Matrix Games Forums

As I did the first turn for MAIO - in microscopic detail as a first turn should be done - and have attempted to do a first turn for a RAO test -
I have come across some minor things.

First of all - there is always some eratta. Each time I find something, I check every scenario - and everything related - so the cleanup is as general as may be required. The good news is there is not as much of this as there used to be. But there is still some: two classes of IJN submarines had an incorrect gun mounting in some scenarios; one Russian aircraft gun had an incorrect data field; one Japanese repair shipyard appeared as a merchant shipyard, etc. - so this sort of thing will always appear in a more correct form any time an update is issued.

Second - I often figure out a better way to do something. One of the more obscure and difficult problems in RHS is what to do with the peculiar Japanese Army amphibious ships (the big ones, the small ones and the true transports are not a problem)? When we began - there were no Japanese HQ that could benefit from a command ship either. And we did not know how to make a ship that is not a carrier able to operate an air group that does not appear when the ship does? But in the fullness of time, some Japanese HQ became phib HQ that could benefit from a command ship; and we had to learn how to make air units carrier capable and carrier qualified which appear by date and then transfer to a ship if you want them to. Then there is the problem of Japanese land AA on ships: Army guns don't work properly on ships - and we lack the slots to duplicate them - so I use a poor performing Allied gun. But I have decided to use an even poorer performing gun as a better simulation (for the strictly historical scenarios: EOS family uses naval guns because of increased cooperation between services). This is the most significant change: that is - the Shinshu Maru and the Akitsu Maru class ships will be slightly better modeled - and in the CVO and BBO families you can at last really operate fighters and ASW air units from them. [Since this happens late in the war - it does not make much difference for most games - but since I know how to make it work - I did so. In EOS family the Army does not operate aircraft carriers of any sort.]

We have found nothing that justifys a game restart - but have collected enough that an update will be issued for the benefit of any new games. I am not going to redo MAIO first turn - for one thing AI won't use IJA ships as AGC or as CVE in any meaningful sense - so unless you let your AI be guided - these vessels won't have any job of note. But I do plan to issue a general update when I complete the RAO turn - which I am going to start over again so it will include all these changes (for a good long term test series). Slightly more ambiguously, I have done a first turn (in many parts so we can use any portion we like) for the Tag Team using EEO - and we may or may not redo part of it - depending on what Mifune recommends. I will wait for his review before deciding if we redo this one or not? The scenario is well enough done that the changes do not warrant redoing anything - but there are lots of options - and good enough alternate ideas might require a redo. Any redo will of course be on the new foundation.

ETA for this update is no later than Tuesday - and it may be any time between Friday and then.

Eratta report.  Can get the Dutch forces at Riouw & Dependencies to Load on freighters (Yes I changed the command).

This should not be possible. It is gamey and it is the mod design intent that this militia unit MUST stay there. If you cannot load it - my tricks worked - and it is as it should be. Theoretically most Dutch regulars will load - unless they are static units - IF you change the command. But most Dutch militia will NOT load. Because they are associated with that place - and for political reasons will not leave it (or their families or captial assets). There are other wierd Dutch units - a Dutch guerilla unit that is almost impossible to kill - and does not need supplies - and is MOBILE (unlike most guerillas it will never plant) - and some later irregulars on the Allied side (communists actually). Then there are the traitors to the Dutch - the Anti Dutch Brigades - large formations that join Japan - and never leave the field until they rule the country - appearing on Java. Lots of hard work went into this rich mix. And you just detected one element of it. The militias won't leave. But they will march overland.

I see and sounds logical, but, so far all the other Dutch Units on Sumatra have loaded. You might want to check them and apply your trick to those for consistency. Also, many Dutch units (static units excepted) on the surrounding islands and Borneo also can be loaded on to transports and shipped to Java.

Oh yes, reason number umpteen for not wanting to get involved in a PBEM game is the AI never accuses me of being gamey (even though I may be).[:D]

It may have been intentional, but, I thought I would report that the rd aircraft factories at Salt Lake City/United States have not been turned off in MAIO

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I see and sounds logical, but, so far all the other Dutch Units on Sumatra have loaded. You might want to check them and apply your trick to those for consistency. Also, many Dutch units (static units excepted) on the surrounding islands and Borneo also can be loaded on to transports and shipped to Java.

