CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ?

CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Andy Mac -> CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 1:51:59 AM)
I know this is a little late to be commenting on CHS but I wanted to ask a question of those that have tried it as I am very nervous about a couple of aspects. BTW I think the map and all the work is great and I am NOT disputing historical accuracy merely the impact on the game said historical accuracy will have. I play allies and I am about to start my 1st PBEM on the CHS scenario. In preparation I have been revieing the allied side in all its aspects to try and understand the impacts of the new map and new OOB. I understand most of whats been done and I think its great I do however have a few questions/comments. I like whats happened to ground and naval OOB's on the allied side it looks great. My nervousness is on the air side. Perhaps I have had it to easy in other games but the following jump out at me The 50% reduction of P38G production 2 months to equip a single group ? lower P40B ok a ceased type but it was a help in easing pressure on P40E pool no P36 ok a ceased type but it was a help in easing pressure on P40E/ P40B pool lower B17E's 17 a month ? I am sure this is all historic but as an allied player (who I freely admit hasnt yet played a game) I am concerned that outside of India where the Hurricanes will do well as the 2b looks right I cannot see a single allied fighter type having the replacements to stand up to Japanese types. Not because of quality but because of a ahistorical quantity as the Japanese will re organise production and you will be swamped with Tonies/Tojo's and Zeroes etc. (Actually the RAF did well out of CHS, USMC is untouched as is USN its RAAF and USAAF that has me slightly concerned) i.e. the apparent change to Wirraways to prevent the upgrade to Hurricanes or Spits in fact until Boomerangs come along there is no upgrade for these useless aircraft even if using user defined upgrades which is suposed to free up options. My concern is that if the Japanese were restricted to historic production then this probably wouldnt be an issue but by striving for historical accuracy in this mod given the faster pace in general of WITP and the inevitable concentration/ reorganisation of Japanese fighter production I just am concerned that the Japanese will run roughshod over the allies well beyond Summer 43 dues to the allies having sqns with no planes. My other concern is the bombers I have no real probelm with cutting heavies but given the inability of allied aircraft to damage anything with a 500lber the severe cutting in numbers of Beauforts leaves me a little concerned. Torpedo bombers are a neccesity for stopping enemy shipping far more than in real life by my count the allies will only recieve 150 ish of this type which is not enough to fight it out. I would really like to hear the views of any players that have a PBEM in mid to late 42 as my initial reaction is trouble coming for me. As I said I am not disputing historical accuracy merely worried about the impact of Japanese production, the pace of PBEM's and the ability of the allies to fight anywhere against concentration of force i.e. has the quest for historical accuracy on one side without the ability to balance it on the other side shortchanged the allies ? Sorry if I am re raising old ground Andy

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 1:53:36 AM)
ps I had more examples on my list but the more I looked at it the more I saw the compensations and tradeoffs so I may just be missing something blatently obvious !!!!

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 1:56:20 AM)
Just noticved the pushing back of Beaufighter arrival so my Beaufort point may be crap.... Note to self....triple check before posting ;) Andy

jwilkerson -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 1:57:05 AM)
My CHS PBEM is in June 43 ... but we are playing prior to the major reductions. But if you're worried about the levels then as you almost suggest - have Japanese player play with more historical upgrades ( i.e. non-PDU ) ... I am playing Japanese with non-PDU ( and also both of my stock PBEMs I'm playing non-PDU ). Nothing says you MUST play with PDU on. Once you get more comfortable with the system you may enjoy the challenge of allowing your IJ opponent to have PDU on.

Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 2:00:44 AM)
You raise valid concerns, but I think we need results from actual playtesting, as well as a look at the production figures. The idea of CHS it to make the game more accurate. If the Allied production levels are more accurate, but the Japanese levels are not, then that would need to be looked at as well. I am no expert in these things, and I don't have a lot of free time, so I can't contribute much myself. If there is evidence of Japanese overproduction relative to the Allies (or not), then I would be interested to see it.

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 2:08:17 AM)
Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!) My gut tells me the USAAF especially is going to be in a world of pain. Ill check back in 6 months after my opponent has kicked me all over the Pacific and let you know how it went !!!! (I think even 30 or 40 of those P26's in the pool would help to allow P40 Sqns to crossover to P39D's in PDU games....the old downgrade upgrade trick ;P)

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 2:14:39 AM)
And yes I missed another one 10 Lancers a month... Its going to be a diverse Gp of USAAF fighter aircraft but there are compensations for the loss !!!

Yamato hugger -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 2:48:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!) Kool. Only a little over 7 months to equip 1 group. Hope you dont have any op losses.

