Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CHS IATB beta release

 
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 IATB beta release Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CHS IATB beta release - 2/18/2009 10:43:57 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
CHS IATB will be released, soon.
It is based on CHS with the principle: "I am the Boss" hence IATB.

I have looked into most mods seeing them all not satisfing. CHS is good, as RHS is. CHS is simple but the planes don't have accurate data. The usual handicap to the allies is used, that no DB or Torpedo carrying plane flies more than 5 hex with its dangerous payload.
RHS on the other hand is really great. It adds historc militas, gives the planes its accurate data and offers a lot of ressources. But it is also logistics orientated and forces even the allied player to spend a lot of time in micro-management, micro-management that not everyone wants to have.

What I never found in any mod was a freedom of choice I wished to have.
When all units are at maximum strength, it makes no difference whether the vehicle pool has 300 or 300.000 points in it. I've also seen AARs where some japanese player had 1000-3000 modern planes in pool.
How likely is that? Do you really think the Japs would have hunders of tanks, planes and artillery pieces standing in front of the factories without using them?
Why does the player never have the choice to decide, what ships he wants to produce? You are the boss, you may even evacuate China - but you can't decide to produce more ships of a special kind while producing less of another?

So CHS IATB is a combination of both CHS and RHS with much more freedom of choice to the player.

Significant changes of the Japanese:
Planes:
I used the RHS EOS series as an orientation. So in addition to changed data and armament, Japan has many planes it perhaps should have used and which also might have been possible.
To save slots, some (useless) planes were deleted while other (obsolete) have been combined.
Added:
Fighters:
A7M1
Me 109T
Me 109K-4
Me 109 Z-1
He 100D-1
Me 109G-6
Ki-64 Tony

Fighter Bombers:
Me 109 Z-2

Night Fighters:
Ju 88C6

Recon:
C3N2
D4Y1-C

Float Plane:
E16A1 Paul

Level Bomber:
G7M1 Marie
G5N4 Liz
B5N2-Q
G8N1
Ki-47 Kate (one engined bomber perfectly for training)

Dive Bomber:
Ju-88A4

Transport:
G5N2-L Liz

Patrol:
H8K2-L
H6K2-L

Combined:
Ki-30 and Ki-32
A5M2 and Ki-27

Additional Units:
All additional units have "XT" in their name. So if you don't want to use them, you can easily stop their production, halt their reinforcement and transfer them to a base far off the front to rest there to the end of the war --> Free choice!
90 additional Airgroups. Most of them are already in the game with 48 maximum size and 1 plane ready. This should help Japanese players to use the planes they have produced, even if the ordinary units are already filled up.
There are an additional 10 Tank Divisions, 30 additional CD units (I would produce as many CD guns as possible from 1943 on), 20 additional AA units and 25 additional Infantry Divisions. They all start with nothing but some support units so you have to pay for every gun, every tank and every man they get. This changes nothing of the balance in theory, as the Japanese still has to pay for it without having more industry. Only now, he'll have an immediate advantege when producing more or loosing less than usual of one good.
There are also an additional 7 carriers of the Junyo class and 2 BCs of the Amagi-class. They get completed as if they were laid down at Dezember 7th 1941. As I've hardly seen the Shinano been completed as carrier, I changed her back to a BB of the Yamato-class.
As there are no significant additional shipyards, you can only complete this additional ships by stopping others, by producing additional shipyards or converting merchant shipyards. ---> Free choice!

Devices/TOE changes:
AA units, Artillery units, CD units and combat engineers have their size augmented. But as no unit starts with additional squads or guns, it's again the players task to produce the additional stuff! ---> Free choice!
The 8in CF gun was made mobile, the 47mm AT gun arrives one month later to avoid units spending all available armement points on turn one to upgrade their 37mm guns to 47mm.
278 29mm AA/AT upgrades to 274 40mm AA Gun (2)
USA Engineers Sqds have their build rate risen by 50% to counter the additional Japanese units at least a bit.