Oh yes, reason number umpteen for not wanting to get involved in a PBEM game is the AI never accuses me of being gamey (even though I may be).[:D]

The situation on Sumatra is complex - but there you have a concentration of what might be called "Dutch Gurkas" - up in Aech you have troops
loyal to the Empire who will go anywhere - do anything. These form the heart of several units. Other units - truly local - are anchored by being tied to static units. Both formations mostly are in Sumatra in locations that there is fear of uprisings - or because of major capital assets which require defending - or both (see Palembang - the most major of capital assets of all on the island - but also a place the natives are so hostile that no one on either side understands they will both provide Japan with real time intel on the battlefield or restore 100 per cent destroyed refineries sooner than Japan thought it could restore the same refineries captured in tact).

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I see and sounds logical, but, so far all the other Dutch Units on Sumatra have loaded. You might want to check them and apply your trick to those for consistency. Also, many Dutch units (static units excepted) on the surrounding islands and Borneo also can be loaded on to transports and shipped to Java.

Oh yes, reason number umpteen for not wanting to get involved in a PBEM game is the AI never accuses me of being gamey (even though I may be).[:D]

A scenario designer - and in this case also the original Matrix design team (which dreamed up the idea of restricted commands) - is forced to assume players are not intimately familiar with the local political realities - and will (out of honorable motives as gamers) try to move things which simply should not be moved IRL. Mostly I achieve this by making units static. But RHS has many variations - including a unique form
of semi-static units (taking advantage of what may be a design flaw - or possibly a device not intended by the design which was introduced later but pre RHS - the static device does not work to make a unit truly static - particularly if there is only one of them in the unit: so I reasoned - if I want a unit that will retreat when attacked - but otherwise want to stay where it is - give it one on purpose. In RHS a static unit is not usually static because it has static devices - but because it is defined as a coast defense "fort." In most slots that works - but in a slot code wants to move - even a fort will "march" long distances.)

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

It may have been intentional, but, I thought I would report that the rd aircraft factories at Salt Lake City/United States have not been turned off in MAIO

It is required that YOU turn them off.

The ONLY WAY to get them turned off is if you use the MAIO first turn. The scenaio files do not permit the modder to turn off anything.

EDIT: I see what you mean: even in the Allied start file - they are not turned off at SLC. OK - I will reissue that turn.

Even though this turn (save game file 10) is intended for an Allied player start - you may start it as Japan - and the factories are still
set to off for the Allies. This means a solitare player could change something on the Japanese side - and that I did not need to give you
the save game file 9 to see the Japanese side.

I figured out that it is possible to use the wierd Chitose code in EOS - where Chitose does not upgrade to a CVL (because it already is one) -
for the Nisshin. Further that it is probably safer to exchange the slots - because an "upgrade" of Chitose might mess up its air groups.

Late war Japanese light carrier construction was not always implemented per scenario assumptions - or not consistent with the RHS carrier utility which advises what carriers are associated with what scenario? In fact, it appears an older form of the carrier utility got partly updated,
instead of a newer one, and that some errors existed in the original as well. So a few corrections were made to scenario files - and others
to the carrier utility - in order to insure the utility correctly advises what is in which scenario.

This does not matter much in most games - which won't reach the dates involved - and the great changes in real life construction programs - both intended and forced by events military and economic - could be used to rationalize any inconsistencies which might appear. But I prefer the files exist in the form really intended - so corrections are made as appropriate.

Revised ETA for this non critical update: today.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

It may have been intentional, but, I thought I would report that the rd aircraft factories at Salt Lake City/United States have not been turned off in MAIO

It is required that YOU turn them off.

The ONLY WAY to get them turned off is if you use the MAIO first turn. The scenaio files do not permit the modder to turn off anything.

Sid, Sid, Sid!! Not to be argumentative but if you were a doctor your bedside manner would be zero. Another case of shooting at the messenger. You always react first even before you know the situation and this has happened time after time. I know you are much to old for any criticism of this trait to be effective, but please know as smart as you are, you lose creditability when you spout off first and investigate later.
EDIT: I see what you mean: even in the Allied start file - they are not turned off at SLC. OK - I will reissue that turn.

.

