Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Future Changes to CHS

 
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 >> RE: Future Changes to CHS Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 4:05:45 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: gunner333

Gash! I want it right now. I didnt know that Manchukou Empire had 100k men army and even its own fleet and airforces.
It will be really nice addition for the struggling Empire of the Rising Sun. I think its too big froces to left them out of CHS.
And what modders think about it?



My opinion is that Thai and Manchukuo forces would only be added if they served, in combat, outside of their home states. I have no idea whether any components of these forces did so.

Andrew

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to gunner333)
Post #: 61
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 4:27:50 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		What is the Japanese pilot replacement rate in CHS 1.02 ??

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 62
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 4:39:10 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What is the Japanese pilot replacement rate in CHS 1.02 ??



Navy 15, Army 30.

Japanese Pilot replacement has been the subject of extended debate. This is what we came up with. Please let's not go into another round of heated debate.


_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 63
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 5:16:03 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomo

How about to add Manchukuo navy?

Manchukuo navy&army
http://www.down.ne.jp/ish/ijn/fohist/Jingcha.html
http://www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~fuwe1a/newpage417.html
http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/ijan/index.htm

http://babelfish.altavista.com/


Dream on... this is CHS after all. You'll see US, UK, maybe Russian and Dutch additions (in that order) before anything else (US changes, improvements and additions making grand total of 80% of all changes).

<ducks and runs away >

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to Tomo)
Post #: 64
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 5:58:16 PM   
gunner333

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/1/2005
Status: offline 		You mean that CHS stands for "Chase and Harras japanese Side"? If so looks like your are right.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 65
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 6:49:23 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Navy 15, Army 30.

Japanese Pilot replacement has been the subject of extended debate. This is what we came up with. Please let's not go into another round of heated debate.


Hell no !! I like those figures !

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 66
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/25/2005 7:16:14 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Dream on... this is CHS after all. You'll see US, UK, maybe Russian and Dutch additions (in that order) before anything else (US changes, improvements and additions making grand total of 80% of all changes).

<ducks and runs away >

O.




Why don't you just quit bitching and write your own scenario?

_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 67
RE: US Engineers - 7/25/2005 8:07:58 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

It is not needed. These are divisional combat engineer regiments not construction units. Honestly, play a game into '43 and see if you think the allies have too little engineering capability.
In game the Allies can build bases twice as quick as they did historically.

I have been removing engineer vehicles from several allied units to try to get the building to more realistic speeds. I am not going to add any because of this.

Mike


I keep forgetting this it seems, and you are right, base construction is fast. Maybe what is needed is each level of base construction to get progressively more expensive in the expenditure of supplies, as well as time, even more than what the games has now... I have not played a game to 43 in a long time, with all of the modding going on and false starts. Well maybe I need to play more and quit nitpicking..

_____________________________


(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 68
RE: US Engineers - 7/26/2005 1:56:50 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		The most organized part of the Manchukuo army is in the game but people like Oleg have their mouth open so wide they can not see the OOB in the game.

The Manchu navy is not in game because it consisted of one destroyer that was about 30 years old. It had no ASW capability, short range, and very weak armament. Having said that we may add it.
The rest of the fleet consisted of 16 fishing boats with a max speed of 9 knots, 1000 mile range tops, 1-3" gun and 1 or 2 MGs.
No ASW capability.
That is the Manchukuo 'fleet'. Have fun.

I am amazed that twits like Oleg can snidely comment that 'we at CHS don't touch these minor forces because all we care about is the big countries'.
That would be because the stuff that still needs to be fixed for the big countries actually is important and will affect a game in a major way... as opposed to the Manchu 'fleet'.
Like a correct British/Empire OOB.... A fixed China... that sort of minor piffle.

Thai forces had about as much interest in fighting for Japan as they had in Dec '41 in fighting against Japan.

We are adding the Indian national army and this is already being worked on as part of our revamp of India/Empire.

If we added more Manchukuo ground forces then people could transfer them to China, India or anywhere else. That would be fun wouldn't it? There is no way to really nail them down without doing stupid things.
These forces did not fire one shot until August 9th 1945... not one . They barely fired a shot in the air above the advancing Soviet troops before they surrendered.

Mike


_____________________________



(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 69
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 2:35:54 AM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

My opinion is that Thai and Manchukuo forces would only be added if they served, in combat, outside of their home states. I have no idea whether any components of these forces did so.