Ship changes:
The Japanese player may now convert huge Freighters into MAC-Ships and CVEs.
MAC: Converting an AK to an AS converts it to a MAC. This is an AK with a simple wooden flight deck on its superstructure. Its caro space is used for spare parts, fuel and ammunition. As it has no 195 in slot 20, it is NOT able to perform offensive missions. The idea is a CVE that is only able to perform CAP - which will be necessary because of additional range of the LBs and also a Vengeance I with an impressive range of up to 17 hex. The MAC can only carry 12 planes until 1943. In 1943, all japanese planes have folding wings so the space is used more efficiantly.
CVE: Converting an AK to an AV creates a CVE with a capacity of 30 and 90 missions. This is a more sofisticated construction than the MAC which makes it more costly in consequence.

As both MAC and CVE where built quite fast, they seem way too cheap for the game balance. As the Japs have to pay for them and their planes, a veteran player may allow as many conversions as possible, while others should agree to house rules (e.g. not mor than 4 conversions per type and 6 month with no more limitations from 44 on).

Significant Changes with the Allied Planes:
P-51A added. It converts to P-51B with 10 additional planes per month
Many nations now may also use the planes there couldn't until now. For example:
The Dutch Buffalos now upgrade to Kittyhawk I instead of III
The Chinese may use the A-20 and B-25 that usually are in the pool unused by hundreds.
Many planes are produced on map now, which means that obsolete planes no longer are produced. Other planes no longer in production fill the the pool - but get no replacements.
USAAF Fighter units may now also use the Marine Fighters. I never understood why USAAF units should be at half strength while there are 500 F-4F in the pool. Now, USAAF may also use F-4F, F-4U and FM-2.
Some planes arrive earlier, some later. The spitfire e.g. is now available already in mid 42.

Replacement pilots experience:
IJAF - 1900 in pool -- 50 starting exp -- 0 replacements
IJNF - 3500 in pool -- 56 starting exp -- 0 replacements
USN - 0 in pool --76 starting exp -- 0 replacements
USA - 0 in pool --72 starting exp -- 0 replacements
USMC - 0 pool -- 74 exp -- 0 replacements
AUST - 125 -- 36 -- 50
NEW Z - 100 -- 36 -- 40
BRIT - 100 -- 39 -- 100
FRCH - 10 -- 36 -- 5
DUT - 25 -- 34 -- 5
CHIN - 0 -- 52 -- 0
RUS - 0 -- 60 -- 0
IND - 0 -- 64 -- 0
CMNW - 20 -- 32 -- 15
PHIL - 5 -- 30 -- 1
CAN - 50 -- 36 -- 25

This will make high experience more valuable. It also means that while the japanese pilot of most of 42 will be superior, all replacements after the pool is empty will be hardly able to keep the plane in the air. This will require extensive trainig.

Other changes:
The Langley has a capacity of 24 and carries 24 Kinfisher. It upgrades in 6/42 back to a CV with a capacity of 24 - this was made regarding the additional Japanese carriers.
PGs with heavy armement are changed to CLs or CA (depending on their guns). This should allow them to perform shore bombardement that PGs can't do and to attack more aggressive in naval battles. AMCs of both sides are also CLs now.
Most Ressources and Oil data have been took from RHS which offers more than enough of both for the Japanese if captured.
Ressource centers close to the coast but not at the coast have been transfered to harbours. I don't know a way how to take the ressources produced e.g. in Clarck Field to a harbour. If this isn't possible, what are the ressources good for then? I need to ship them to the Home Islands to use them but this can only be done when they are accessable from the sea.
Some other changes I've forgotten.
Engine production changed in a way that all needed get produced in 12/41. When I'm the boss, I wouldn't let mitsubishi engines get produces in several times the number than needed while other engines are urgently needed...

Attack northwards instead of the south?

This mod also should allow the Japanese player to decide whether to attack russia instead of the allies. In this case, a huge amount of House Rules have to be applied which will follow seperatly. But most significant: As the Japanese attack happens when the Germans are in front of Moscow, Russia can be beaten. So there's an additional base at the southern coast of Siberia with a huge number of oil, ressources and heavy industry. It must not be conquered before all of Russia (not Mongolia) is conquered. As all devies are damaged, they have to be repaired first. But when they are repaired, they represent the captured industry, oil and ressources within Russia.