ADavidB -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 3:45:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!) Kool. Only a little over 7 months to equip 1 group. Hope you dont have any op losses. If the weather is anywhere as "wet" in the CHS version as it is in the Official 1.604 then the Allied player will be lucky to ever have any fighters in the air. [8\|] I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. And why would someone want to play the Japanese side under these conditions when all the Allies can do is run away as fast as possible for at least the first game year? Ask Tophat how he likes the fact that day after day, month after month I don't let him catch any of my US units? He's bored silly and keeps on asking me to send out the carriers. But why should I when I don't have a chance to win with them? How many folks remember how a year or so ago I posted a thread asking, "Can an Allied Player Win this Game?" and I got jumped on by tons of people. Now you have folks like Nomad making comments like, "If you are the Allied player, and the Japanese haven't reach Autovictory, you are winning." Years ago Pacwar got screwed up by amateurs who wanted to make things both more "historic" and more "playable" so that the Japanese had a "chance to win". Don't fall into the same trap guys... Cheers - Dave Baranyi

dereck -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 4:20:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB If the weather is anywhere as "wet" in the CHS version as it is in the Official 1.604 then the Allied player will be lucky to ever have any fighters in the air. [8\|] I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. And why would someone want to play the Japanese side under these conditions when all the Allies can do is run away as fast as possible for at least the first game year? Ask Tophat how he likes the fact that day after day, month after month I don't let him catch any of my US units? He's bored silly and keeps on asking me to send out the carriers. But why should I when I don't have a chance to win with them? How many folks remember how a year or so ago I posted a thread asking, "Can an Allied Player Win this Game?" and I got jumped on by tons of people. Now you have folks like Nomad making comments like, "If you are the Allied player, and the Japanese haven't reach Autovictory, you are winning." Years ago Pacwar got screwed up by amateurs who wanted to make things both more "historic" and more "playable" so that the Japanese had a "chance to win". Don't fall into the same trap guys... Cheers - Dave Baranyi IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. During the real war even the Japanese High Command knew they couldn't take on the US (yes, just the US who they considered their main rivals in the Pacific) for a long haul. I posted some charts earlier (which I can again if asked), where it showed that within 6 months of the war the US was already outproducing the Japanese in every category. But yet, you have people here who think the Japanese can launch attacks in China, India, DEI, the South Pacific and against the West Coast all at the same time ... and win.

ADavidB -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 4:38:25 AM)
quote: IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. During the real war even the Japanese High Command knew they couldn't take on the US (yes, just the US who they considered their main rivals in the Pacific) for a long haul. I posted some charts earlier (which I can again if asked), where it showed that within 6 months of the war the US was already outproducing the Japanese in every category. But yet, you have people here who think the Japanese can launch attacks in China, India, DEI, the South Pacific and against the West Coast all at the same time ... and win. The direction that WitP appears to be going is towards a "play balance" that will do exactly that - allow a Japanese player to win the game by lauching attacks everywhere at the same time. This is analogous to the situation that the Japanese player faces in 1944. You know, we don't see a lot of AARs for 1944 or 1945 scenarios because most people don't want to play the Japanese side when the situation is hopeless. If the 1941/42 scenarios become equivalently one-sided, who will want to play the Allied side? Cheers - Dave Baranyi

Tanaka -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 4:39:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Aye I guess theory only goes so far (I just noticed P38F at 10 a month which will help see I knew iwas missing things !!!!!) Kool. Only a little over 7 months to equip 1 group. Hope you dont have any op losses. If the weather is anywhere as "wet" in the CHS version as it is in the Official 1.604 then the Allied player will be lucky to ever have any fighters in the air. [8\|] I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. And why would someone want to play the Japanese side under these conditions when all the Allies can do is run away as fast as possible for at least the first game year? Ask Tophat how he likes the fact that day after day, month after month I don't let him catch any of my US units? He's bored silly and keeps on asking me to send out the carriers. But why should I when I don't have a chance to win with them? How many folks remember how a year or so ago I posted a thread asking, "Can an Allied Player Win this Game?" and I got jumped on by tons of people. Now you have folks like Nomad making comments like, "If you are the Allied player, and the Japanese haven't reach Autovictory, you are winning." Years ago Pacwar got screwed up by amateurs who wanted to make things both more "historic" and more "playable" so that the Japanese had a "chance to win". Don't fall into the same trap guys... Cheers - Dave Baranyi I guess you guys havent read all of those Oleg posts about CHS being an allied fanboy scenario...[8\|] all theyve tried to do is put in a correct OOB from historical research. this back and forth stuff cracks me up [:D]

Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 4:55:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADavidB I've got to wonder why anyone would want to play the Allied side of the CHS - it's already hard enough and frustrating enough to play the Allied side of the Official 1.604. The idea behind CHS it to try to make the OOBs and TO&Es accurate. It is true that most of the effort so far in CHS has been directed at the Allies, but I think that is because that is where the interest (and expertise) of the contributors tends to lie. If this has created imbalances in CHS, then they should be addressed, but I think that any changes should be based on research and play(test) results, rather than anecdote alone.