Andrew


In Freeboy's game versus Zeta, he was back in Rangoon by March 1944. What with the way logistics and ground combat works, not to mention the complete absence of anything to emulate the effect of the monsoon, one fears that an early collapse of the Japanese position in Burma will be all too common...

Anyone care to venture a guess as to what would've happened if this was the case RL? Would the Brits have invaded Thailand? If so, would the Thais have put up a fight?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 70
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 6:57:11 AM   
Tomo


Posts: 66
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: JAPAN
Status: offline 		I'm still dreaming on...
How about to switch Japanese flag on Mancukuo bases to Manchukuo flag?

Manchukuo flag
http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/ijan/manshu-kokki.htm

Oscar in Thai airforce(with Elephant mark)
http://www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~fuwe1a/images/taigun/tai43.jpg

And, other navy& army
http://www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~fuwe1a/newpage415.html

Translation
http://babelfish.altavista.com/




< Message edited by Tomo -- 7/26/2005 7:01:58 AM >

_____________________________

Japanese wargamer. Will post from "the other side" .

(in reply to gunner333)
Post #: 71
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 7:18:19 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Tomo

I'm still dreaming on...
How about to switch Japanese flag on Mancukuo bases to Manchukuo flag?


That would be nice but I don't think that it is possible without modifying the game code. I wanted to add a flag for the Free French (Noumea/Society Islands) but couldn't do it.


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Tomo)
Post #: 72
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 7:54:30 AM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		Correct me if i'm wrong. Historical start is always the same, right?

Why than PH strike achieves such a pitiful results? I ran it two times and every time there were no torpedo hits and only one BB sunk, the target practice one for 12 VPs.

_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 73
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 8:02:16 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

My opinion is that Thai and Manchukuo forces would only be added if they served, in combat, outside of their home states. I have no idea whether any components of these forces did so.

Andrew


In Freeboy's game versus Zeta, he was back in Rangoon by March 1944. What with the way logistics and ground combat works, not to mention the complete absence of anything to emulate the effect of the monsoon, one fears that an early collapse of the Japanese position in Burma will be all too common...

Anyone care to venture a guess as to what would've happened if this was the case RL? Would the Brits have invaded Thailand? If so, would the Thais have put up a fight?



In on game I have going ( CHS ) my IJA "position in Burma" consists of Vicky's Point and Tavoy ( circa July '42 ) ! By the time we reached the Salween - the Chinese were already there diggin' in ! So, monsoon not a factor - though my "postions" haven't "collapsed" yet ! But I doubt "Freeboy versus Zeta" reaching '44 would indicate that was CHS.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 74
RE: US Engineers - 7/26/2005 1:01:04 PM   
gunner333

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The most organized part of the Manchukuo army is in the game but people like Oleg have their mouth open so wide they can not see the OOB in the game.

Thai forces had about as much interest in fighting for Japan as they had in Dec '41 in fighting against Japan.

If we added more Manchukuo ground forces then people could transfer them to China, India or anywhere else. That would be fun wouldn't it? There is no way to really nail them down without doing stupid things.
These forces did not fire one shot until August 9th 1945... not one . They barely fired a shot in the air above the advancing Soviet troops before they surrendered.

Mike



Thanks for answer.
As I understand from the links provided by Tomo and also from some googling 80% of Manchukou army was operating in the China. They commited in anti-partizan operations, garrison missions and patroling missions. At 1939 year Manchukou consisted from 5divisions and various regiments, by the end of the war there are were more than 10 divisions. The formations had even armor support like armor cars, armor train cars and old Japanese tanks. And lest but not last soldiers of Manchukou army knew that Chan Kai Shi or Mao Ze Daong boys will torture them to hell if they surrender. For other Chinese they were traitors, so it was low EXP high morale units. I think its pretty large forces to ignore it.
You said that puting this forces on map makes player to do some stupid thing like transfering it to China or even south pacific, but if so why you are puting on map all that Inner India units and so on. Seems same situation for me, players can transfer poor Indian recruit to some god-forgotten-malaria-hell Lunga base.
But anyway its not my mod, and this is just my 2cents nothing more.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 75
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 1:06:21 PM   
gunner333

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

My opinion is that Thai and Manchukuo forces would only be added if they served, in combat, outside of their home states. I have no idea whether any components of these forces did so.

Andrew


In Freeboy's game versus Zeta, he was back in Rangoon by March 1944. What with the way logistics and ground combat works, not to mention the complete absence of anything to emulate the effect of the monsoon, one fears that an early collapse of the Japanese position in Burma will be all too common...