In any situation - a battle - a technical crisis - a confrontation large or small - it is awfully good to react immediately on the basis that
things are as they ought to be. It is also wise to take the first opportunity to investigate and see if that is indeed the case? And it is
wiser still to generate feedback saying what you found - as soon as possible - without regard for wether you were right or wrong or it
was a mixed bag.

What is not wise is to get upset. Your language (not mine) was ambiguous: you said it was MAIO that didn't have the production turned off - and that implied the scenario files. They cannot have production turned off. Just in case, I assumed you might have meant something different than you said - that the save game file might have this issue for that location. But I was first of all a technician, later other kinds of technical investigator and developer, and also a legal researcher: you will find I am infurioratingly like a computer and I take your words literally - to mean what was said. Communications theory says that people often do not say precisely what they mean - and I am not surprise when it turnes out that way. But reacting to what you said was not shooting the messenger: the scenario files indeed do not have production turned off - because there is no way to do that in them using the editors that create them. I often get comments I have the patience of Job - and while I am not sure that is true - I really do not get upset - ever. It does not always happen that I understand what was said - but the responsibility for that is not always (and not in this case) entirely something that can be laid at my door: I can in any case only respond to what I do understand - and doing that is a very wise move: if I am not understanding properly the feedback gives you a chance to explain further or in different terms. That I figured out what you meant without any additional feedback from you is a mark that my methods are systematic - and that I am not limited by what was said literally - but by what might have been meant.

I am much more bothered that you got upset with my comment that trying to load a local garrison unit was gamey than this matter. I think you should be saying "thank you" for prompt analysis and immediate issue of a modified savegame file - which in such a minor matter is pure courtesy. But I am not sure I should not have been more diplomatic in explaining why the unit should not move: while it IS gamey to try to move a unit that would not IRL have moved (these guys would rather come to terms with the Japanese than let the natives over run their tiny empire - and the Japanese - lacking the ability to govern - would leave them in charge if they did come to terms) I did not mean that you were deliberately trying to be petty or unreasonable. I have no sense whatever that you are anything but a fair gamer - and I am sure many people who play against me (or fight real battles against me) have a sense that I will push the envelope at every opportunity. My own personal preference is not to do things in a game that could not or would not have been done IRL - but I will do absolutely anything I can think of that might barely have been possible - and often spectacularly so. [I do not know anyone else who would walk into a bank - unarmed - after shots fired - deliberately to take over - to save whoever got shot - and also to save whoever did the shooting - utterly confident that he could do so in a matter of moments - but I did that once - and it was my second bank robbery. I cheated, of course, going in with a first aid kit to create the impression I was not a combattant. Just as I cheated by using claymores - which are not Navy weapons - when I had to stop a battalion assault on a village: it is probably "unfair" in some sense to have such good relations with the natives you have good intel, you are almost 100% over strength in manpower, and you have far more weapons than are ever issued to a small unit. I believe in cheating, and in particular I believe in it in fighting - wether individual criminals or enemy units - in any situation - wartime or not.] I think that wanting to move a small unit from a location where they can't do much good is good generalship on your part - and the politics of a colonial regime are hardly honorable or something you would think in terms of. I am sorry if you felt criticized when all I was trying to do was explain my reasoning. I mean that in the sense of an apology for not using more words to make it clear what I meant.

And for the record I wish you would play a human game - with me. You know RHS better than almost anyone does - and only games will help sort out the problems.

My last review was economic. I found that CVO and BBO aircraft production had problems - a few types not being produced that should be (H6K4, H6K4-L, G3M2) - a few more lines than are needed (because upgrades to lines will let those planes be made in due course) - and too much stored oil at two locations in Japan. That latter minor item allows me to get rid of over 1.6 million tons - most of which are literally never used because of how code works at Osaka - any balance over 999,999 is lost. I will now issue 7.78972 courtesy update.

