Sorry if I reply a little bit late: I was travelling back to Europe for a period of R&R. I made it happen during Christmas time and I'm very happy of this coincidence. Some time spent with the family and the beloved ones is always welcomed.
I thank everyone for the nice words, especially Obvert. One little clarification for everyone: Mike Solli is a proper logistician in the US Army, I am a fake one in the humanitarian field That's eventually why he cares for his soldiers, while I have the "Stalin touch"
Anyway. I am personally convinced, and I have tried to show why, that the economy of BTS simply can't run with normal resources settings.
Now. There are few options, as far as I can imagine:
1) Reducing the industrial potential.
2) Keeping the modifications and saying that Japanese has a fantasy economy.
3) Modifying stuff in order to give a somehow realistic feeling without breaking the entire system.
I am a Scen1 maniac, so I am for the historical stuff set up by developers. However, I think that solution 3) could be somehow feasible and justifiable.
For example: an increas of resources is something I strongly disapprove. But, if you put a reduced production in Japan/Manchuria/China and, at the same time, increase more the peripherical amount you can capture in random sh@tty locations in the DEI, it can be justifiable.
What I mean is that there are more resources but are more remotely positioned and more exposed to enemy action.
Therefore, a tradeoff is introduced: more resources theoretically available, but:
A) less available in the beginning putting pressure on Japan.
B) more exposed to enemy action making difficoult to protect them for ever and ever
C) you have to ship them to Onshu (and this one is the biggest element)
It's possible to justify that. Somehow. And the tradeoff is so evident, that it's also somehow acceptable by an allied player. For example, many rare materials available in the DEI are, currently, not sent back to Onshu because Japanese players have enough in China/Manchuria/Hokkaido. Instead, putting more stuff in the DEI simulates the availability of rare materials in the area and pressures Japan to import them, something they historically had to do.
It's just an example to show that I have no prejudice at all against an increase in the availability of raw materials. Introducing many tradeoffs and limitations, it's possible to rework the system without breaking it.
In terms of OIL/FUEL, it's very difficoult to increase the amount with some kind of justification, though.
If one wants to run a huge army, coupled with a huge airforce and the navy we all know, has to have some kind of limitations, it's obvious also in gameplay terms. In line of principle, Japan can run one the these three elements quite easily. Problem being that it has to renounce to the other two.
I tend, for example, to run very intense gound campaigns. I am therefore stingy as hell with fleet usage and with the airforce. I use well over 500 2E in constant ground attack in China, but it's an investment I do in order to reduce future expenditures on that front.
What I am trying to say is that it could be theoretically possible to run an overwhelmingly expanded industry. But it's possible to do it at the expenses of operations.
Running the fleet AND the industry AND the army AND the airforce at the levels seen in this MOD is just too much.
I make another example: I am lavish in my industrial expenses. I am the king of overproduction. I really really push the economy to its limits to have more stuff to throw in battle. Given my usual Japanese strategy, I tend and have to push a lot the economy.
It has many drawbacks, such as an heavy reliance over static defences, which is the poorest form of defence. And limiting the use of the fleet to the least.
Tradeoffs, as usal. If one modifies these tradeoffs set up in the stock game, many consequences are hidden and not immediately obvious, thus creating unintended results. An example being the shipbuilding modifications which enable a huge production of fihgters. I tend to think that the general economic model in the stock game is valid. It can be improved a lot, but it works just fine in general.
If I want to express tradeoffs to non-experts, I always express them in terms of 1E fighters.
It's a simple proxy to make everyone understand.
Tell the people that there are some CVs and CVLs arriving earlier, and people problably won't really grasp what it does mean.
Tell them that having CVs and CVLs arriving much earlier means almost 20.000 1E fighters in the last 10 months of 1943, and you'll see that even the least experienced player will get what is the magnitude of this change.
Sometimes (often?) it's more a matter of how information is presented rather than the content of it.
Now. Few other thoughts.
1) Developers have helped a lot japanese economy. I can make many examples. Japanese economy is already, by default, much much much better than its historical counterpart. Allied players have their other advantages, eh, I am talking about economy here.
2) Stock game has a quite forgiving economic system. It's difficoult to crew it up. It's difficoult not to remedy to mistakes. It's difficoult for the allied player to f@ck up everything to the point of non return.
3) An average player can master the economy to a level that is sufficient to have a decent performance over the years.
4) Most of the problems I have encountered in my games have been due to my errors, rather than the game balance. Too many fleet movements, too many bombing campaigns, high production levels, etcetcetc.
I stress especially this last point. And many games show that it's completely feasible to conduct Japanese well into '45 with an economy relatively healthy.
What I am pointing out in this topic are just few personal opinions. I have explored numbers in a couple of previous posts.
Thanks again everyone for the nice words and to BTS team for the prompt reply to questions arose from players about the topic, showing that, even with some unnecessary tensions born, I'm sure, from misunderstandings due to communications through a forum, they have taken into considerations concerns expressed by some of us.