RHS Allied Aircraft Thread: A Radical Proposal (at end)

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

On a less esoteric line - regardless of reaction to the above proposal - we probably will add the Goose to all scenarios. But it only served in RAF 24 Squadron - and not in PTO - so look for it mainly in US service - and mainly in patrol units. These permit it to do multiple roles - including transport, ASW and search - so it seems best to classify it as a Patrol plane instead of a seaplane. Since it appears we were able to fix the A-36 so it won't play fighter - we will use the second B-26 slot - probably.

Turns out we have this wrong. Except for 24 Squadron RAF - operating out of the West Indies - and minor civil airlines in a number of countries - the JRF was not in squadron service at all. Only 12 were ever armed - and the vast majority of military machines were fitted for photo recon. On Dec 7 1941 only about 8 were in PTO in US service - and always as single aircraft attached to various stations. This aircraft is not worth devoting a slot to. I am very surprised. It is a fabulous plane. It still is in service here. [Lake Hood in Anchorage, Alaska is always the largest seaplane base in the world. Developed as a USN PBY station during WWII, it is next to Anchorage International Airport. Alaska is undeveloped - by law - and most places can be reached only by air. If there is no other place to land, that means floatplane. Otherwise, land plane suitable for gravel strips - so we also have the largest light plane airport in the world - every year - and Anchorage International is always the largest air cargo airport. Only the largest passenger airport is not here - and that changes year to year.]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

On a less esoteric line - regardless of reaction to the above proposal - we probably will add the Goose to all scenarios. But it only served in RAF 24 Squadron - and not in PTO - so look for it mainly in US service - and mainly in patrol units. These permit it to do multiple roles - including transport, ASW and search - so it seems best to classify it as a Patrol plane instead of a seaplane. Since it appears we were able to fix the A-36 so it won't play fighter - we will use the second B-26 slot - probably.

Actually it served with several squadrons of the RCAF as well.

With but not as primary. RCAF is not listing any unit with it. And the TOTAL sold to Canada was only 16 - not enough even for one squadron over any significant time in a wartime operational sense. The Goose also has radically different data. If you see a range of 1600 miles - that is the TURBOPROP version of the 1950s or later - the 1930s version is only 640.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: drw61

I like the idea of combining the Allied plane slots.

If you are planning on combining the allied aircraft I would like to….
Keep the A36A (as fighter-bomber or dive-bomber)

We are keeping the A-36 for now - but any plane used by only a single group is in danger! In fact - it appears (inherited from CHS) we have way too many units with it! Including the 386th - a very heavy bomber unit!

Add the P-51A (fighter)
Add the P-51H (does it arrive to late for RHS?)

No. 555 were produced before VJ day. That would normally translate to about 67 operational (if during midwar) - when only about 30% go to PTO - but fully 222 due to being almost all after VE day.

Split the F6F to –3 and -5 versions
Add the P-38F
Add the B-42 Mixmaster (great twin engine bomber)

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

We are keeping the A-36 for now - but any plane used by only a single group is in danger! In fact - it appears (inherited from CHS) we have way too many units with it! Including the 386th - a very heavy bomber unit!

Add the P-51A (fighter)
Add the P-51H (does it arrive to late for RHS?)

No. 555 were produced before VJ day. That would normally translate to about 67 operational (if during midwar) - when only about 30% go to PTO - but fully 222 due to being almost all after VE day.

Split the F6F to –3 and -5 versions
Add the P-38F
Add the B-42 Mixmaster (great twin engine bomber)

The A-36 could probably be covered with the P-51A. The two were similar enough that the performance stats would be pretty much the same. The primary difference was the role.

The P-51H arrived too late for any part in the war.

Splitting the F6F into -3 and -5 would be good. The -5 would have better performance numbers than the -3.

Why add the B-42? Only 2 were built. The development was continued with the jet powered B-43, which also never saw service.

Bill

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: el cid again

We are keeping the A-36 for now - but any plane used by only a single group is in danger! In fact - it appears (inherited from CHS) we have way too many units with it! Including the 386th - a very heavy bomber unit!

Add the P-51A (fighter)
Add the P-51H (does it arrive to late for RHS?)

