Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The reason that Aden was added to the map was to give the British a "safe" entry point. Early AARs were showing that an aggressive Japaniese player could put Britain completely out of the game by capturing Karachi - no Karachi, no reinforcements. The idea was that since Aden was off the indian subcontinent it would not be threatened by a Japanese conquering of India.

It was generally accepted on the forum that to capture a major nation's last reinforcement point, thus preventing all reinforcement's from arriving, is a little too gamey. YMMV

Thanks. This at least has some logic to it. I don't particularly have a problem with capturing board edge entry points "cutting off" reinforcement however. It is SOP in most games. The incentive should be "don't let them do that" and I submit - if the game is not fundamentally flawed - it is only possible to take Karachi if the Allies strip the region of units
to send them to fight somewhere else. If the game is fundamentally flawed in some combat sense, then you don't fix that
by giving the Allies a different point - it would remain flawed.

As I found the game, ships had vastly too much range, and required far too little fuel, in general. Also, local points generated far too many supplies. This favored a force moving a vast distance - and then feeding off the local points when it got there (except in the central and south Pacific, where there were no local supply points to speak of). The game is not longer this way - at least not in RHS. We "eat" supplies generated by resource centers - when inappropriate - and we reduced the ranges of ships and made their fuel requirements reasonable. In that context, I am not very worried about how feasible it is to move to the map edge with a major force, and sustain it. I have yet to see anyone try - and AI is not trying as late as 1943. In RHS you need to be sending resources and oil to Japan - and supplies out from Japan - from day one - or you will run out of steam long before you get to India, never mind Pakistan.

IF you define Aden as "off limits" then we really should take out a very long list of ships and air units and some land units which never made it as far East as India. I left them in because I felt that they are legitimately part of the theater - needing to defend Aden. You send them East - it is your risk. But if there is no need for them - then it is wrong to let players have them and send them to increase already overwhelming pressure on Japan. THAT is gamey as far as I am concerned. This whole logic is backwards: a way to rationalize vast numbers of RAF squadrons and ships which never were PTO at all being "on the map" and free to deploy. UNLESS there is a consensus that attacking Aden is OK - ALL such units should go except the Aden base force - and that only so planes can refuel and service.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
The reason that Aden was added to the map was to give the British a "safe" entry point. Early AARs were showing that an aggressive Japaniese player could put Britain completely out of the game by capturing Karachi - no Karachi, no reinforcements. The idea was that since Aden was off the indian subcontinent it would not be threatened by a Japanese conquering of India.

It was generally accepted on the forum that to capture a major nation's last reinforcement point, thus preventing all reinforcement's from arriving, is a little too gamey. YMMV

That is exactly correct. It is easier to use a house rule proclaiming that Aden is out of bounds, than to do the same with Karachi.

Also, the presence of Aden as a British entry point allows for the interdiction of British reinforcements and supplies by Japanese air and naval forces, if they can operate that far forward - something that is impossible if these things simply "appear" at Karachi.

As for the VP worth of Aden, it is worth 1 VP. I didn't reduce it to 0 because I was concerned that may introduce some strange effects. Aden used to be worth more in earlier versions of CHS because it WAS allowed to be attacked then - it was the old "Middle East" base that was considered out of bounds.

The only forces that are in Aden are a static base force and one squadron of aircraft (from memory). The Allied player could move that single squadron out, at the cost of losing the ability to conduct anti-shipping and ASW patrols, but I don't see that as a big advantage.

I would like to include Madagascar as well. I have looked at doing so in the past, but the map does not really allow it due to lack of room.

Andrew

OK - so the political points of Aden in CHS 155 are no longer present in newer editions. Note they ARE STILL in RHS.
And I note that the approaches - the sea line of communication to Aden - is considered in bounds - a clarification that
means we are not quite as far apart as I thought.

At the present time RHS scenarios define Aden as fair game. I will try (as Japan) to take the place - and (as Allies) to defend it if attacked. I find it hard to imagine how to attack it - but we will see.

Note that in RHS Bombay is NOT an entry point for the British. It is replaced by Melbourne. Supplies and fuel - and units - appear at Melbourne - not always at Aden. So the problem of losing "the only entry point" may not be as germane as in the stock and CHS scenarios your concepts were addressing. I have taken ships and run them from the US East Coast, US Gulf Coast and UK to Melbourne - via Cape Horne. These are removed from play, to justify the "invisible" arrival of supplies, fuel, oil and resources - and land units and air units - at Melbourne. I did a similar thing for Aden - running some ships down the Red Sea - and most by the Cape of Good Hope. Kerachi remains an entry point for some supply - including fuel from Iraq and Iran. There is also a new city in Northern Pakistan - because Indian Air Force squadrons formed there - and some supply appears there from off the map. This may present a more complex set of British/Allied supply sources than in past scenarios.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
As for the question "could Japan take the place" - well - surely they could if it isn't defended! And properly that question should be answered by the game itself.