Anyone care to venture a guess as to what would've happened if this was the case RL? Would the Brits have invaded Thailand? If so, would the Thais have put up a fight?


In 1942 Japanese officaily transfered ocupation rights of Burma to Thai, so right after war there was big tension between Thai and England(which wanted some Thai's land as contribution for the ocupation,) only American diplomatic intervention stopped war between Thai and England.

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 76
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 3:26:56 PM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
In on game I have going ( CHS ) my IJA "position in Burma" consists of Vicky's Point and Tavoy ( circa July '42 ) ! By the time we reached the Salween - the Chinese were already there diggin' in ! So, monsoon not a factor - though my "postions" haven't "collapsed" yet ! But I doubt "Freeboy versus Zeta" reaching '44 would indicate that was CHS.


I really hope you're right, Joe. By 01/01/44, SEAC will have received an additional 3 divisions, 10 brigades, 9 armoured battalions, 1 artillery battalion, 1 combat engineer regiment, 1 combat engineer battalion. India command will receive 2 divisions and 2 brigades. Plus 57 squadrons and whatever the Admirality might dein to send your opponent...

Sure got your work cut out for you

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 77
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 3:34:08 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Gunner,
That is why we were so excited to make India a restricted command for the new version; hopefully keep Indian divisions out of Lunga!

You probably already know this, but just for the sake of newbies, i am going to describe Japanese army command on the mainland.

There were 3 zones, Manchukuo, Kwantung, and Chinese expeditionary.
Kwantung was under the overall command of Manchukuo and consisted of the northern edge of China and the southern strip of Manchuria plus Port Arthur.
There was serious friction and jealousy between the Manchukuo command and Chinese Expeditionary. If Manchukuo soldiers entered Chinese Exp teritory they came under that armies command and thus were never seen again by Manchukuo command.
As far as my research shows no Manchu soldier fought outside of Kwantung or Manchukuo commands which would limit them to the northern strip of China.
And then i find no reference to anything but basic garrison work.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to gunner333)
Post #: 78
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 4:36:04 PM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

Correct me if i'm wrong. Historical start is always the same, right?

Why than PH strike achieves such a pitiful results? I ran it two times and every time there were no torpedo hits and only one BB sunk, the target practice one for 12 VPs.


I see this complaint all the time, I just started a new chs game with jap AI and they sunk 3 BB and 1 DM and heavily damaged 5 other BB plus various other damage, I cant see what the problem is

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 79
RE: US Engineers - 7/26/2005 5:20:44 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I am amazed that twits like Oleg can snidely comment that 'we at CHS don't touch these minor forces because all we care about is the big countries'.



Not quite.

Consciously or subcosciously all you CHS guys care is *significantly* improving Allied player chances of winning the game and/or simply giving him more toys to play with. You will always find some reason or another not to add, not to care and not to research Manchu forces, not to improve this or that if it would belong to Jap player. Or if you reluctantly add it to your project you'll make sure to "compensate" by adding 10x more stuff to Allied players aresenal.

For you there will always be some important reason why XYth Indian garrison batallion was or is more important to the game than similar Manchu, or Mongolian, or Bose collaborationist unit. Just look at your post(s). You basically said that in black and white!

[Not to mention that Allied player is already in great advantage in this game (by the very design and the nature of the conflict the game is depicting.)]

That is my opinion based on reading this forum and you may well call me "twit" because of that (I am not easy to insult).

Oleg


_____________________________


(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 80
RE: US Engineers - 7/26/2005 6:03:15 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Consciously or subcosciously all you CHS guys care is *significantly* improving Allied player chances of winning the game and/or simply giving him more toys to play with. You will always find some reason or another not to add, not to care and not to research Manchu forces, not to improve this or that if it would belong to Jap player. Or if you reluctantly add it to your project you'll make sure to "compensate" by adding 10x more stuff to Allied players aresenal.


Oleg, I have refrained from commenting previously, but what you have said is simply not true, at least as far as I am concerned. Speaking for myself - a bit player in CHS - I am interested in making the game as accurate as possible. I have no idea why you think "all [I] care is *significantly* improving Allied player chances of winning the game...". If you want to criticise our work, please stick to factual criticism rather than inventing innacurate motives for the contributors.

Andrew


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 81
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 6:21:21 PM   
gunner333

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 5/1/2005
Status: offline 		Thank you for answer Mike.

