Matrix Games Forums

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

That would require a map change at that time.

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:24 pm

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

That would require a map change at that time.

Yes, so maybe just keep the rail connection?
This decision increases Japanese workload without no obvious justification from a gameplay perspective.

The tunnel was important but came in to play only when planning for Downfall.

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:47 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:24 pm

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

That would require a map change at that time.

Yes, so maybe just keep the rail connection?
This decision increases Japanese workload without no obvious justification from a gameplay perspective.

The tunnel was important but came in to play only when planning for Downfall.

The supplies, fuel, oil, and resources flow across the strait with no problem. This just hinders the movement of units. The same thing with the changes in China.

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:49 pm

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:47 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:24 pm

That would require a map change at that time.

Yes, so maybe just keep the rail connection?
This decision increases Japanese workload without no obvious justification from a gameplay perspective.

The tunnel was important but came in to play only when planning for Downfall.

The supplies, fuel, oil, and resources flow across the strait with no problem. This just hinder the movement of units. The same thing with the changes in China.

Ok, so not that bad but moving units is a small part of that workload and shipping costs fuel.

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:52 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:49 pm

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:47 pm

Yes, so maybe just keep the rail connection?
This decision increases Japanese workload without no obvious justification from a gameplay perspective.

The tunnel was important but came in to play only when planning for Downfall.

The supplies, fuel, oil, and resources flow across the strait with no problem. This just hinders the movement of units. The same thing with the changes in China.

Ok, so not that bad but moving units is a small part of that workload and shipping costs fuel.

That is true about moving units but they can walk across the strait.

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:40 pm

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:52 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:49 pm

The supplies, fuel, oil, and resources flow across the strait with no problem. This just hinders the movement of units. The same thing with the changes in China.

Ok, so not that bad but moving units is a small part of that workload and shipping costs fuel.

That is true about moving units but they can walk across the strait.

Also good but it takes now a week to unload the train, cross (by ferry?) and board the train again.
What is more historically accurate?

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:49 pm

RangerJoe wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 11:40 pm

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:52 pm

Ok, so not that bad but moving units is a small part of that workload and shipping costs fuel.

That is true about moving units but they can walk across the strait.

Also good but it takes now a week to unload the train, cross (by ferry?) and board the train again.
What is more historically accurate?

Moving ships to the port that the units are at . . .

Remember, there is also heavy equipment usually loaded as well. Then the trains also have to be scheduled. Loading and unloading takes time.

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

Given that a rail was built in 1942 wouldn't it make more sense to keep Kyushu and mainland connected from the start? Since there's no way for railways to appear in the middle of the game.

Nazcatraz wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:29 am

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

Given that a rail was built in 1942 wouldn't it make more sense to keep Kyushu and mainland connected from the start? Since there's no way for railways to appear in the middle of the game.

I already stated how that can be done during the game.

RangerJoe wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:51 am

Nazcatraz wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:29 am

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

Given that a rail was built in 1942 wouldn't it make more sense to keep Kyushu and mainland connected from the start? Since there's no way for railways to appear in the middle of the game.

I already stated how that can be done during the game.

I am actually prepared to do just that, same with China and Burma if files are available.

Nazcatraz wrote: Mon Jan 27, 2025 3:29 am

Seacat54 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 9:58 pm Thank you for the continued work improving the game, much appreciated by a player returning after a long hiatus.

Just wondering about the reasons behind the game design decision to remove the rail connection between Shikoku and Kyushu that historically opened November 1942?

Given that a rail was built in 1942 wouldn't it make more sense to keep Kyushu and mainland connected from the start? Since there's no way for railways to appear in the middle of the game.

I agree that his this should be the default in game, files for those that want a historical date.
China and Burma are so important that only way for them to play correctly is to use files as they cant start with all the later connections.

Someone probably COULD make an utility that allows changing the map in mid-game. SHOULD it be made is different thing.

But it'd be pretty nice to be able to e.g. build roads during years etc. Of course that'd mean also changing map art...

Sid, the author of the RHS mod has a interesting way of changing the map during the game....GP

It would be great to have map tiles based on date, easy enough to change.

What house rules are people using with the Beta Scen 1?

I have been planning my "day of infamy turn" for Scen 1 with day 1 house rules allowing only Chinese units and existing naval task forces from Allied side to be issued orders.

Is this considered fair?
It is still hard to get anywhere near historical level of damage done, especially against allied air power.


It seems the restricted LCUs need to be bought out using PP could be the only campaign HR needed as many of the issues have been fixed.

There was a period when the IJ players were creating a tank and artillery death star in China by buying out a lot of those units from Manchukuo. The Chinese had nothing that could stop them and I am not sure that the addition of a few anti-tank guns in the 11.26 patches would be enough - the artillery would take them out. So players began setting HRs that limited the number of tank units and artillery units in a hex. That made the game more historical in feel because the Japanese were afraid of Russian involvement. Remember, Japan humiliated Russia in the 1904-1905 war, but the Russians stopped cold a Japanese incursion (near Mongolia IIRC) in the mid 1930s.

BBfanboy wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 5:38 pm There was a period when the IJ players were creating a tank and artillery death star in China by buying out a lot of those units from Manchukuo. The Chinese had nothing that could stop them and I am not sure that the addition of a few anti-tank guns in the 11.26 patches would be enough - the artillery would take them out. So players began setting HRs that limited the number of tank units and artillery units in a hex. That made the game more historical in feel because the Japanese were afraid of Russian involvement. Remember, Japan humiliated Russia in the 1904-1905 war, but the Russians stopped cold a Japanese incursion (near Mongolia IIRC) in the mid 1930s.

Never done that but, I avoid anything that feels gamey, historically Japan did pull armor from Manchuria but they did send them back after the initial expansion.

Logistics should be the limiting factor in China, Japan will need some of those units in Manchuria against the western allies also so a possible HR would have to be global in the game.

My point was that buying them out is not so bad, but concentrating them into an unstoppable death star is. IRL, Japan had to spread them around because there were so many vectors the Chinese could sneak attack on.

Stacking limits inhibit the formation of such large masses of units but it actually hurts the Chinese more on defense.

BBfanboy wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:11 pm My point was that buying them out is not so bad, but concentrating them into an unstoppable death star is. IRL, Japan had to spread them around because there were so many vectors the Chinese could sneak attack on.

I think supplying artillery and armor was also an issue in China but for sure securing lines of communication was a drain on forces in itself.

I am open to balanced and clearly defined house rules or maybe those stacking files if they dont create a new unbalance.
Some things are made possible by game mechanics that just feel off, Fortress Palembang is one, actually fighting for Singapore or Java seems the more likely what if scenario.

To clarify, I think sending 100k troops to defend Palembang does not feel very realistic, sending engineers to take it down is for certain realistic and a smart play.
A lot comes down to how the players see the game, historically minded just wont do everything the game allows even without house rules.