The question I posed was not whether the Japanese could take Aden, but whether they could have taken what Aden represents - all of British East Africa, South Africa, the Middle East and Egypt. "Aden" is the name of that base, but the base really represents all of the areas that the British could have used as jumping off points for sending reinforcements to India.

The base could be renamed to a more proper title, such as "British Empire", but I prefer to stick with the name that comes from its geographical location.

Surely Japan coult not capture the British Empire - never mind all the rest of the places feeding Aden. So we agree about that. But I submit that isn't the germane point: Japan COULD block the arrival of supplies and units by taking critical points. See Churchill's reasons for the operation agains Madagascar. I think at the moment Aden represents not just the Mideast, but also everything that rounds the Cape of Good Hope - which is much more tonnage in fact. It is a reason we are looking at putting Madagascar and approaches on the map - and Cobra is doing a brilliant job of it (but we need slots - darn it). Now this discussion has me asking "should we replace Aden with Madagascar?" - because Aden is NOT as important as the Southern route - and we can have mideast oil arrive at Kerachi completely.

I don't see anyone saying it is wrong for Japan to invade the USA and take Canada and United States (Regina and Salt Lake City in RHS). I think it is virtually impossible to do that. I think it is going to be hard to take Aden, Kerachi, Melbourne and that city in North Pakistan as well - and if it is possible I am not at all sure "no reinforcements" is not a reasonable approximation of the effects. We have no way to knock India out of the war - but it appears it was a real possibility - and so the game probably overstates the difficulties of getting to the Eastern map edge as it is.

Note I consider this discussion civil, germane, and worth thinking about. Also note that while I really like the present RHS formulation - I never was entirely satisfied with it - and we have been actively exploring changes (as in adding Madagascar). I am open minded and willing to be persuaded that Aden should be off limits - for one thing it will reduce the slot count - much of the RAF (a quarter? a third? ) can then be removed from play. Anything the records said made "mideast" I left in the game - and it was a lot.

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

I have a question: Panama doesn't produce fuel, nor oil..while the other base (don't remember the name), close to Panama but facing the atlantic ocean, produces fuel...that fuel isn't moving along the railway, right? So why it is there? It's completely useless and Panama gets no fuel...or i am missing something??

We addressed this in RHS. Colon is the point oil from the US Gulf Coast and Venezuela enters the map. We made the canal passable - so ships can go there - and we increased the supply that appears there - and took out the ships needed to move it there from New Orleans and New York City (the hypothetical source points). We also stored a lot of oil in Panama - it was like Pearl Harbor and San Francisco - major storage. Since the field is not big enough, we simulate the rest of the storage with "free supply" of oil points (and fuel points) every day - by which I mean those points do not need shipping - because they are already there. If you do not move out supply from Panama, you can fill up the fields - but at least it will be there if you ever send ships to get it. Many ships appear there as well. We see Panama as a major entry point for supplies of all sorts, not just ships and units.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
I have a question: Panama doesn't produce fuel, nor oil..while the other base (don't remember the name), close to Panama but facing the atlantic ocean, produces fuel...that fuel isn't moving along the railway, right? So why it is there? It's completely useless and Panama gets no fuel...or i am missing something??

Fuel and oil will move along a railway between bases, so it is not useless. It will move to Panama City, although not necessarily immediately.

Andrew

I do not understand the code, but when it decides to move oil or supply, it does so. I once saw 300,000 tons move from United States to San Francisco in one 12 hour segment! And tests show that the RR in Panama always worked.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: VSWG
In my opinion there's really no need to bump the daily fuel at Aden, it's building up incredibly fast. I noticed, however, that the "oil balance" (oil produced - oil consumed) in India is quite negative: -1120 oil points per day (this is with Aden's +600 daily oil included into the calculation). Burma produces a surplus of 670 oil points, so even with Burma under Allied control there's not enough oil for India.

Is this negative oil balance intended?

In general, the intention with India was that it would provide about 50% (roughly) of the supply points as compared to stock. I can't remember the specifics - I will have to check - but if the total supply point generation (including Aden) is much less or much greater than that, then some further adjustment may have to be made. The intention was not to starve the British, but prevent massive supply abundance from building up too quickly.

In RHS we went a completely different way - and calculated the daily average tonnage per entry point. This is hard - because it is not a fixed value - year after year! Using the historical averages, you will have too much arriving in 1941 and too little in 1945 - but you can always ship it to Australia or whereever and use it later. In RHS we split the oil from Iraq and Iran between Kerachi and Aden - also we send in oil from the US Gulf Coast backwards around the world. This means some of India's oil needs come from off the map without ships (they use ships to reach Kerachi but it is invisible to the players). AI then moves that oil to the cities that need it. But a player who sends more oil from Aden to India will benefit.