The additional ships may be more than slipways available, the He-100D-1 may not have been used for good reasons, etc. This is not a mod that requires to be totally historical correct nore is that the aim of that mod. The aim is just an enhanced mod with a maximum of free choce. You may limit most of it via House Rules, you needn't use the XT units as well as the "European Russia" Base may remain unused. But if you want, you may now use them all - all your choice (and the choice of your PBEM-Opponent as it's not entended to be played against the AI).


Any suggestions to be implemented before the first release?

< Message edited by Historiker -- 2/23/2009 7:29:50 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
Post #: 1
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/19/2009 5:12:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The structural problem in WITP is that it is NOT designed for player control of production - only of operations. Even in the case of Japan - the economics is on the map mainly so it can be fed or damaged - not because you get a lot of control over what is built. RHS - in particular EOS family - mitigates that slightly - by letting ships upgrade to different kinds - so you have to turn off the upgrade or a BB will reappear as a CV - etc. Even so - each scenario is pretty much canned based on the assumptions related to its formation.

If you could describe what YOU want more precisely - it would be possible to create a scenario that implemented YOUR ideas about what should be built (and planned for). However - the problem for the Allies needing micromanagement is structural: it is that way not for gamers joy but because that is the way it was - and so there are no longer "AKs to burn" - anything else is just - oh - abstract chess or something like that - unrelated to the situation. If the Allies are not forced to plan several months ahead - they will be far too powerful - and Japan is not going to do very well. It is great for players who love to beat up on the evil Japanese as it were - but not if you want to show what might be possible with different Japanese planning.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 2
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/19/2009 5:37:18 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

If you could describe what YOU want more precisely - it would be possible to create a scenario that implemented YOUR ideas about what should be built (and planned for). However - the problem for the Allies needing micromanagement is structural: it is that way not for gamers joy but because that is the way it was - and so there are no longer "AKs to burn" - anything else is just - oh - abstract chess or something like that - unrelated to the situation. If the Allies are not forced to plan several months ahead - they will be far too powerful - and Japan is not going to do very well. It is great for players who love to beat up on the evil Japanese as it were - but not if you want to show what might be possible with different Japanese planning.

I know! But I tried to convince several friends to play RHS with me - and everyone was repelled by the sheer amount of details.
RHS has really great features but it isn't everyones joy to be forced to organize even the Allied economy. Many player play the allied side exactly for not having to care abouth ressources, oil and even supplies. Most players also start their first PBEMs with the allied side.
RHS is nothing for them as the allied side seems to be more challenging than the japanese side is in stock.


By taking the good features of RHS and putting them into a more simple system, there's an option for anyone hating the amount of micromanagement in RHS while being able to enjoy it's advantages.

By adding several new ships, the player still can't lay down new ships himself. Still, he has more choice than before.

< Message edited by Historiker -- 2/19/2009 5:52:17 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/21/2009 7:54:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
If you won't say what you want to change - I cannot do it for you.

Note also that if the Allies are free from logistic requirements you doom Japan: it does not have the option of attacking long Allied LOC nor Allied sources of oil and resources, or industries. It is then merely a "kill the Japanese" exercise - not a simulation of something related to PTO. The saying is "amateurs talk tactics and strategy; professionals talk logistics."
The whole point of correcting the OBs was to get something more historical; sans the logistics - it does not make the work involved to do that make a lot of sense.
Still - I can do data entry like Cobra does art - faster than is believable - and I can't do it as you like if you don't say what that means in a specific sense?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/21/2009 7:55:48 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 4
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/21/2009 7:58:20 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
RHS is quite fine to me. But I wanted to play against friends who were repelled by the even more complex game. They need a simpler mod, not a modified RHS!

Chitose and Chiyoda are already CVLs. To even that, the USS Ranger is transfered to the Pacific while the USS Long Island takes it's place in the Atlantic.
I know that it had good reasons not to use the Ranger in the Pacific, but I'm afraid that potential allied players would demand more carriers...


< Message edited by Historiker -- 2/21/2009 8:01:51 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/23/2009 1:40:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
It is feasible to create a RHSASO - provided one knew that scenario was desired?

Allied Simplified Option

Set up bases (e.g. Kerachi and Melbourne and Wellington) as map edge entry points for supplies - remove the tankers and cargo ships feeding them - and the the players can focus on operations - instead of running the long SLOCs. They also won't be able to burn the cargo ships dedicated to feeding those bases.

