Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"One wonders where all the money and resources were to be found for this enhanced Phillipine defence. Certainly not during the early 30's during the depression."

I wonder... IIRC (! - what this means is that I'm too lazy to dig for the references ) the big hydroelectric projects of the west were depression era projects. If they had the money to build the Hoover Dam they could have come up with some more for PI defense, had anyone the foresight and political will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"One wonders where all the money and resources were to be found for this enhanced Phillipine defence. Certainly not during the early 30's during the depression."

I wonder... IIRC (! - what this means is that I'm too lazy to dig for the references ) the big hydroelectric projects of the west were depression era projects. If they had the money to build the Hoover Dam they could have come up with some more for PI defense, had anyone the foresight and political will.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
There is one problem with this in that if Panama was threatened the US would then be operating on interior lines and would not hesitate in shipping large quantites of materials, troops, and planes. The idea of "Euorpe" first would go right out the window, and resources committed to Europe would go immediately to Panama. Since there is no way in the current game engine that this can be simulated I would argue that Panama should be off limits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
There is one problem with this in that if Panama was threatened the US would then be operating on interior lines and would not hesitate in shipping large quantites of materials, troops, and planes. The idea of "Euorpe" first would go right out the window, and resources committed to Europe would go immediately to Panama. Since there is no way in the current game engine that this can be simulated I would argue that Panama should be off limits.

Although I have never tested it, a Japanese landing on Panama should trigger the acceleration of US LCUs in the same way as a landing on the US West coast, so there is a built-in US reaction (and I think an appropriate one) to such an event.

If I get time I will test this to see whether it is actually the case.

Andrew

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"One wonders where all the money and resources were to be found for this enhanced Phillipine defence. Certainly not during the early 30's during the depression."

I wonder... IIRC (! - what this means is that I'm too lazy to dig for the references ) the big hydroelectric projects of the west were depression era projects. If they had the money to build the Hoover Dam they could have come up with some more for PI defense, had anyone the foresight and political will.

The Washington Naval Treate specifically prohibited any improvements to Ameriocan Fortifications west of Hawaii...., this was a sop to the Japanese for not getting a 70% tonnage ratio like they wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"We also made some of the Mideast oil appear at Kerachi anyway - because it comes down the Red Sea from Iraq and Iran."

CID Pretty sure you meant to say the Persian Gulf, not the Red Sea. Before someone "jumps" you about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Retired:

There is a wonderful book US Army Ships and Watercraft of the Second World War (or World War II). It lists the 12,000 named ships - and describes the 80,000 watercraft - of the US Army in that conflict - numbers which dwarfed the USN (but which are also given in the introduction).

Do you by chance own a copy of this. It seems like everytime I look for at the Loussac Library it cannot be found? I have trying to get my hands on a copy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Andrew thinks there is too much HI. I think there is too little - and have added some in places where it clearly is present but not in CHS or stock. My HI is actually bigger slightly - due to adding it - particularly in cities we added.

Remember - I compared resources not only with needs but with real world lists. I used Parillo mostly - and Liddle Hart as a backup - to get the lists of what materials are needed for a war economy. I used the Oxford Economic Atlas and similar materials in certain industries - and Parillo again - to measure the amount of production of resources and oil. So when I say there is not enough - I mean compared to real life - not just to the needs of HI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

IF Panama were made "off limits" the troops and ships and planes that defend it should ALSO be "out of the game" -

RHS lets PLAYERS decide the risks of sending how much forward - and does not saddle them with possibly irrelevent historical decisions. Take your pick - but we pick "power to the players." Of course, as always, a player can leave as much in Panama as he thinks is "historical" - even if not needed in his opinion. Still "power to the players." We DO say "if you don't think real commanders would do it, don't do it" - so that would fall in that category.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Andrew thinks there is too much HI. I think there is too little - and have added some in places where it clearly is present but not in CHS or stock. My HI is actually bigger slightly - due to adding it - particularly in cities we added.

Remember - I compared resources not only with needs but with real world lists. I used Parillo mostly - and Liddle Hart as a backup - to get the lists of what materials are needed for a war economy. I used the Oxford Economic Atlas and similar materials in certain industries - and Parillo again - to measure the amount of production of resources and oil. So when I say there is not enough - I mean compared to real life - not just to the needs of HI.

I am not an expert on the economic model in this game - but here are some basic questions:

1) In stock WitP - can Japan out produce the Allies? - could be wrong here - but I am under the impression that the answer is - YES.

Not even close. At least not if "outproduce" means the total of stuff arriving in theater. Japan will be overwhelmed in every scenario, even EOS.

2) If the above answer is Yes - then the model needs to be corrected so that Japan will produce in proportion to what the Allies produced for the Pacific Theatre.

Not Applicable. Japan's production is getting close to history - but is slightly too low - for various technical reasons.

3) if the answer to question #1 is NO - then how close is it? and I believe it should be made to function somewhat near historical levels.

About 90%.