In RHS you do NOT produce supply points in resource centers - or not all of them. So you need to produce supply points from HI centers. That means you must pay attention to oil and resource imports. India turns out to be resource rich -
but oil poor. Since that is right, I saw no reason to change it. Nevertheless, we found India's inherant ability to make supply was understated - and even added the shipbuilding industry missing (adding a city to do it). We also put in Hindustan Aircraft - just moved from Canton China - complete with the Hawk fighter kits that were to be assembled there - originally intended for KMT. In RHS India has is real industry - and its full air force - for the first time.

Sid --

By moving "Bombay" to "Melbourne", is that going to impact where British Withdrawls need to go?

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: VSWG
In my opinion there's really no need to bump the daily fuel at Aden, it's building up incredibly fast. I noticed, however, that the "oil balance" (oil produced - oil consumed) in India is quite negative: -1120 oil points per day (this is with Aden's +600 daily oil included into the calculation). Burma produces a surplus of 670 oil points, so even with Burma under Allied control there's not enough oil for India.

Is this negative oil balance intended?

In general, the intention with India was that it would provide about 50% (roughly) of the supply points as compared to stock. I can't remember the specifics - I will have to check - but if the total supply point generation (including Aden) is much less or much greater than that, then some further adjustment may have to be made. The intention was not to starve the British, but prevent massive supply abundance from building up too quickly.

Hi Andrew, why not have large amounts of British industry in Aden and then disable most of it so that it will gradually build up as the game goes along?

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Sid --

By moving "Bombay" to "Melbourne", is that going to impact where British Withdrawls need to go?

Well - we hope it does. We did so using the hard coded slots - we wanted that effect. Melbourne is a really vital
point - and also Australia is a really vital Continent which players felt was too vulnerable. Since ships really went there from UK and USA via a route beyond the reach of Axis contest (except in the Atlantic) it seemed wise to have their loads "appear" at Melbourne. We also felt the chance of losing Aden and Melbourne in the same game was remote.
One seaman active in RHS said "I was wondering when someone would rate Melbourne as it should be?"

Since ships did arrive and depart for UK directly from Melbourne - we believe it really is an appropriate exit point.
Both the Queens spent the war moving basically on this route - unescorted - at high speed - loading about 5000 men
per trip each.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

for one thing it will reduce the slot count - much of the RAF (a quarter? a third? ) can then be removed from play. Anything the records said made "mideast" I left in the game - and it was a lot.

Pray tell - which squadrons?

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Andrew, why not have large amounts of British industry in Aden and then disable most of it so that it will gradually build up as the game goes along?

Seconded! Sounds like the perfect solution for the problem el cid again mentioned.

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Seconded! Sounds like the perfect solution for the problem el cid again mentioned.

What problem?

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Hi Andrew, why not have large amounts of British industry in Aden and then disable most of it so that it will gradually build up as the game goes along?

That - or something similar at least - can be done if the supplies sent to the CBI theatre by the British did increase as the war progressed. I don't know if that is the case or not, and if so by how much it increased.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: VSWG
Seconded! Sounds like the perfect solution for the problem el cid again mentioned.

What problem?

The problem that WitP cannot increase the amount of supplies/oil arriving at a certain hex from year to year.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In RHS we went a completely different way - and calculated the daily average tonnage per entry point. This is hard - because it is not a fixed value - year after year! Using the historical averages, you will have too much arriving in 1941 and too little in 1945 - but you can always ship it to Australia or whereever and use it later.

ORIGINAL: VSWG
The problem that WitP cannot increase the amount of supplies/oil arriving at a certain hex from year to year.

You can set things up so you so get an increase over time, by using disabled resource centres (for supplies) and disabled oil centres (for oil/fuel). This is how the US economy currently works in CHS. The idea of doing the same thing for the British has merit, but I only intend revisiting the British supply sources if there is definitely a problem with them. At the moment I am concentrating on bug fixes for CHS, not further enhancements.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: VSWG
The problem that WitP cannot increase the amount of supplies/oil arriving at a certain hex from year to year.

You can set things up so you so get an increase over time, by using disabled resource centres (for supplies) and disabled oil centres (for oil/fuel). This is how the US economy currently works in CHS. The idea of doing the same thing for the British has merit, but I only intend revisiting the British supply sources if there is definitely a problem with them. At the moment I am concentrating on bug fixes for CHS, not further enhancements.

Andrew

I'll keep an eye on the supply/oil situation in India. It's too early too draw any conclusions, but I have the feeling that the AI's oil redistribution routine will cost me a lot of wasted HI points.