I understand that you are trying to do the best edition of this game. And I think you are successeful at many parts of your challenge. Also I have the same point of view toward CHS as you. That is why proposed Manchukou and such staff, to make it Completly Historical. Maybe my explanation was not enough, what I was thinking of is
Make Manchukou forces(at start 100k soldiers, at the 1945 200k) static and put them as garrisons around Manchu and North China.
Re-create Thai Army and put it on garrison duty(Japanese player cant use it through the war). If Allied unit steps inside of Thailand, Thai Army becomes active(present Soviet Army rule) and Japanese player could command it.
Purpose of this improvements:
What if? Really simple.
What if Japanese player decide to fight to the bitter end.

I think you dont think much about fighting until bitter end situation, but if you remember the numbers of dead and wounded GI which was calculated using simulation of situation in which war continue going after A-bomb was dropped you understand what I am talking about. All this means a lot of new toys to play around for Japanese and Allies. Jets, electric subs, super heavy bombers, tanks and so on.


< Message edited by gunner333 -- 7/26/2005 6:23:02 PM >

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 82
RE: Future Changes to CHS - 7/26/2005 6:58:04 PM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James
I see this complaint all the time, I just started a new chs game with jap AI and they sunk 3 BB and 1 DM and heavily damaged 5 other BB plus various other damage, I cant see what the problem is


Neither do I. I was just asking if it's all the same in historical start. If it's not than the question is answered. It is CHS 1.02. PBEM. I tried twice and got the same replay twice. To the last landing casualty.

< Message edited by testarossa -- 7/26/2005 7:03:30 PM >

_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to keeferon01)
Post #: 83
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 12:12:21 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Oleg, I have refrained from commenting previously, but what you have said is simply not true, at least as far as I am concerned. Speaking for myself - a bit player in CHS - I am interested in making the game as accurate as possible.


Andrew AFAIK you "only" did the map CHS happen to be using. Your map is fine work which can be, and is, used by other scenarios as well, including "stock" #15 modified for your map - so my comment wasn't aimed at you personally, nor your fine map.

quote:

I have no idea why you think "all [I] care is *significantly* improving Allied player chances of winning the game...". If you want to criticise our work, please stick to factual criticism rather than inventing innacurate motives for the contributors.


I was about as "factual" as one can get in a given situation.

There were numerous situations when someone (Brady, Tomo etc.......) drew attention of CHS members to some source about, say, Manchurian units (like in this thread), or IJN midget subs, or changes in Japanese OOB, or collaborationist Bose focres etc etc. etc. only to be dismissed as "unnecessary" or simply totally ignored by CHS guys.

If you analyse what Lemurs posted couple posts above, that is in essence CHS stand on anything Jap-related, and may be summed up as "shut up, this stuff is not relevant or important for the game" for this reason or another.

In one of my games I almost had Manchuria overrun by Chinese - so in THAT case Manchu units Lemurs dismissed as "unnecessary" would come handy to me. (I won that game anyway BTW)

But never mind that, right?

OTOH, when someone asks for any Allied vessel or unit, no matter how small, insignifciant or perhaps even redundant it may be, be sure Don will hurry to add it to database in matter of minutes. Never mind if it didn't - to paraphrase Lemurs - "fire a shot during the whole war" (most ships or units didn't anyway).

This is the reasoning CHS guys use:

If it's Allied stuff => we gotta have it for "historical reasons", adding "the chrome" blah blah etc.

If it's Chinese or Russian or Dutch stuff => it would be nice to have it so that we may stop the Japs more easy (but let someone else research it cause we have no time nor will to do it)

If it's Jap stuff => who cares. It's irrelevant for some reason or other.

Yes, this is all my (somewhat) subjective opinion, and is as "factual" as I can get. Just read thru CHS threads...

Oleg

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 84
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 12:20:43 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Oleg, I have refrained from commenting previously, but what you have said is simply not true, at least as far as I am concerned. Speaking for myself - a bit player in CHS - I am interested in making the game as accurate as possible.


Andrew AFAIK you "only" did the map CHS happen to be using. Your map is fine work which can be, and is, used by other scenarios as well, including "stock" #15 modified for your map - so my comment wasn't aimed at you personally, nor your fine map.

quote:

I have no idea why you think "all [I] care is *significantly* improving Allied player chances of winning the game...". If you want to criticise our work, please stick to factual criticism rather than inventing innacurate motives for the contributors.


I was about as "factual" as one can get in a given situation.

There were numerous situations when someone (Brady, Tomo etc.......) drew attention of CHS members to some source about, say, Manchurian units (like in this thread), or IJN midget subs, or changes in Japanese OOB, or collaborationist Bose focres etc etc. etc. only to be dismissed as "unnecessary" or simply totally ignored by CHS guys.