This is all (from my perspective) if you want an accurate simulation of the war against Japan.

Now, the economic model is probably off - as you pointed out. But to me - the basic question should not be "how do we get Japan enough oil and resources to maximize it's HI?" - It should be "how do we make sure that Japan's HI is in a proper historical relationship to that of the Allies?".

Note most Allied HI isn't on the map. All Japanese HI is on the map. This may be confusing you.

B

EDIT: I think the best solution is probably to verify what Japan's industrial capacity should be (in relation to the Allies) and base that on "Best Case" conditions - then let all the other factors come into play - like shipping losses, Allied air bombardment, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Andrew thinks there is too much HI. I think there is too little - and have added some in places where it clearly is present but not in CHS or stock. My HI is actually bigger slightly - due to adding it - particularly in cities we added.

Remember - I compared resources not only with needs but with real world lists. I used Parillo mostly - and Liddle Hart as a backup - to get the lists of what materials are needed for a war economy. I used the Oxford Economic Atlas and similar materials in certain industries - and Parillo again - to measure the amount of production of resources and oil. So when I say there is not enough - I mean compared to real life - not just to the needs of HI.

I am not an expert on the economic model in this game - but here are some basic questions:

1) In stock WitP - can Japan out produce the Allies? - could be wrong here - but I am under the impression that the answer is - YES.

Not even close. At least not if "outproduce" means the total of stuff arriving in theater. Japan will be overwhelmed in every scenario, even EOS.

2) If the above answer is Yes - then the model needs to be corrected so that Japan will produce in proportion to what the Allies produced for the Pacific Theatre.

Not Applicable. Japan's production is getting close to history - but is slightly too low - for various technical reasons.

3) if the answer to question #1 is NO - then how close is it? and I believe it should be made to function somewhat near historical levels.

About 90%.

This is all (from my perspective) if you want an accurate simulation of the war against Japan.

Now, the economic model is probably off - as you pointed out. But to me - the basic question should not be "how do we get Japan enough oil and resources to maximize it's HI?" - It should be "how do we make sure that Japan's HI is in a proper historical relationship to that of the Allies?".

Note most Allied HI isn't on the map. All Japanese HI is on the map. This may be confusing you.

B

EDIT: I think the best solution is probably to verify what Japan's industrial capacity should be (in relation to the Allies) and base that on "Best Case" conditions - then let all the other factors come into play - like shipping losses, Allied air bombardment, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Big B - I greatly reduced Japanese production of aircraft - in the historical scenarios - so it is historical. Americans simply never believe how low it was! But the game is very efficient in terms of producing and deploying planes - too efficient. For that reason I also delayed when planes appear. They are up to a year ahead in CHS - and Joe and I disliked that.
We make them appear AFTER (not on) production date - so there is time to distribute and train. Never less than 2 months - often much more - if we have hard data on ops.

Ship production is dead on - no changes whatever - but you get the ship on the date she commissions - green - not later (which was the case in CHS often times). Vehicle production is also dead on.

But note that EOS is different - it is set to ramp up planes and vehicles faster than history. So don't compare EOS - with efficient planning assumed - with the strictly historical scenarios.

Now you cannot compare this with the Allies - UNLESS you add all the reinforcements and points that appear without production. They all count on the battlefield! Also - a big deal - don't just look at INITIAL Allied production. Allied production often quadruples - occasionally multiplies by as much as 11 - and in general triples over the course of the war. Japanese production grows very little - perhaps 10 or 20%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Anarchy:

1) I did not say that a Philippine Army division was equal to an IJA division. But Mac had created the Philippine Army personally - over many years - and been paid millions of dollars to do so. Whatever its condition, it is not someone elses fault. Further, HE said - and I think believed - it COULD meet the IJA on equal terms at the beaches. Doesn't matter if they were not as good - he had a lot of troops - and lots of other assets - which were poorly employed in quite defensible terrain. I bet they had a fighting chance to stay in the field until relieved. And in the process deny the rich ores of Northern Luzon to the enemy.

2) You are confused about which defeat I refer to in Korea. The People's Volunteer Army of Korea was NOT Korean!!!! It was Chinese. It attacked on Thanksgiving Eve 1950 along the banks of the Conng Chong River - and Mac was fully in command - having ordered 8th Army to jump off on attacks along the same river the following morning (having no clue the real situation).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sorry you feel that way AK. I think Andrew' Brown's Extended map is a vast improvement - and I think putting Panama on the map (which Andrew ALWAYS said was fair game) allows the I-400 class to have its real design purpose (a raid on the place). It adds a new point of arrival for the Allies - and a vital one (I want to add still more - but let Melbourne substitute for Cape Horne route). I see little point in having Aden and Panama if they are not on the map? Why bother? And if they were not fair game, all the units can be sent forward unrealistically. Many Allied units anywhere in the mideast (air units in particular) appear in CHS and RHS and stock - and this is wrong if they can be sent to the Far East with zero risk.