Other things might be done - but nobody has said a word on the Forums about an interest in RHS in a simplified form - and more information is required to understand what they want. RHS is a family of mods - not a single mod - for different tastes. This isn't one I have heard about before.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 6
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/23/2009 1:45:31 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
That's a great idea!

For ASO, the Allied should swim in supplies and fuel as they do in CHS and stock. They shouldn't be forced to ship any ressources and oil.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 7
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/23/2009 3:59:13 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Taking RHS-CVO for data, Brazil Maru and Argemtina Maru get converted into a CVE. The Shinshu Marus will also be converted to CVEs.
As I don't simply want to add new carriers to the Japanese side, all conversions don't happen per upgrade. Instead, the ships are taken out of game into the building list again. To have them completed/converted as carrier will consequentyl cost building points.


Assuming that more conversions are possible, I'm afraid the carriers may get too many. ATM, there are already:
22 CV
8 CVL
25 CVE

+ the possibility to create MAC and CVEs - which has to be regulated by HR.

< Message edited by Historiker -- 2/23/2009 4:05:05 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 8
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/23/2009 6:38:55 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
A version to look at. Its not ready but good enough to look at and for some suggestions.
I intend to turn the landbased airgroups all to army service, the conversions have to be fixed, too.

http://www.inclutus.com/witp/IATB.zip

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 9
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/24/2009 10:50:52 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Several changes:
Nearly all land based airgroups are now army units. The Houserule will be, that no army units are allowed as carrier planes.
It''s no longer possible to create new CVEs as this would be too powerfull. The MAC still exist. With a completement of only 12 planes, it's quite useless against enemy carriers but will be most usefull to protect convois against unescorted Long range attacks by DBs or LBs.
Now, there are two more possibilitys:
One can create AMCs with mine laying capacity that are classified as DMs to allow them aggressive actions in surface battles while being able to lay mines.
Merchant ships can be upgradet with a significant number of AAAs (classified as CLAA). This will also be needed against raids aigainst convois. But without armour and classified as cruiser, they'll be primary targets and easily sunk.

By massivly decreasing the number of navy pilots, it'll be more realistic. The ships can be built to carry them but the pilots will be totally inadequate.

< Message edited by Historiker -- 2/24/2009 10:51:33 AM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 10
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/24/2009 3:42:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Taking RHS-CVO for data, Brazil Maru and Argemtina Maru get converted into a CVE. The Shinshu Marus will also be converted to CVEs.
As I don't simply want to add new carriers to the Japanese side, all conversions don't happen per upgrade. Instead, the ships are taken out of game into the building list again. To have them completed/converted as carrier will consequentyl cost building points.


Assuming that more conversions are possible, I'm afraid the carriers may get too many. ATM, there are already:
22 CV
8 CVL
25 CVE

+ the possibility to create MAC and CVEs - which has to be regulated by HR.


If I understand you correctly - and I am doubtful on that score - players will lose the ships in their pre conversion form.
Thus Argentina Maru and Brazil Maru are important large, fast APs - and if they are removed as such - they can indeed appear as CVEs (one was really converted - the other lost as an AP before it was done but really was so planned). This guarantees their arrival - but is ahistorical in the sense that players cannot use them (and maybe lose them) - and I for one think Japan needs the fast APs early. There are quite a few APs and sometimes other ships (CS, tenders) which convert to CVL or CVE - although not quite as many as you list if you don't count the late war junk - which are not Navy carriers at all.

Now the Shinshu Maru is a different kettle of fish entirely - and there is no good solution for these ships. They are vital landing ships - more like an LHA than anything we think of in WWII. They evolved in form - and eventually did operate aircraft in an ASW carrier sense. They were intended to get fighters - but we are not even sure what fighters - and in no case were Navy planes considered. These ships were wierd Army ships - and very vital to non carrier landing operations. To this add the many tankers or other sihps that might be said were intended for (but not completed really) CVM (Merchant) operations. Here again - their main function is cargo carrier - and their aircraft compliment was tiny (8 - 12) - none of these being navy planes - but IRL only ASW planes of an ineffective sort. They might have got a few fighters - had the Army got the Ki-44III operating from ships - but not enough to matter when a USN strike came in. In non strict scenarios I have them appear as tankers etc. In CVO family I have them appear as carriers with their lousy air groups - so players can learn how bad they were - not because they are worth having in that form. And either way - they are not dual form ships (or in the case of Shinshu Maru - multi form ships) as they should be.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 11
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/24/2009 3:43:53 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

