Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CHS Base Question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> CHS Base Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 3:16:32 AM   
Wineguy

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline 		Just started a new game as Allies and I no longer have a Middle East base. Aden is still there. I looked at CHS site but couldn't find this change. Is this correct? If so what happened to all the supplies that used to be at Middle East location?

Thanks, Steve.
Post #: 1
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 3:45:12 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wineguy

Just started a new game as Allies and I no longer have a Middle East base. Aden is still there. I looked at CHS site but couldn't find this change. Is this correct? If so what happened to all the supplies that used to be at Middle East location?

Thanks, Steve.


Before the release of the new CHS, Andrew wrote me he planned to get rid of Middle East. It has no function. All functions were performed by Aden. In keeping with our general practice, we deleted Middle East from the RHS map - to insure it was compatable with Andrew Brown's Extended map. RHS released first - but the idea to do away with Middle East came from Andrew - and RHS just adopted it. CHS really did it first - even if it didn't first appear in CHS.

Most of the things that appeared at Middle East - including supplies - appear at Aden. Andrew (and separately I) have revised just what that is.
And in RHS some things that used to appear at Middle East appear in other places - because it appears that there is a better place. RHSEOS and RHSPPO go a step farther: many units that DO appear at Middle East in regular RHS appear in United States - and are assigned home commands. You must pay political points and ship the units to another theater.

This change - deleting Middle East - has been a bit of a problem: a number of ships, land units and air units didn't get changed - and appear in the desert where Middle East used to be (at least in RHS). All this should be fixed now - but may still be an issue for an obscure unit or two. I suspect CHS has this issue as well.

In a forum discussion Andrew wrote he agreed with my conception that entry hexes represent everything "behind" the hex. Supply points (or whatever) that appear there only enter the map there - they are not literally made in the hex. For some reason many people think Aden is off limits to attack - but Panama may properly be attacked. I disagree - I think Aden may be attacked - and should be defended.

(in reply to Wineguy)
Post #: 2
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 4:18:09 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wineguy
Just started a new game as Allies and I no longer have a Middle East base. Aden is still there. I looked at CHS site but couldn't find this change. Is this correct? If so what happened to all the supplies that used to be at Middle East location?


The change is in the revision history document. CHS 2.00 update point 80:

quote:

80. The "Middle East" base has been removed. All air, sea and land units that formerly were based at, or arrived at, that base now appear at Aden. Aden is also now a source of daily oil and supplies for the Allies.


Note that the supplies etc. appearing at Aden were not correct until CHS 2.02.

Edit: It was first fixed in 2.02, then fixed again in 2.04.

Andrew

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 8/3/2006 4:29:20 AM >

(in reply to Wineguy)
Post #: 3
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 4:28:22 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This change - deleting Middle East - has been a bit of a problem: a number of ships, land units and air units didn't get changed - and appear in the desert where Middle East used to be (at least in RHS). All this should be fixed now - but may still be an issue for an obscure unit or two. I suspect CHS has this issue as well.


I am not aware of any such problem in CHS. I think there was one squadron I forgot to move but it was fixed. If you (or anyone) see a problem please let me know.

quote:

In a forum discussion Andrew wrote he agreed with my conception that entry hexes represent everything "behind" the hex. Supply points (or whatever) that appear there only enter the map there - they are not literally made in the hex. For some reason many people think Aden is off limits to attack - but Panama may properly be attacked. I disagree - I think Aden may be attacked - and should be defended.


"Edge" bases have always represented things "behind" the hex, including in stock scenarios. This is my understanding, anyway. Consider the problems that have occurred due to people attacking Karachi and complaining about the daily fuel/resources arriving there.

On my map Aden replaces Karachi in that function, but my assumption remains that the hex really represents British assets in the Middle East and Africa. That is also the reason why it should be off limits to attack by the Japanese: Could the Japanese have sent a few divisions to conquer all of the Middle East, Egypt and British Africa? I don't think so.

As you say Panama is different. It only represents Panama itself, and I believe it should be open to attack by the Japanese. The US "edge" base is the "United States" base.

Andrew

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 7:36:35 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I reviewed this matter with Cobra, and we agreed that it makes no sense to award victory points for a base (as CHS does in Aden) and then say it is not in the game. We decided the de facto decision implied by those victory points was right - left them as is - and advise Aden be defended.

