el cid again
I have considered this matter = at the time I added Lhasa - and the "Army" of Tibet -
to the game. I concluded that, because of political and military weapons support by the British, that Tibet is de facto a commonwealth country for AE game purposes. The garrison amounts only to a weak infantry battalion, with a tiny amount of organic support. More broadly and confusingly I found that there were real political complications between China and Tibet, including actual hostilities over disputed territories. And more technical-mechanical, I found that over the distances invovled,
secondary roads or, in this case, more appropriately a trail, would not function. And there was no justification to put in a rail line or primary road - none of which would coordinate with map art as it exists. Code very much limits the distances over which supplies will flow by the nature of the infrastructure. Further North, in the area just South of Mongolia, there is a "primary road" in map art and pwhexe.dat code which is wholly unjustified in historical terms - probably so that units and supplies might move in the Sinkiang area - which admittedly was an ancient as well as modern route (known as "the Northern Silk Road"). I was reluctant to put in a long distance, strategic road of any sort not indicated by map art.
This thread begins with the curious statement
Since some players evacuate Chinese units to India after the fall of Chungking,
I will confess I have never seen an attack on Chunking, never mind its capture,
and I am not at all certain it will ever happen in RHS? RHS features no less than five complete reworks of China and Chinese forces, both because of the large numbers and kinds of units missing in stock, and because of technical problems (they had no planning at all, low morale, low readiness, very high rates of disorganization, many missing squads and a system that never permitted meaningful rebuilding of units) and a general logistical inability of China to support the original, never mind the RHS expanded, forces. China had no navy whatever, no Marines, and very little air force - in particular so little aircraft support that historical missions of the AVG were not possible in game terms. All of that has changed, and in the last test game the Japanese were unable to capture ANY significant objective in spite of serious campaigns against Sian, Changsha and the SW "corner" at Nanning. Tests six and eight did demonstrate a logistical collapse after the capture of Changsha, one from which it was doubtful the Chinese could ever recover. Instead of using tricks, I used research to find what really was in the Chunking and Kunming area? Why, for example, could they fuel industry in the absence of an oilfield? Turns out there were both oilfields and other kinds of industrial fuel. And a good deal more significant cities with a great deal more local industry producing supplies. The strategic depth of China, and its military strength, renders it about an order of magnitude stronger than it was to begin with in stock. I have continued to ask the Japanese Tag Team to try to conquer it - just to see if it can be done? But I don't expect them to succeed.
You wrote privately
Perhaps we could have a trail from Chengdu to Lhasa, Tibet in the RHS.
What do you think?
In principle we could. At least I could create one in pwhexe.dat files. The problem with that is that RHS has no less than 28 pwhexe.dat files - so it would involve a lot of work. But I have done that for the for things like the Baikal Amur Mainline - which in historical scenarios mainly exists as a trail (the foundation for the tracks sans the actual steel) for most of its length. I could do it. What I cannot do (at least not without taking time to learn how - and finding that time) is map art. There are already many places I want to add or delete roads and railroads - and I think trails should be added (they matter both to history and to RHS) - the Kokota Track for example. If I had a helper who could revise map art with respect just to roads and rail lines, I would be more disposed to consider the project.
The more difficult problem is what "road" to draw and code? A trail simply would not work - although it might be the closest to reality - these were routes for pack animals - not for wagons or trucks. A secondary road might be closer to modeling the limited logistic value and movement rates of a land combat unit along the route. But that would require addition of more towns to really work well - and RHS is very slot limited. That would force trade off decisions - what to get rid of to create them? Again - it can be done - and if there is a lot of interest - and map support - I would consider doing it.
RHS is about 50% ideas from the broader community - but I always did at least 50% of the work and now do 100%.
My review of Tibet surprised me in that I concluded the original Matrix decision NOT to put ANYTHING AT ALL there is substantially justified. In the end I added Lhasa because of its possible significance as an aircraft ferry point - if a base existed and could be expanded and if there was a small amount of local supply. The main reason to add the garrison was to contest its capture by airborne assault. Since I added it, I am not aware of a single game in which it has been used (if there is one, please let me know). One factor I use in deciding what to do, what to expand, and rarely what to get rid of is how much it actually gets used by players? I EXPECTED to add some kind of roads from India and China - and identified possible routes for them (hex by hex in notes). I was UNABLE to justify the work required to do so because it is so extensive, because I cannot now generate the map art, and because it would either require exaggeration of the route (as we have in Sinkiang with its primary road) or addition of towns along the way (so units do not die of attrition during transit). It remains a low priority possible future development - unless interest and/or help is forthcoming.
< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/1/2015 12:25:46 AM >