Don Bowen -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 5:01:53 AM)
Well, this has been an interesting thread. After all those rants about having favored the allies and screwed the Japanese it's very refreshing to see some allied teeth-gnashing. If everybody thinks their side got hurt, I'd say we did a very good job. I'd also like to point out that there are a number of modified scenarios out there with different viewpoints and emphasis. Everyone can pick the one that suits them best.

Mike Scholl -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 5:26:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dereck IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. During the real war even the Japanese High Command knew they couldn't take on the US (yes, just the US who they considered their main rivals in the Pacific) for a long haul. I posted some charts earlier (which I can again if asked), where it showed that within 6 months of the war the US was already outproducing the Japanese in every category. But yet, you have people here who think the Japanese can launch attacks in China, India, DEI, the South Pacific and against the West Coast all at the same time ... and win. Yet that is precisely what a "HISTORICAL" scenario should offer. Historically the Japanese had approximately the same chance as a snowball in Hell---and that is what the CHS should be in it's BASIC form! Once they get that right, then you can start playing around with "options" and editors to make things more competative. But if you don't get the foundation right, nothing you build on it will stand for long.

denisonh -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 5:42:43 AM)
Historical OOBs without requiring garrisons in conquered territiories allows the Japanese to divert these forces towards offensive operations, creating a significant "ahistorical" effect. (the DEI and phillipines should require garrisons, something they do not currently require) Just as much effort needs to be put into some of the modeling of effects that created the need for all the garrison forces or it will make all there effort to make it historical a waste.

testarossa -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 6:07:40 AM)
I�m in June 1943 and finally filled out last of my groups with P-40b, I still have around 6 groups with p-36, 8-10 groups with B-18. And this happened only because of P-40N. Historical numbers represent production in response to the historical losses. Allies produced whatever they needed. If they would�ve needed 5000 more P-40E they would�ve produced 5000 more P-40Es. Same for B-17 and P-38.

Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 6:10:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl Yet that is precisely what a "HISTORICAL" scenario should offer. Historically the Japanese had approximately the same chance as a snowball in Hell---and that is what the CHS should be in it's BASIC form! Once they get that right, then you can start playing around with "options" and editors to make things more competative. But if you don't get the foundation right, nothing you build on it will stand for long. That is exactly my view as well, Mike.

dereck -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 7:11:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: testarossa I�m in June 1943 and finally filled out last of my groups with P-40b, I still have around 6 groups with p-36, 8-10 groups with B-18. And this happened only because of P-40N. Historical numbers represent production in response to the historical losses. Allies produced whatever they needed. If they would�ve needed 5000 more P-40E they would�ve produced 5000 more P-40Es. Same for B-17 and P-38. In December 1941 the US only had 54% of the aircraft the Japanese did in the Pacific. Just six months later they had 290% of what the Japanese did.

mlees -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 7:31:41 AM)
The US industrial might was HUGE. Historically, the majority of the production went to Europe, and as lend lease to other allies. If the Japanese had landed on Australia, I would like to think the US would have diverted ETO bound stuff to the PTO. I feel that it is reasonably safe to say they would have done that had the Japanese landed on the US west coast. Just how much the US player should get in equipment and manpower allocated to the PTO, based on how well the Japanese player does in a particular game, is speculation at it's most enjoyable (and more suited to "World in Flames"), but not fun for the IJN player. Keeping it at the historical levels is well enough, as it does not penalise the Japanese player for doing well.

