you'd rather ...

[Tanaka]

Kitakami (Class 021): Remove Type 13 Radar (Weapon 9)

Curious for the reasons for this removal as the source I have seen puts this device experimentally on these two ships: the Kitakami and Oi.

And if you are going to remove this device shouldnt you do the same for the Oi???

I also see that Pry has fixed this device in his new scenario which needed to be done....

http://www.star-games.com/exhibits/japa ... radar.html

Type 13
Detail of bridge structure of heavy cruiser Myoko at Singapore late in the war, the Type 13 radar mat is visible on top of the foremast


Became Operational
operationally March 1943, experimentally 1941

War Status
wide operational use in war

Installed
ground, surface ship and submarine portable

Purpose
anti-air

Wavelength
200 cm

Peak Output
10 kw

Transmitter
parallel two wire

Receiver
UN-954

Detector
n/a

Detected
aircraft, group at 100 km, single at 50 km

Weight
110 kg

Number Built
1000

Antennae
dipole array with mat type reflector, send and receive common use



Type 13 sets are known to have been installed on the following ships :

Major Ships

1941
month unknown
Oi, Kitagami

1943
June
Katori, Kashima, Kashii


October
Yamato, Musashi

1944
May
Nachi, Ashigara, Haguro, Myoko


June
Atago, Takao, Maya


July
Junyo, Oyodo, Noshiro, Yahagi - 2 sets in Noshiro and Yahagi


August
Amagi, Unryu


October
Nagato, Katsuragi - 2 sets in the latter


November
Sakawa - 2 sets

1945
January
Kitagami receives 2nd set


The experimental installations on Oi and Kitagami were probably the first examples of Imperial Navy shipborne radar. They were also the only Japanese ships to begin the war with radar installed.

[jwilkerson]

Tanaka - I've seen this source as well - but I question the "correctness" of this source ... because no primary ( or secondary sources are listed ) and this is a "gaming" source not a professional historical site.

In the K&O thread we had a week or so ago ... "MARK" provided another source which indicates contrarily that type 13 wasn't developed until 1943 ... hence making 1941 operation difficult.

Other sources support MARK's source.

The source you sight - is the ONLY source I've found that indicates T13 radar was operational on K&O in Dec 41.

So unless we can find a second source. I'd vote for removal of the T13 from K&O and add it to an upgrade.

All this being said - it is not clear that the radar does anything - although Pry's correction to make it "A/S" radar would require another test. My testing ( which I posted ) got no difference in air defense results .. but did get some radar search hits during 10 test surface battles. However, it was pointed out that successful radar search results can be had in TF with no radar present - hence the message is probably erroneous.

If you'd like me to re-post MARK's source - I can do that.

EDIT: Adding Source I'm questioning Click_here

[Lemurs!]

I do have sources that say the Kitakamis had an experimental radar installation in 41 but that it was not very effective yet and i feel calling it a type 13 is overstating the capability.

I support just removing it.

Mike

[Tanaka]

ok if u guys think so.

then u might as well remove the same radar from the Oi as well. I did not see this in the list.