If you analyse what Lemurs posted couple posts above, that is in essence CHS stand on anything Jap-related, and may be summed up as "shut up, this stuff is not relevant or important for the game" for this reason or another.

In one of my games I almost had Manchuria overrun by Chinese - so in THAT case Manchu units Lemurs dismissed as "unnecessary" would come handy to me. (I won that game anyway BTW)

But never mind that, right?

OTOH, when someone asks for any Allied vessel or unit, no matter how small, insignifciant or perhaps even redundant it may be, be sure Don will hurry to add it to database in matter of minutes. Never mind if it didn't - to paraphrase Lemurs - "fire a shot during the whole war" (most ships or units didn't anyway).

This is the reasoning CHS guys use:

If it's Allied stuff => we gotta have it for "historical reasons", adding "the chrome" blah blah etc.

If it's Chinese or Russian or Dutch stuff => it would be nice to have it so that we may stop the Japs more easy (but let someone else research it cause we have no time nor will to do it)

If it's Jap stuff => who cares. It's irrelevant for some reason or other.

Yes, this is all my (somewhat) subjective opinion, and is as "factual" as I can get. Just read thru CHS threads...

Oleg


Oleg, did you happen to notice that CHS filled up all Japanese ship slots? So, go ahead and add all the midget subs. Oh, wait. You can't. CHS selfishly filled up all the slots with as many historical ships that they could. Boy, that sure stinks of "Allied fanboyism". They sure didn't give the Jap ships any thought.

Oh yeah, the also handicapped the Japanese player by making him build all sorts of hypothetical planes like the Liz and late war fighters that never existed beyond a prototype or drawing board. Boy, what a bunch of selfish cheaters.


_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 85
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 1:04:38 AM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		Well, I really like IJN AMCs. Big thanks to Don for that. And British Q-ships are awesome.

_____________________________

Dr. Miller: I should've called the marines!
Dalton: They're few, they're proud... And they ain't here!!!


(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 86
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 1:27:47 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

OTOH, when someone asks for any Allied vessel or unit, no matter how small, insignifciant or perhaps even redundant it may be, be sure Don will hurry to add it to database in matter of minutes. Never mind if it didn't - to paraphrase Lemurs - "fire a shot during the whole war" (most ships or units didn't anyway).

Oleg


You betcha Oleg, please let me know if I missed any.



_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 87
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 2:45:03 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

If it's Chinese or Russian or Dutch stuff => it would be nice to have it so that we may stop the Japs more easy (but let someone else research it cause we have no time nor will to do it)


I have volunteered my time to update the Chinese OOB. Oleg why don't you do the same for the Japanese and their minor allies?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 88
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 5:15:30 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Here, here !

Oleg.

CHS is essentially an Open Source Scenario for WITP which is pegged to Andrew's map ( which as Andrew says was not made specifically for CHS - it is the other way round ). Things get changed according to the contributors knowledge areas and priorities. Don acts as "Maintainer" ( in Open Source Speak ). I first volunteered to work on China as long as Don/Lemurs! would give me time to get moved first - then Treespider stepped up and said he could start on it right away - and we said go forth ! So that is the power of Open Source !!!

And I'll requote my previous signature line ( which by the way is a quote from the same individual as my current singature line and point out that if you have the energy to snipe, you have the energy to research !!! )

"Be the change you want to see in the world" !!!


( can anyone guess who said both of these things ? )



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 89
RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 7:05:59 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: treespider
I have volunteered my time to update the Chinese OOB. Oleg why don't you do the same for the Japanese and their minor allies?


I made this very suggestion the last time Oleg criticised CHS, but have not seen any useful input yet. Oleg - please feel free to dig up any useful info you may have on the Manchukuo army. Do some research and present the results.

I will modify one comment I made previously about the Manchukuo army - it is perhaps too restrictive to say that they should only be considered if they fought outside Manchukuo. If they didn't do so, but could have, then in my opinion they may be worthy of consideration. When I say "could have" there are a number of things to be considered. Most important of these is whether the Manchukuo forces were effective combat formations that would not have melted away or collapsed if faced with serious opposition. This is not only a question of morale, but also of political will (especially relevant in the case of forces of a puppet regime, e.g. Vichy France). I have no knowledge of such things, beyond the comment that Mike made that they were not effective forces. Is there evidence to the contrary?

Andrew


_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Future Changes to CHS Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.281