For the next update, you might think about 3 Dutch BC/BBs for EOS and EEO. Their turrets were already ordered in Germany and they were intended for DEI.
30.890-33.200 t
4500 nm at 20kn
235-238,4m length
29-30m width
2950 tons of Oil on board
225mm belt armour
100mm deck
250mm turrets
34kn max

3 28cm tripple-turrets
4-6 15cm double

Wow!! Here again is what I wrote originally:

It may have been intentional, but, I thought I would report that the rd aircraft factories at Salt Lake City/United States have not been turned off in MAIO

Yes I was disturbed by what I thought was a complete disregard to my observation in my reply

I guess you could have assumed that I was playing Head to Head or a PBEM and frankly that didn't enter my mind as the scenario was designed by you specifically for an Allied player against the computer. Actually I thought that identifying the exact base and exact issue couldn't possibly been interpreted any other way, especially since you had previously mentioned that you made the changes to assist the Allied player by turning of the subject factories. I also thought I covered the possibly that it was intentional of you leaving that base with rd accumulating to provide for the chance of some accelerated aircraft schedule. Live and learn.

As to the being upset at your gamey reference nothing could be farther from the truth. I actually found it amusing. Here is that comment.

I see and sounds logical, but, so far all the other Dutch Units on Sumatra have loaded. You might want to check them and apply your trick to those for consistency. Also, many Dutch units (static units excepted) on the surrounding islands and Borneo also can be loaded on to transports and shipped to Java.

Oh yes, reason number umpteen for not wanting to get involved in a PBEM game is the AI never accuses me of being gamey (even though I may be).

I did acknowledge and agree with your explanation, even with the strange fact that no other Dutch units contained your "trick" I thought it was a great idea for this restriction to be put in play as opposed to having a static unit.

As specifically to the gamey part, it was my way of saying yea your right I do play gamey but that is one of the many reasons I play only against the AI.

OK that subject is done.

Here is another issue for your consideration. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS MAY BE INTENTIONAL It is just a report to you.

At the MAIO (playing as the Allied player) the Japanese take Pago-Pago (I loved this BTW). The USN 109th Base unit and the USMC Samoan Marine Battalion retreats to Upolu and then subsequently to Savaii. These all appear to be islands and each retreat would have been over water.

[quote]ORIGINAL: el cid again

This means a solitare player could change something on the Japanese side - and that I did not need to give you
the save game file 9 to see the Japanese side.

I actually like seeing you adjustments on Japan's side. Eventually, I want to tweak a couple of things on the Allied side in CAIO but want to use your adjustment in turning off some items to give Japan the benefit the reduced supply drain

ORIGINAL: Historiker

For the next update, you might think about 3 Dutch BC/BBs for EOS and EEO. Their turrets were already ordered in Germany and they were intended for DEI.
30.890-33.200 t
4500 nm at 20kn
235-238,4m length
29-30m width
2950 tons of Oil on board
225mm belt armour
100mm deck
250mm turrets
34kn max

3 28cm tripple-turrets
4-6 15cm double

I love those ships - and have hand made scale models of them (and most of the ships that never were) - for mineatures games.

But I don't see how they can be in WITP - they could not be built in WWII as we know it - it would have to be a later WWII I guess.

That might be worth a scenario - but WITP seems about to be replaced - and the work required would tax even me - and require AE I suppose.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Wow!! Here again is what I wrote originally:

It may have been intentional, but, I thought I would report that the rd aircraft factories at Salt Lake City/United States have not been turned off in MAIO

Yes I was disturbed by what I thought was a complete disregard to my observation in my reply

I guess you could have assumed that I was playing Head to Head or a PBEM and frankly that didn't enter my mind as the scenario was designed by you specifically for an Allied player against the computer. Actually I thought that identifying the exact base and exact issue couldn't possibly been interpreted any other way, especially since you had previously mentioned that you made the changes to assist the Allied player by turning of the subject factories. I also thought I covered the possibly that it was intentional of you leaving that base with rd accumulating to provide for the chance of some accelerated aircraft schedule. Live and learn.

As to the being upset at your gamey reference nothing could be farther from the truth. I actually found it amusing. Here is that comment.

I see and sounds logical, but, so far all the other Dutch Units on Sumatra have loaded. You might want to check them and apply your trick to those for consistency. Also, many Dutch units (static units excepted) on the surrounding islands and Borneo also can be loaded on to transports and shipped to Java.

Oh yes, reason number umpteen for not wanting to get involved in a PBEM game is the AI never accuses me of being gamey (even though I may be).

I did acknowledge and agree with your explanation, even with the strange fact that no other Dutch units contained your "trick" I thought it was a great idea for this restriction to be put in play as opposed to having a static unit.