dereck -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 7:51:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mlees The US industrial might was HUGE. Historically, the majority of the production went to Europe, and as lend lease to other allies. If the Japanese had landed on Australia, I would like to think the US would have diverted ETO bound stuff to the PTO. I feel that it is reasonably safe to say they would have done that had the Japanese landed on the US west coast. Just how much the US player should get in equipment and manpower allocated to the PTO, based on how well the Japanese player does in a particular game, is speculation at it's most enjoyable (and more suited to "World in Flames"), but not fun for the IJN player. Keeping it at the historical levels is well enough, as it does not penalise the Japanese player for doing well. The numbers I put down weren't total ... they were just for the Pacific. Even though 70% was supposed to go to Europe and only 30% to the Pacific, as far as the Navy went 70-80% of the US Navy was in the Pacific until VJ-Day. The US scared the living crap out of the British who wanted the US to sit on our hands and do nothing in the Pacific until they defeated Germany and then, according to a proposed British plan go after Japan and finally invade Japan by 1948. The US didn't and did the one thing that military experts shy away from: fighting a two front war. If you want "historical" then you have to deal with the fact that the US industrial base outclassed Japan from day one. During the course of the war the US built more SUBMARINES alone than the Japanese did in ships of all classes. To be "historical" the only options for the Japanese are to strike out and build a defensive perimeter and then dig in for the inevitable onslaughts and just buy time. That's the only option the Japanese had after Pearl Harbor - the irony was that if they had attacked the British and Dutch and left the US out it's very unlikely Roosevelt would have had the public opinion to be able to get the US involved.

Yamato hugger -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 8:09:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dereck IF this game was 100% historic there would be no way the Japanese would even come close to being able to win. Well there is winning, and there is winning. Could the Japs win the war? I dont think there is anyone then or now that belives that. Could you do better than the Japs did historically? Sure. Thats what I judge "winning" by. If you hold out past 15 Aug 45, you win.

Slaghtermeyer -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 9:19:25 AM)
If this game had been better-designed, it would have had the possibility of both sending units under your control to Europe with a gain in victory points, and also taking units for yourself that historically went to Europe for a loss of victory points. Of course, the victory points would need to be time-adjusted, for example you'd get much more victory points sending 2nd Marines to Europe in 1942 than in 1944. I believe something like this can be done with CHS, if players wouldn't mind keeping track of victory point score changes manually. A few divisions and air units that historically went to Europe could be put in the "United States" base, and the player would lose victory points for those that he uses. Likewise, if he moves a division already under his control to the "United States" he would gain victory points. The same can be done with ships in the Panama Canal zone. The Japanese player should be informed about the victory point changes, maybe a month or two after it happens. He would be "informed" by seeing the change in the way the war in Europe progresses. To make things interesting, the Japanese player should be given the option to send subs to Germany in order to gain victory points. Because there is no equivalent of "United States" or Panama Canal for the Japs, he would need to scuttle those subs (no option to bring them back from Europe) and inform the Allies a month or two later about his increased victory point score (it's assumed that historically the Allies are "informed" by experiencing greater shipping losses in the Atlantic). _____________________________ [image]http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.cv/leperous/Sites/.Pictures/bushtalks.jpg-thumb_105_140.jpg[/image] Click here for "Hell No, We Won't Go" video. [image]http://oznik.com/banners/new_refusenik_watch_long.gif[/image]

Tankerace -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 9:30:39 AM)
How many accounts do you have slaughter? This is like the fourth one I've seen.... quote: If this game had been better-designed Heh, that never gets old. The game does far more than any of the genre, but still more must be done, right? And because the game doesn't take Europe into account, its poorly designed. What exactly would WitP (or any game, for that matter) have to do to not be poorly designed?

Slaghtermeyer -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 9:52:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace How many accounts do you have slaughter? This is like the fourth one I've seen.... I have quite a few, they've all been banned because Matrix does not like the political leanings of my avatar and profile. If Matrix had an even-handed policy of banning all political content I would understand, but I think it's unfair to target specific politics for banning while allowing other politics (such as EUBanana's blatantly political avatar and profile). Fortunately I have access to variable IP so I can unban myself whenever I want [:'(] quote: Heh, that never gets old. The game does far more than any of the genre, but still more must be done, right? And because the game doesn't take Europe into account, its poorly designed. What exactly would WitP (or any game, for that matter) have to do to not be poorly designed? So it's not possible for a well-designed game to be better-designed? Or maybe any reference to WiTP as a non-perfect game rattles your fanboyism? ______________________________ [image]http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/truecolors.jpg[/image]

Tankerace -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 10:34:33 AM)
Heh.... if you had seen my rants last June when WitP came out, you would see Im not at all a fanboy. Perhaps I did judge you too harshly, but it does get old with many posters who a new feature they asked for gets added, and without so much as a thank you its "Oh, well can you look into this now?" That and all the constant barraging of WitP. Ill be the first to admit its not perfect. (I believe I once referred to it as a piece of work that was barely stable and definately rushed.....) of course, that was many moons ago.