No. 555 were produced before VJ day. That would normally translate to about 67 operational (if during midwar) - when only about 30% go to PTO - but fully 222 due to being almost all after VE day.

Split the F6F to –3 and -5 versions
Add the P-38F
Add the B-42 Mixmaster (great twin engine bomber)

The A-36 could probably be covered with the P-51A. The two were similar enough that the performance stats would be pretty much the same. The primary difference was the role.

The P-51H arrived too late for any part in the war.

Splitting the F6F into -3 and -5 would be good. The -5 would have better performance numbers than the -3.

Why add the B-42? Only 2 were built. The development was continued with the jet powered B-43, which also never saw service.

Bill

With a vast fleet of bombers - and jets on the horizon - B-42 was not built. But it is a SUPERIOR idea - and it would do well in the war. Certainly a better buy than more B-25s would be. And the used it as a test bed for the jet bomber - because it was suitable for jet propulsion - being designed for high speed. It was one of those contingency planes - and if given more priority could have been available sooner - which is what really matters IMHO.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I'm coming in late on this thread.

As for el cid's original question about the A-36. I brought up the concern. The A-36 was intended as a bomber and the pilots were trained for dive bombing. However, it goes into a fighter bomber squadron that upgrades to P-51Bs. Because of game mechanics, the A-36 will be allowed to perform fighter missions, which is ahistorical. A-36s never flew escort or performed any of the P-51's fighter roles.

...

Bill

Why not just change the class of the A-36 to be a dive bomber and then have it upgrade to the P-51B? Already answered. That what happens when you don' read all the forum first.

[el cid again]

We are confusing a plane's liniage with a unit's function. A USAAF BOMBER formation is NOT going to convert to a P-51 FIGHTER as primary equipment - even if it is using a form of the P-51 as a bomber. Instead - it is going to upgrade to an A something - otherwise a B something. And it was true - players would treat a "fighter bomber" rated plane as if it could do things the UNIT could not and would not attempt - like escort. So we have rated the A-36 as a dive bomber - and we rate each unit to upgrade to whatever it really upgraded to - or not and stay A-36. We also will rate the A-36 to upgrade to an A-something - as a player option - AI won't pay attention to that. We won't rate it to upgrade to a fighter. If some UNIT did - that UNIT alone will be so rated.

[m10bob]

Ref: "The radical idea of making generic one size fits all units".
I don't like it.
For all of its' possible advantages, it draws from the individual accuracy we have all tried to exploit in the game, and is starting to make it more utilitarian, like "Axis and Allies", (or even Chess..)


Sid Sez: "I have added some Allied air units and modified some Allied plane types to be multiple in nature. Thus we are issuing a flight of Boeing 314 Clippers to the USAAF - early - when it matters - and turning the Empire Flying Boat slot into a dual slot. I have converted the Lockheed 212 into a more generic slot representing many smaller than C-47 dual engine transports - retaining the 212 data - and put no less than 6 names in the type designation! :

C-32 / C-33 / C-35 / C-36 / C-37 and C-40. [If I had room I would also include C-39]
EDIT: This is now C-32/36/39 and 30 plus symbol BT-32. I removed planes not serving in numbers"

Actually, with transport/cargo planes, I don't see a problem. For game purposes if the planes have a similar speed/range capacity, I agree it is a good approach to bring in a lot of those planes.
I just don't want to see "all" planes of a type represented by one, just for the sake of finding more slots..
Individual factors of individual COMBAT types is important, but for those transport/cargo planes, it is no stranger than the many types of sea-going cargo ships in game.

[JeffroK]

From M10bob;
Ref: "The radical idea of making generic one size fits all units".
I don't like it.
For all of its' possible advantages, it draws from the individual accuracy we have all tried to exploit in the game, and is starting to make it more utilitarian, like "Axis and Allies", (or even Chess..)
 
Ditto.
 
 
As to other aircraft that could make a showing.
 
IMHO you have the Japanese posibilities already.
 
The Brits had 2 excellent Fighter-Bombers which served in the ETO only in the Typhoon & Tempest.  Take away the Hurricane production from late 43 and add first the Typhoon then the Tempest.
 
In the Western Desert the RAF used the Martin 167 Maryland and 187 Baltimore. In small number the maryland could offer an RAF Recce Force in early days. Later the Baltimore could replace the Blenheim as a fast Light Bomber.
 