A version to look at. Its not ready but good enough to look at and for some suggestions.
I intend to turn the landbased airgroups all to army service, the conversions have to be fixed, too.

http://www.inclutus.com/witp/IATB.zip



Clearly you are not interested in historical practice - or anything related to what might have been possible in the context of institutional politics or reasoning. This does not even make technical sense - in that all navies always have land based air units - if they have any air at all. Why bother?

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 12
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/24/2009 3:49:57 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Several changes:
Nearly all land based airgroups are now army units. The Houserule will be, that no army units are allowed as carrier planes.
It''s no longer possible to create new CVEs as this would be too powerfull. The MAC still exist. With a completement of only 12 planes, it's quite useless against enemy carriers but will be most usefull to protect convois against unescorted Long range attacks by DBs or LBs.
Now, there are two more possibilitys:
One can create AMCs with mine laying capacity that are classified as DMs to allow them aggressive actions in surface battles while being able to lay mines.
Merchant ships can be upgradet with a significant number of AAAs (classified as CLAA). This will also be needed against raids aigainst convois. But without armour and classified as cruiser, they'll be primary targets and easily sunk.

By massivly decreasing the number of navy pilots, it'll be more realistic. The ships can be built to carry them but the pilots will be totally inadequate.


The Navy - if it lost its land based air - should also lose its pilot training pool related to that - but the Army should get a bigger one. Further - the Army gets 2 for each 1 the Navy loses (half the time in training).

If you assign non carrier planes to the Army there is no problem with their being carrier capable.

The MAC ships are NOT intended to go raiding - they are intended to PROTECT convoys. They also were intended to carry oil in their own right - and in a sense they do. They will refuel ships in company with them. The Unryu type CVs were intended for the raiding role you envisage.

The Japanese could not produce the AAA required to adequately arm their merchant ships. I went as far as possible in EOS family in that direction - and still end up with ships poor by US/Allied standards. The industry of Japan has to feed all the warships, all the auxilaries and still arm merchants - and mostly the merchants get old stuff already made - or light stuff. Only the most important ships get anything close to good - and good in Japanese is still poor compared to what is theoretically possible (if one is just dreaming it up instead of accounting for what can be made).

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 13
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/25/2009 12:18:36 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
The idea of my mod is, to give the player as many options as possible. But for every option, he shall have to pay. If he wants more LCUs, he can have them, but only if he reduces the production of something else, is it ships or planes...

He can have more carriers than usual - but he must pay for them, that's the condition.

So if I let other ships upgrade, the japanese player has to pay for that. Consequently, upgradeing AKs APs and other ships to CVL and CVEs later in the game is impossible. Every conversion will only mean some sysdamage. This doesn't cost a thing.
Well, one might argue, that the docks for repair can also do conversions - which seems quite true - but that would make Japan much stronger amd it'll happen much too fast. I doubt that too many allied players will accept a such stronger japanese side.


Now, all existing ships that are converted to carriers are ordered to undergo their conversion immediately after the war begins.



quote:

Clearly you are not interested in historical practice - or anything related to what might have been possible in the context of institutional politics or reasoning. This does not even make technical sense - in that all navies always have land based air units - if they have any air at all. Why bother?

E.g. Terminus said, their completements can't be too big because there were neither pilots nor planes for many carriers.
Now, "navy" means "carrier capable pilot". This is a quite simple principle, I can't understand what's so difficult to understand here...

< Message edited by Historiker -- 2/25/2009 12:20:22 PM >


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 14
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/25/2009 4:50:41 PM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 268
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline
May I suggest RHS Level 5 CVO as a basis for simple option?

_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/25/2009 8:59:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14954
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

.

quote:

Clearly you are not interested in historical practice - or anything related to what might have been possible in the context of institutional politics or reasoning. This does not even make technical sense - in that all navies always have land based air units - if they have any air at all. Why bother?

E.g. Terminus said, their completements can't be too big because there were neither pilots nor planes for many carriers.
Now, "navy" means "carrier capable pilot". This is a quite simple principle, I can't understand what's so difficult to understand here...



