Matrix Games Forums

Hey guys...with CHS 1.06 I have at least one base that I'll never be able to supply unless the Russians become active. (the base in the Bering Sea a little NW of Nome...sounds like a Johnny Horton song[;)]) This will mean the disintegration of the units based in these isolated areas and free VP for Japan. Perhaps a small amount of resource/supply be added in these cases?

This problem was brought to my attention first by Andrew. He was trying to use ships to fix it. I have succeeded in doing that - BUT the Soviets must be active to do it. It is also dangerous if the Japanese do not set their patrols properly - you may lose ships! This is, however, perfectly historical. Once a pair of Soviet submarines, en route to Asia via Panama,
were attacked by an I-boat - near Vancouver island. The IJN presumably did not know they were Soviet, and assumed they were USN. One of the boats was sunk outright. Sailing near US territories is high risk in a high intensity war. The incident was not grounds for war, although the Russians were pretty sure the Japanese must have done it.

This is not the only supply problem. If one kills resource centers as supply sources, many Soviet points not on the rail/road grid have the same issue. I have connected Sakhalin island with the Amur by ferry and then ran a ferry line down the Amur river to address one of these. The other points REQUIRE you send supply ships - as is historical and logical. Again, that means the Soviets must be active (but not necessairily at war). I really like this sort of approach - being accurate. It forces both sides to be circumspect - and it simulates the real kinds of tradeoff choices real commanders must deal with remarkably well.

Andrew was on the right track: use ships to deal with supply. This can be fixed by using ferries in the case of Sakhalin - and the port at the mouth of the Amur which is not in stock or CHS but which I added. But it simply must use ships for distant points. Note this also applies to the Komandorskie Islands and other points where you might want to (and legitimately can) build Soviet bases. Japan does not have to like it. Unless they want war, they have to allow it. This is real life like.

Actually there is not known who sunk L16. The story came from one of the suspects, the USN.

The problem with Soviets in this game is that there is no Soviets in game. There is only another Allied command working for Western Allied cause. Note that in the way you propose, Allied player would at critical moment open new front to tie as many Japanese forces as possible, even if he would knew that by this he is going to lose Soviet positions. Or maybe a little provocation, on built forward bases in undefendable (by Soviet forces) places. This sacrifice wouldnt be ever possible in RL.

For me, the best solution would be that before activation this Front would have possibilities you mentioned, but managed by AI...

Actually there is not known who sunk L16. The story came from one of the suspects, the USN.

The problem with Soviets in this game is that there is no Soviets in game. There is only another Allied command working for Western Allied cause. Note that in the way you propose, Allied player would at critical moment open new front to tie as many Japanese forces as possible, even if he would knew that by this he is going to lose Soviet positions. Or maybe a little provocation, on built forward bases in undefendable (by Soviet forces) places. This sacrifice wouldnt be ever possible in RL.

For me, the best solution would be that before activation this Front would have possibilities you mentioned, but managed by AI...

The Cold War is over. USN should not have been a suspect. The Soviet submarines had been visiting the USA and they were cleared to transit - and were doing so on the surface (SOP for a friendly submarine in US waters). We know exactly which submarine did the deed and have done since 1945. For a good description see The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II - one of the authors of which is a famous Japanese captian who had previously written a book on his own - which you might also refer to (many things he disclosed for the first time in English a generation ago): I Boat Captain. But the second one is done to scholarly standards with documentation.

I agree there are problems with a unified Allied command. The war is really about China, and I have a problem with unified command IN China alone, much less between China and USA and UK. China and the Origins of the Pacific War, a scholarly work by Yauli Sun, using KMT archives, claims KMT MANIPULATED USA into fighting Japan. But it is true the Allies were enemies of Japan - it is not an awful compromise. If we could have more than two players, I would like it very much. But we cannot. A Soviet Union forced to be passive and a Japan free to deply its forces and take the initiative is not my idea of simulation.

Mistakes sometimes happens.

Not only Cold War is over, but Boer War also - so what this changes?

As long as many acpescts of WWII are classified, we will not know all the truth.

Mistakes sometimes happens.

Not only Cold War is over, but Boer War also - so what this changes?

As long as many acpescts of WWII are classified, we will not know all the truth.

Sir, I agree with you about mistakes. I am a witness to the awful effects of a USAF attack on US warships - when the pilots believed they were shooting at helicopters! [On June 19, 1968 I sailed into Subic Bay Naval Station on board USS Waddell, DDG-24. A sister ship, HMAS Hobart, steamed in ahead of us, looking like a survivor of a WWII naval battle, after taking three hits from Sparrows fired by USAF F-4s.]

I also agree with you about classification preventing us from knowing certain things - even vital things in a policy sense. I work with intelligence analysts, authors and academics to deal with this in the one place it still is a big problem: Axis atomic science. But this is NOT a problem with respect to the subject at hand. During the war it was not known why one of two Soviet submarines blew up? It was assumed to be due to a torpedo attack by a submerged submarine. After the war, we learned about this incident from the Japanese point of view. There is no controversy about it. Japanese data and Soviet data dovetail exactly. To that one might add that the location of the attack is not on a transit line for US submarines - which at that point substantially operated out of Pearl Harbor. Nor are US submarine logs still classified. There is nothing preventing you from reading any one you think might be germane.

What HAS changed is the atmosphere of suspicion and the need (if there ever was one) to make up stories about each other. Most of my life Soviet citizens could not visit Alaska (a quid pro quo for Americans being not allowed in parts of the Soviet Union). Today I meet Russian nationals almost daily. A LOT has changed. Since Russian and American national interests mostly are similar, I am glad they did.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This problem was brought to my attention first by Andrew. He was trying to use ships to fix it. I have succeeded in doing that - BUT the Soviets must be active to do it.

Yes that is true - the Soviets can have ships while still neutral, but they can't load supplies at Soviet ports. Not very useful.

However to answer Ron's specific question - I think he is talking about the Soviet base "Uel Kal" in hex 98,20. I realised that this base could not be supplied while the Soviets are neutral, which is why I added 10 daily supplies to the base to simulate Soviet shipping and allow the base to be supplied. Perhaps you missed that Ron? I added daily supply to Magadan for the same reason. Petropavlovsk and Okha get supply points from their resource centres (as Ron knows very well[:)]).

Andrew