In the what if Categories
Blackburn Firebrand TF II
Bristol Buckingham
from mid-late 44, assuming engine probs were solved.
 
Late war, assuming increased effort in development & production
dh Hornet
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker  MB-5
Spitfire F21/22
Bristol Brigand
CAC 27 Mustang  from Australia, very late late war.
 
The USAAF/USN could get
 
P63C - In production but sent to the USSR, France & Italy.
 
Some of the X Aircraft
XP60
XP67
XP75
Lockheed Chain Lightning???
The Grumman 2E fighter???? about 1941-42
Douglas BTD Destoyer
Douglas AD-1 Skyraider
Martin AM-1 Mauler
 
Lots of dreams, but as the Allies weren't under the pressure of the Axis, many designs seemed to drag on & on.
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ref: "The radical idea of making generic one size fits all units".
I don't like it.
For all of its' possible advantages, it draws from the individual accuracy we have all tried to exploit in the game, and is starting to make it more utilitarian, like "Axis and Allies", (or even Chess..)


Sid Sez: "I have added some Allied air units and modified some Allied plane types to be multiple in nature. Thus we are issuing a flight of Boeing 314 Clippers to the USAAF - early - when it matters - and turning the Empire Flying Boat slot into a dual slot. I have converted the Lockheed 212 into a more generic slot representing many smaller than C-47 dual engine transports - retaining the 212 data - and put no less than 6 names in the type designation! :

C-32 / C-33 / C-35 / C-36 / C-37 and C-40. [If I had room I would also include C-39]
EDIT: This is now C-32/36/39 and 30 plus symbol BT-32. I removed planes not serving in numbers"

Actually, with transport/cargo planes, I don't see a problem. For game purposes if the planes have a similar speed/range capacity, I agree it is a good approach to bring in a lot of those planes.
I just don't want to see "all" planes of a type represented by one, just for the sake of finding more slots..
Individual factors of individual COMBAT types is important, but for those transport/cargo planes, it is no stranger than the many types of sea-going cargo ships in game.

Possibly you do not understand what I am talking about here - other than re transports - where it is clear that if the range/payload is the same - it does not matter which one is represented (and we are telling you all the possibilities in the name - so if one is used by that nation you know which it is - an Empire Flying boat is not USAF - and the USAF detachment has Boeing 314 in the unit name to further clarify it). But as for combat aircraft I am NOT talking about combining planes EXCEPT in art and pools: IF the plane is IDENTICAL in different nations/services - THEN we combine it - and gain a slot - or even more than one slot. Thus - a Commonwealth Dakota - a US C-47 - are the SAME plane. Right now ALL US PBYs have no radar - so we can do early PTO stuff right - and ALL British/CW ones have radar - because by 1941 most did - but under the generic scheme there would be TWO versions of the CAT in BOTH nations -

one without radar upgrading to one with radar - and only units that had radar in 1941 start with it.

The same for everything else. If a British version of a US plane has rockets - it stays different. If not - it combines. BUT THEN the Americans can upgrade to the later version - which really happened but is impossible to represent right now without letting them have rockets before even they were adopted.

The biggest ahistorical thing is this system combines POOLS - and that implies MORE Allied cooperation. A nice tit for tat for the better IJA/IJN cooperation in EOS.

This is an EOS ONLY proposal - remember. And the gains for Japan of "pick the best plane regardless" - and more types of planes because we don't duplicate slots - are tremendous. This helps balance that - and give the Allied player options he does not have in other scenarios. If all things must stay the same - why have a different scenario?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From M10bob;
Ref: "The radical idea of making generic one size fits all units".
I don't like it.
For all of its' possible advantages, it draws from the individual accuracy we have all tried to exploit in the game, and is starting to make it more utilitarian, like "Axis and Allies", (or even Chess..)

Ditto.


As to other aircraft that could make a showing.

IMHO you have the Japanese posibilities already.

CORRECT: The proposal was re ALLIED AIRCRAFT. With one exception - the Japanese have nothing we should give up. This is an attempt to represent more Allied aircraft types more specifically - and give more upgrade options to the Allies - who face a much stronger Japan in EOS - so strong that - working on the files - Nemo worried it might be too strong to beat! Japan has inherant interior lines.