It isn't pilots which are carrier capable - so that does not matter. It is units and aircraft that matter in this regard. Many land based air units are naval - and draw naval pilots - without having any carrier capability. If an air group does not start on a carrier - it is not usually carrier qualified. [there is a trick if you want it to be - assign the unit to a carrier that never appears - date set after the game ends - and ALSO set a date for the unit to appear - and it will appear at the default national location]

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 16
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/26/2009 10:27:26 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
I give it up...


The House Rule is:
Only Navy Pilots are allowed to fly from carriers.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/26/2009 10:58:26 AM   
Bogo Mil

 

Posts: 286
Joined: 1/28/2008
Status: offline
I think it doesn't fit together well: There are no replacement pilots, so the Japanese player must do on map training - fine. But if there are no land based navy units, how would you ever train pilots for the CVs? Which airgroups can you put on these converted escort carriers? I don't think this is a good idea...

You are using a name extension for those "extra units" - I think this is a better way to do: You could introduce more name extensions for air units and put up house rules how to use such airgroups. E.g. a "school" group may only do training, "cve" may be used land based or on converted merchants, "lb" is land based and may not be used on any ships...


_____________________________

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. (Benjamin Franklin)

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 18
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/26/2009 1:27:05 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
There is a number of still landbased Airgroups. There are two training units of each F, DB and TB with a maximum of 60 planes each and a small number of fighter and TB units for the MAC.
They can be used for training on map.


The main problem for the Japanese was to get trained carrier pilots. By limiting the number of navy units and navy pilots, I try to simulate this. If there is a huge number of landbased Navy airgroups, the training can be done by them. As I already have made every plane usable by both services, it is unimportant whether the airgroups are of the IJN or IJA. But now, the carrier groups can't be trained by a huge number of planes attacking empty bases...


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Bogo Mil)
Post #: 19
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/26/2009 1:55:48 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
It is already reflected in the game, that the Japs didn't have too much AAA. Converting an AK into an CLAA will cost naval shipyards - 20 per day 180 days long. This should reflect more than necessary the construction of the additional artillery pieces.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 20
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/26/2009 2:02:46 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
What is the rationale for this:

quote:

USN - 0 in pool --76 starting exp -- 0 replacements
USA - 0 in pool --72 starting exp -- 0 replacements
USMC - 0 pool -- 74 exp -- 0 replacements


The USA, USN, USMC trained a lot of pilots, even more than they needed.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 21
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/26/2009 2:10:18 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
I know.
Filled pools mean, that the pilots have the full experience. If the pool is empty, the pilots only have half the experience.

With the replacement rates now in the game, the japanese will have slightly better pilots as long as their pool is filled, after this, they will be barely able to fly.
Consequently, all the pilot experiences are reduced in the game. This will make aces even more valuable. Just think of historic aces. Do you really think a Hans-Joachim Marseille would only be 20 points better than the usual absolvent of a US flight school? In the game, a Marseille should have more likely 300 xp...

Now, an ace with a XP at 99 will have a huge chance to survive even against superieor numbers.


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 22
RE: CHS IATB announced - 2/27/2009 3:03:15 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
In case of Strike North, both China and Russia have an additional 10 Infantry Divisions. They start with only 5 supply each and the replacement rates haven't change. These additional units represent additonal soviet troops from europe and newly created Chinese troops.

If the Allies aren't attacked, they send additional supplies to China that allow the creation of additional units. As the replacement rates haven't changed, there are no additional chinese infantry squads which doesn't matter - there are always enough. The other equipment of the chinese units is the the same the western units use - so it's simply diverted to China.

Russian units have just been sent to the front against Germany - where they are urgently needed. So it's quite fair that the additional units aren't ready before some month have passed.
All additional units have a "SN" at the beginning of their unit name. They musn't be set on "Allow Replacements" if there's no attack on russia.

Moreover, an additional "Strike North extra" base deep in the forests of russia is added. It will produce an additional 50 fighters and 20 bombers each month in factories if Russia is attacked in "Strike North". ONLY THEN is it allowed to repair the aircraft factories in this base.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> CHS IATB beta release Page: [1]
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

0.127