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. That is, if it cannot be done, let the Japanese lose when they try it. WITP in all forms - including CHS and RHS - does not permit the real anti-shipping campaign in the Indian Ocean - the only really long term effective one by the Axis in the war. In my view it is entirely proper that at least the line of communications be threatened (as by submarines).
In my view the idea you do not have to defend Aden or its sea approaches - no planes - no ships - no troops - means that many units are wrongly free to enter the big map. More than a small fraction of units in WITP were ONLY in the mideast - never on the map except near Aden.
IF we say it is off limits, and need not be defended, we probably should cull all these air squadrons, ships and land units out of the game. I am somewhat open to this concept: I find reducing unit count eases play - and I like the effects of drastically reducing AK and small craft counts.
[Also some AOs which feed the line of communications ports].

But one thing mystifies me: IF Aden is not really "on the map" -
aside from why does it have victory points for capture - what is its function? Why not make everything appear at Kerachi? Or perhaps a MOMP (mid ocean meeting point - a term from convoy organization)?
Why put it on the map if it is not in fact on the map in every sense? I like it on the map - but if it should not be there perhaps we can use that area for some other purpose (e.g. Madagascar).

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/3/2006 7:38:12 AM >

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 5
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 8:50:03 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 10:24:26 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

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

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 7
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 10:28:58 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 8/3/2006 10:31:09 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 8
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 1:50:40 PM   
Wineguy

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks for the clarification and Andrew thanks for all the work you have put into CHS, it is a marked improvement over stock. One last question, Aden appears to start with 18000 in fuel and 14126 in supplies, what happened to the 100's of thousands of supplies and fuel that the allieas used to get at the Middle East base?

Regards, Steve.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 9
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 2:13:25 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		It builds up fast enough.  I always pull every U.S. AK in the Indian Ocean and wait for enough supplies to be built up at Aden {About a month and a half} and send them to Australia to drop off supplies on their way back to the states.

(in reply to Wineguy)
Post #: 10
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 2:13:38 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline 		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??

_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Wineguy)
Post #: 11
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 2:18:11 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		Have to refuel the transports bringing in all those troops to Panama. Have to remember to leave enough shipping in Panama to get all the troops from there to the front.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 12
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 2:53:59 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Hmmm...it might have been beneficial to make those shipping lines to Panama and Aden as shallow to disencourage players stacking subs into the lines. But then, I don't think it's too impoerant and can be adressed by house rules.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 13
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 3:11:53 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wineguy
One last question, Aden appears to start with 18000 in fuel and 14126 in supplies, what happened to the 100's of thousands of supplies and fuel that the allieas used to get at the Middle East base?


You are right. The huge fuel stockpile is not there. But with the daily fuel supply, it soon builds up as mentioned.

I might bump up the starting fuel level a bit for the next update.

Andrew

(in reply to Wineguy)
Post #: 14
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 3:13:08 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

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

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 15
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 3:29:25 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

You are right. The huge fuel stockpile is not there. But with the daily fuel supply, it soon builds up as mentioned.

I might bump up the starting fuel level a bit for the next update.

Andrew


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 reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 16
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 3:42:26 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

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 reply to VSWG)
Post #: 17
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 4:04:57 PM   
Graycompany


Posts: 511
Joined: 8/19/2004
Status: offline 		Andrew or anybody who knows, If I have a game going under CHS and I update, will this mess the game up and I will have to start over?

_____________________________

I thought this place was a empire, now im the last, I can't be sure...


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 18
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 4:32:00 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Graycompany

Andrew or anybody who knows, If I have a game going under CHS and I update, will this mess the game up and I will have to start over?



You can update the art without any problems. You can put the new data files for a scenario in, but any current game will only use the database that the game was started with. Updating a game in progress will do nothing for you unless it is art.

(in reply to Graycompany)
Post #: 19
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 8:52:22 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I confirm rockmedic's advice - he is correct.

I will add that you may change the pwhex file at any time as well without any problems.

I have machines running under different versions of WITP - because some are not updated to 1.8 -
and I can copy turns between them and run without a problem. Some AI vs AI games I like to run
all the time - 24 hours a day - so I get a long way fast - to learn about events in later game years -
and so when I am done looking at one - I put it on an older machine and let it go on. Never a
problem.

What does not change is the OB of an older game. It does not matter if you update a scenario -
the game started before the update does not see the updated OB. But that does not apply to the
art - you can change the art and it appears. I actually have different map art on different machines,
and if I change which machine a game is on, it displays the art of the current machine without
regard to the art it had on the last machine.


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 20
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 9:05:05 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 21
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 9:13:52 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

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.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 22
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 9:23:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

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.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 23
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 9:28:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 24
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 9:30:33 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

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.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 25
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/3/2006 9:37:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

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.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 26
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/4/2006 5:08:31 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Sid --

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 27
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/4/2006 6:24:01 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

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?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 28
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/4/2006 8:45:58 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/4/2006 8:47:43 AM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 29
RE: CHS Base Question - 8/4/2006 12:24:35 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

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?


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> CHS Base Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719