The Brits had 2 excellent Fighter-Bombers which served in the ETO only in the Typhoon & Tempest.  Take away the Hurricane production from late 43 and add first the Typhoon then the Tempest.

REPLY: Quite True. But the Allies don't need late war planes (the game is unplayable vs AI after late 1944 anyway). We considered both - and had the Tempest briefly - in RHS.
What the Allies need is planes that can make a difference - early is best - mid war second best.

In the Western Desert the RAF used the Martin 167 Maryland and 187 Baltimore. In small number the maryland could offer an RAF Recce Force in early days. Later the Baltimore could replace the Blenheim as a fast Light Bomber.

REPLY: How are these better than B-25s? Unless you think they might be available sooner?

In the what if Categories
Blackburn Firebrand TF II
Bristol Buckingham
from mid-late 44, assuming engine probs were solved.

Late war, assuming increased effort in development & production
dh Hornet
Hawker Fury
Martin Baker  MB-5
Spitfire F21/22
Bristol Brigand
CAC 27 Mustang  from Australia, very late late war.

The USAAF/USN could get

P63C - In production but sent to the USSR, France & Italy.

REPLY: We have this I think. We could just make it an upgrade option. Again - IF we adopt a generic art scheme.

Some of the X Aircraft
XP60
XP67
XP75
Lockheed Chain Lightning???
The Grumman 2E fighter???? about 1941-42
Douglas BTD Destoyer
Douglas AD-1 Skyraider
Martin AM-1 Mauler

Lots of dreams, but as the Allies weren't under the pressure of the Axis, many designs seemed to drag on & on.

And in EOS the pressure might be on. So a different assumption applies - or may. And players need NOT use a plane they don't think is appropriate.

[JeffroK]

Sid,

I'd compare the Maryland & Baltimore to the A-20 Boston.

But both had longer range and a top speed of 300mph plus.

Re Plane art, its pretty but doesnt affect the game.

I'm playing a mod and some of the art isnt there, doesnt make any difference.

To make a difference early game.

ASSUME: The Brits were more prepared to commit modern aircraft to the Far East.

Replace all Buffaloes with Hurricanes; The next upgrade is to Spitfire II then Spitfuire Vb. Maybe add Kittyhawk I & III as fighterbomber to some squadrons

Blenheim IF replaced by Beaufighter IF, upgrade to VIF

Blenheim IV replaced by A-20 Boston

Wellington replaced by Halifax.

RAAF Wirraways replaced by Hurricane II /Kittyhawk I

I would also upgrade the quality of the British/Indian Army in Malaya/Burma.

All USAAF fighters in the PI & HI would have P40E, B-18 replaced by A-20, B-25 & B26, all B17 at B17E level & the USN with F4F-3 at least, if not F4F-4.

Plus improve the forces in the Phillipines.

The Dutch fighters could be Hurricane II/Kittyhawk I with Blenheim/B-25/A-20 replacing the Martin 139's

This would make the first year much more enjoyable for the Allied player [:'(]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid,

I'd compare the Maryland & Baltimore to the A-20 Boston.

REPLY: Concur completely. Also contemporary - pretty much. Not bad for the era (which is pre PTO actually).
What advantage is there to having them? And are you willing to go to a unified art scheme so we have slots for them (or anything)?


But both had longer range and a top speed of 300mph plus.

Re Plane art, its pretty but doesnt affect the game.

REPLY: And it is less offensive when it isn't "wrong" looking. So the unified scheme proposal. Does not hurt the Japanese. I wonder if we might not have a roundel with a five pointed star in it - green for army - blue for navy type planes - faded on a camo scheme. Naval camo blue tops (sea blue) sky grey/blue bottom. Army camo mottled green and brown for flying over jungle.

I'm playing a mod and some of the art isnt there, doesnt make any difference.

To make a difference early game.

ASSUME: The Brits were more prepared to commit modern aircraft to the Far East.

REPLY: The problem with that is that every new plane sent PTO is NOT ETO - that hurts the war there - and messes up our assumptions re reinforcements/supply and political events.