As specifically to the gamey part, it was my way of saying yea your right I do play gamey but that is one of the many reasons I play only against the AI.

OK that subject is done.

Here is another issue for your consideration. PLEASE NOTE AGAIN I DO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS MAY BE INTENTIONAL It is just a report to you.

At the MAIO (playing as the Allied player) the Japanese take Pago-Pago (I loved this BTW). The USN 109th Base unit and the USMC Samoan Marine Battalion retreats to Upolu and then subsequently to Savaii. These all appear to be islands and each retreat would have been over water.

As usual, your comments display an intimate knowledge of the game - and are germane and useful.

The explanation for the retreat path you describe is these islands are connected by the code for trails - and this is considered to be a "ferry system" in the RHS scheme. MANY places have such things. A unit at the NW tip of Sumatra can march almost all the way to Timor! On purpose. Because passage between such islands was possible - and not really preventable over enough time. Supplies also will flow - at least short distances (no more than 5 hexes - and then 90 per cent will be lost en route). You can also "march" between Molokai, Lanai and Maui in Hawaii. RHS did not quite invent this - it exists at Hong Kong even in stock - and Andrew added other points - but RHS has a lot more of it. One might consider Singapore an island too - even so it can be marched to.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Historiker

For the next update, you might think about 3 Dutch BC/BBs for EOS and EEO. Their turrets were already ordered in Germany and they were intended for DEI.
30.890-33.200 t
4500 nm at 20kn
235-238,4m length
29-30m width
2950 tons of Oil on board
225mm belt armour
100mm deck
250mm turrets
34kn max

3 28cm tripple-turrets
4-6 15cm double

I love those ships - and have hand made scale models of them (and most of the ships that never were) - for mineatures games.

But I don't see how they can be in WITP - they could not be built in WWII as we know it - it would have to be a later WWII I guess.

That might be worth a scenario - but WITP seems about to be replaced - and the work required would tax even me - and require AE I suppose.

There were also 3 WW1 designs!
The dutch marine planned 1911/12 a TF consisting of 4 coastal defence ships but 1912, this proposal was rejected as obsolete by the "Tweede Kamer de staten-generaal". The King assigned a committee to elicit how DEI can be protected the best way. This committee came to the conclusion, that DEI can be only protected effectifly at sea.
For that, the committee demanded the following fleet:
9 BBs
6 DDs
16 TBs
8 big SS
2 big MLs

The notable thing about that was, that the committee assumed that this fleet should be built within the next 35 (sic!) years. Because of that, one can't expect all 9 BBs to be of the same type, 3-4 types that consider the latests developements were more likely. The last 5 should be based in DEI (4 in the TF, 1 as reserve), the 4 old ones shall be based at home in Europe.
The demanded data for this BBs were:
21.000ts light displacement
21kn
8x34,3cm
16x15cm
12x7,5cm

While the Netherlands had own potent shipyards, they asked in Germany and GB for designs. From Germany, Germania-Werft Kiel and B&V Hamburg sent designs, Vickers Ltd from GB also sent its own design.
The "Tweede Kamer de staten-generaal" debated the designs but because of the beginning WW1, no descision was made.

If you are interested in adding this old WW1 designs - for which was enough time to be built, I can give you the data.

sehr interissieren!

My main problem with this is that the NE never built any such fleet even for itse home defense. I doubt it could have been afforeded
economically - and certainly not politically - witness they never built any par of the program (although some nice submarines, and a host
of lesser vessels were built - the "capital ships" for the NEI were always light cruisers (except that ancient near hulk renamed
Soerabaja). They did work up a useful destroyer foltilla - and built some PT boats - but the defense was consentrated on ML and SS types.