Andy Mac -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 11:48:20 AM)
I am a huge fan of WITP and of CHS I think its great. This thread was not trying to bash anyone. As I said I have not actually played a game yet so I am to some extent talking out of my arse at the moment. My view as I said above is that I cannot see the allies being able to keep squadrons up to strength given the reductions in aircraft numbers. Certainly the P39 will need to be used as a front line fighter probably the P43 as well to have any chance. A few initial thoughts of tricks I am going to attempt to use as early as possible to spread the pain accross the aircraft production. 1. Withdraw most West Coast Fighter Units into one sqn which should leave that squn overstrength then upgrade it to put as many air frames into my pool as possible. (not sure if this will work but it should) 2. Send all Canadian Kittyhawk Sqns to the front to attempt to use the kittyhawk pool. 3. No training I cannot afford the ops losses. 4. Try to get 24 P26's from somewhere to allow me to downgrade some allied sqns and then upgrade to P39D's or P400's 5. Switch some Wirraways/ P40 Sqns for RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires again to spread the draws on my pools depending on which way the Japanese choose to attack. My fear is that having to do these kind of activities will really encourage the Sir Robin approach. If I know I cannot protect airbases or ports even form an initial attack why would I hang around to get my head kicked in !!!!!! I am even considering dismounting my USN Wildcat Sqns off of my CV's and send all CV's to West Coast Ports for whole of 42 as I cannot protect a forward base !!!! Now this is almost certainly an over reaction so I will watch and see how the game develops. It should be interesting !!!!!! Andy

ADavidB -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 1:09:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I am a huge fan of WITP and of CHS I think its great. This thread was not trying to bash anyone. As I said I have not actually played a game yet so I am to some extent talking out of my arse at the moment. My view as I said above is that I cannot see the allies being able to keep squadrons up to strength given the reductions in aircraft numbers. Certainly the P39 will need to be used as a front line fighter probably the P43 as well to have any chance. A few initial thoughts of tricks I am going to attempt to use as early as possible to spread the pain accross the aircraft production. 1. Withdraw most West Coast Fighter Units into one sqn which should leave that squn overstrength then upgrade it to put as many air frames into my pool as possible. (not sure if this will work but it should) 2. Send all Canadian Kittyhawk Sqns to the front to attempt to use the kittyhawk pool. 3. No training I cannot afford the ops losses. 4. Try to get 24 P26's from somewhere to allow me to downgrade some allied sqns and then upgrade to P39D's or P400's 5. Switch some Wirraways/ P40 Sqns for RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires again to spread the draws on my pools depending on which way the Japanese choose to attack. My fear is that having to do these kind of activities will really encourage the Sir Robin approach. If I know I cannot protect airbases or ports even form an initial attack why would I hang around to get my head kicked in !!!!!! I am even considering dismounting my USN Wildcat Sqns off of my CV's and send all CV's to West Coast Ports for whole of 42 as I cannot protect a forward base !!!! Now this is almost certainly an over reaction so I will watch and see how the game develops. It should be interesting !!!!!! Andy You've hit the nail on the head Andy - the key to the Game is air power and without it you can do nothing. Take away more airpower from the Allies only, and you end up with a game where PBEM will be less interesting than playing the AI. Dave Baranyi

m10bob -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 3:12:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Well, this has been an interesting thread. After all those rants about having favored the allies and screwed the Japanese it's very refreshing to see some allied teeth-gnashing. If everybody thinks their side got hurt, I'd say we did a very good job. I'd also like to point out that there are a number of modified scenarios out there with different viewpoints and emphasis. Everyone can pick the one that suits them best. Don !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There never was any merit to the claims of "allied fanboy bias"...It was just a couple of fellas who wanted more Japanese options and did not not know how to ask for them without blatantly asking for a "sci-fi" button............. The CHS folks have done wonderful historic research................... I check using Janes,, Ian Allen, etc..................[8D] (BTW, you fellas did include a huge amount of stuff for both sides as requested on these threads, and I know you tried to appeease all, (except for my C54's !!)(LMAO).....[sm=00000280.gif]

Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS - Did allies get screwed in the air ? (10/18/2005 3:20:24 PM)
quote: Take away more airpower from the Allies only, and you end up with a game where PBEM will be less interesting than playing the AI. Does anyone have the time (which I currently lack), and the interest, to make an actual analysis of the numbers of Allied aircraft produced in CHS compared to the official scenario 15, and the actual numbers of aircraft sent to the theatre during the war?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.966797