Replace all Buffaloes with Hurricanes; The next upgrade is to Spitfire II then Spitfuire Vb. Maybe add Kittyhawk I & III as fighterbomber to some squadrons

REPLY: IF you combine the planes - you have US production in ALLIED pools (and vice versa) - that vastly increases the upgrade options - trust me on this. The Japanese make out doing this - the Allies would too.

Blenheim IF replaced by Beaufighter IF, upgrade to VIF

Blenheim IV replaced by A-20 Boston

Wellington replaced by Halifax.

RAAF Wirraways replaced by Hurricane II /Kittyhawk I

I would also upgrade the quality of the British/Indian Army in Malaya/Burma.

REPLY: In what sense? And what pays for it? Steel is the critical thing - EVERY ton you send here you must lose there. Aluminum is almost as bad.

All USAAF fighters in the PI & HI would have P40E, B-18 replaced by A-20, B-25 & B26, all B17 at B17E level & the USN with F4F-3 at least, if not F4F-4.

REPLY: How so? Almost all we can do is affect FUTURE options - not start options. Hard to do that.

Plus improve the forces in the Phillipines.

REPLY: With what? Lots of stuff en route. Just delay the enemy and it arrives. But it can't get there before ever it left! Or was allocated. Or produced.

The Dutch fighters could be Hurricane II/Kittyhawk I with Blenheim/B-25/A-20 replacing the Martin 139's

REPLY: Only if you get some - and upgrade.

This would make the first year much more enjoyable for the Allied player [:'(]

I bet. But I am not doing "whatever we please science fiction." This is just alternate history. It must be possible. And I am a loggie doggie - a sometime manufacturing engineer. We gotta rationalize things. Winnie had it right - you get almost nothing right away, first year a trickle, after two years, a lot.

[JeffroK]

???
 
Isnt the RHS EOS little more than a Japanese wet dream?? The various CV  or BB variants or Russian early entry no more than alternate history??
 
???

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

???

Isnt the RHS EOS little more than a Japanese wet dream?? The various CV or BB variants or Russian early entry no more than alternate history??

???

By a alternate history you can gave the Dutch the GI Fighter.

[el cid again]

Au contraire, mon ami, RHSEOS is a good deal more than a "Japanese wet dream." It is rather carefully crafted from Japanese planning, technology, proposals, and options, dating to 1910. I am about to write a detail essay about it, but EOS is essentially meant to serve three different classes of users:

a) Those who want more "play balance." WWII PTO is anything but balanced, and NOTHING we can do will make it even steven. But you can give the Japanese side a better chance if you assume the planning process used re Malaya was done writ large - for the entire war.

b) Those who want to play a "tougher Japan" when controlled by AI - a big constituancy. [As I understand it, this is the majority of all games]. AI is pretty dumb - so again, there is NOTHING we can do to make it really strong enough to seriously challenge an intelligent human player. But there are things we can do to make it interesting. Think of this as the "token opposition force" in a US war game IRL. It is always more interesting to play the "token opposition" too.

c) Those who want a stronger Japan for a variety of reasons to play as Japan. That certainly includes classical JFBs - at least those who are not battleship admirals - but it also includes serious military history students. What if Japan had organized properly? What if the plan Adm Yamamoto decided should have been used really was used? EOS lets you examine such serious questions. Since Japan had (quoting my first chief) "the best ships and naval weapons at the start of WWII" - this can be a very interesting scenario to play as Japan. But human players always know they are going to lose the war.

The few variations the Allies have (Midways laid as Essex) probably are BETTER Allied strategy - are certainly feasible - and I fail to see why they should not be options in one scenario? They really were options. There are no early Russian (or anything else) options - the one exception (an air transport unit) has been replaced by a real one. But this is indeed alternate history. It pits significantly better Japanese planning (assuming that not avoiding war is better planning) vs slightly better Allied planning. Not because we don't like the Allies - but because their strategy is already pretty close to optimum. In the beginning EOS on the Allied side was pure CVO. Now it is slightly stronger than CVO.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: JeffK

???

Isnt the RHS EOS little more than a Japanese wet dream?? The various CV or BB variants or Russian early entry no more than alternate history??

???

By a alternate history you can gave the Dutch the GI Fighter.

Tell me about it. What is it? How might it have been available? What could make it available in PTO WITHOUT reducing IN ANY WAY what was in ETO?