On the other hand, in EEO - some elements of Japanese militarism must have been noticed - and to that extent a source of alarm.
Of course - that really happened - and how to compare degrees of alarm is difficult to estimate? THEY could not compare thiir hypothetical
world with the one we know from history - one only gets ont shot at history - real or imagined - so they could not say "this is worse than
happened in that other universe." Most likely would be transfer of some additional units from Europe - or because NEI was actually its own
government with its own arms purchase program - possibly something might be bought from the USA. In the latter case, I would think
aircraft in particular would be likely. We might wish to expand the number of NEI PBYs for example. Remember - the EEO world assumes
only changes after 19335 - when Gen Sugiama (Chief of Staff of the IJA and the most important of the triumverate ruling Japan de facto)
concludes that things will not go well in China (the whole point of WWII in the Pacific) unless Japan commits more forces - and that likely means war with the USA. Consulting with Adm Yamamoto - he learns the Navy view this is a very difficult proposition - and they agree to form up a joint committee to study options - which recommendations cannot begin to be implemented before about July 1936. Detecting any changes in Japan (other thqn were really detected) must occure still later in time than that - and a naval construction program takes years to implement. But war in ETO still erupts in 1939 - and any Dutch program for new ships of great size would be overtaken by events - similar to the real BC program. But there IS time to build another Tromp, some desroyers for her to lead, and some of the very fine Dutch submarines (perhaps twice the number in those years).

I have not thought about this before - nor did I plan to expand or modify EEO greatly - but this idea has some merit.

For a scenario involving older construction major ships, we would need to do a still different Japan - one that planned (and got detected buillding) for war - much sooner. That in turn implies a sort of BBO orientation - because thinking wasn not yet evolved. So it might be a RHSBEEO - Battleship Evil Empire Option - which would be still stronger fthan EEO is - and the idea of additional Allied programs that also were not all new ones would make considerable sense. The biggest problem here is slot limits - and so this is an AE scenario. But you may consider it in gestation - and all comments related to that are welcome.

Assuming such a scenario - and assuming a Dutch policy of committing more resources ws modest - what do you think might actually have been built?

Also - what OTHER Allied vessels or forces might have been raised if a longer term concern with Japanese aggression greater than actually existed might have been approved? Here we might assume the London Naval Treaty did not fly.

The projectet cost for this 9BB etc fleet were at 258 million Gulden, the BBs were included with 25 million each. If you find somewhere how much the Dutch government budget was, we can find out how realistic such a program was. Anyway, the Dutch always had a quite good economy and I can't believe that their economy was already significant weaker than the Japanese (which could afford a quite impressive fleet) in 1912. Moreover, they planned for 35 years, which seems to be realistic.

Standard EEO:
To begin with 1935/36: Is there any BB, BC or CA in an acceptable condition that was scrapped after 1935? I don't think so, but if - the Dutch may have bought it, no?
If we assume some time to react, lets say they may lay down a BB/BC in mid 37? The Scharnhorst took 3years and 6 month between laied down and entering service, the Gneisenau only 3 years and 15 days! So there might be the possibility to build 2 or 3 capital ships until 12/7/41, where EEO starts as well, no?
The Invasion of Holland began on 5/10/40, so around 3 years after the possible beginning of the construction. After three years, we can assume the ship already to undergo the test at sea, its building phase is already over or that close to completion, that the ship might already flee with its own engines to england, if not towed there.
I always calculate with the data of the Scharnhorst class, which was built at the same time and the same armement to have a compareable ship, but the Dutch BCs were planned with 4.000 t less weight. Now let's say that all 3 BCs were laied down within a short period, I don't think its more speculative than the whole EEO scenario to say "two of the BCs were rescued to England and entered service after final (but slower as not at the "home" shipyard) works in early 41.

BEEO:
How much time did the Dutch have? As their only potential enemy there can be Japan - Russia is to far away and the chinese navy to weak - what could they do? It would cost to much to build a real BB fleet to fight against the Japanese BBs (especially as Japan is the only potential enemy), so they must plan a "hit and run" strategy. For that, BCs are the only choice, along with CAs - or even better pocket battle ships. The Deutschland entered service in 1933, so there's plenty of time for the Dutch to copy that design.
As they can't build BBs for free while Cruisers are free, the other Allies might do what I plan for HKD: Take Cruisers and arm them with 4-gun turrets (if there's no tonnage limitation for Cruisers, why not with even 3 or 4 of this turrets?). So this ships are Cruisers, without any doubt - while they are prepared to be rearmed with bigger guns like 28cm or 30,5cm tripple turrets. In this case, they can build Cruisers which can be changed to BC by adding other guns.
If I were in charge and building BCs and BBs is forbidden, I would choose such an option. Diesels are not necessary for other nations and if there's no 10.000 t limitation for cruisers (which didn't appear before London, right?), this might be a great option to cheat!