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: JeffK

???

Isnt the RHS EOS little more than a Japanese wet dream?? The various CV or BB variants or Russian early entry no more than alternate history??

???

By a alternate history you can gave the Dutch the GI Fighter.

Tell me about it. What is it? How might it have been available? What could make it available in PTO WITHOUT reducing IN ANY WAY what was in ETO?

Here some links about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_G.1

http://www.dutch-aviation.nl/index5/Mil ... %20G1.html

[m10bob]

Sid sez: "Turns out we have this wrong. Except for 24 Squadron RAF - operating out of the West Indies - and minor civil airlines in a number of countries - the JRF was not in squadron service at all. Only 12 were ever armed - and the vast majority of military machines were fitted for photo recon".....



Sid, the thought the Goose was never in squadron strength never even entered my mind!..I did find exactly one RCAF squadron which used it.

Is it possible we might look to give the Goose a 4 plane unit attached to Headquarters units as an HQ asset?. This would be no less credible than some of the Aussie/Dutch 3-4 plane units?
Also, I finally understand your concept of using just one slot for purely identical aircraft being used by multi-nations..(I had misinterpreted your intentions, because like most high IQ folks you tend to think ahead of your typing fingers and just assume the rest of us will "catch up". Problem with that is it is fairly easy to forget to type some of the info that needs to be explained in the middle of the thought........[:D]

[el cid again]

Jo: That is a very interesting fighter plane I was not aware of. It is implied it influenced the P-38 design - and in that sense it may already be in the game.

I do not understand any sense in which this aircraft might have been in service in PTO in either a historical mod or in the alternate history EOS mod. Only 62 were built grand total, all of them served in ETO (some in Spain, some in Dutch Air Force and some in Luftwaffe). Being of composite construction, it would not rate as well for protection as a P-38. Being of twin engine configuration, it would suffer as all 2E planes do on the maneuverability side in the RHS rating system. It would be comparable to some of the best pre cannon fighters in terms of firepower, and it is better than a P-38 in the sense it has the ability to engage a rear enemy (something WITP does figure out well).

FYI my assumption in EOS is that NOTHING AT ALL changes prior to the July, 1941 decision to mobilize by Japan.
At that point in time JAPANESE (only) planners BEGIN meeting. I require they spend the ENTIRE month of July before finalizing ANY proposed change. THEN I calculate any impacts of that change in time and in economics. Any ALLIED changes MUST occur LATER in time than that - AFTER some change in Japanese behavior/policy/programs has been detected (in a sense related to the proposed change). The proposed change requires a month to define and approve and then it requires whatever time to implement.

Worse - for the Allies - NOTHING makes sense in terms of reinforcements or dates IF we change ETO in any significant way. I won't let the Allies transfer something that was actually used in ETO - nor have materials needed to build something (or labor nor industrial facilities) that was actually used in ETO. In order for the reinforcements and withdrawalls and basic structure of the war to make sense, we require a "frozen" ETO situation to which our PTO game scenario is an appendage. Now this does not prevent changes. Consider how we got the Tiger class CL early: we used materials and facilities related to the Vanguard - a ship that did NOT serve in ETO. Or the Midways: we used materials and facilities (on the SAME dates) as the real ships - but built them to Essex standards - gaining 2 in time to matter. We gained three Independence class CVLs by using materials and facilities related to three CLs - in fact they arrive before the CLs would have (because they build faster). We gained 2 Baltimore class CAs by using materials and facilities related to the Alaska class (on the SAME dates) - again they arrive sooner because they build faster.

So this is the criteria for a plane addition for EOS:

a) It MUST exist somewhere but NOT be used in ETO. Alternatively, it might be built in PTO - as in Australia, or in India (we have a Chinese company which became Hindustan Aircraft - it still builds military aircraft - at Hyderabad) - or even in China. Or it just might be built in the US or UK in leiu of something else - which something else you then lose.

b) It MUST have some sort of rational related to EOS. That is, I need to know what was happening in Japan that the Allies found out about which made them want to do something different than they really did? If NOTHING had changed, NO changes in what was decided can be made. IF something was different, I can use that to calculate when the change takes effect.

c) The TIME to build/move/train must be calculated.