dgold07 Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 When the Japanese conquer the NEI oil fields, do new convoy routes appear from the oilfields to Japan? Thus Allies subs could interdict these routes, as they did historically. If not, how does this game simulate this, besides forcing the Allies to physically occupy the oilfields hexes? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted December 7, 2008 Share Posted December 7, 2008 When the Dutch East Indies falls to Japan, the new convoy route will appear on the map after the country has surrendered. However, it won't be working for a few turns as Dutch troops will blow up the harbor facilities before surrendering, but once it gets working allied subs can start interdicting it. Japan relies on all the convoy routes, you'll see a lot of them on the map once Japan has conquered the Dutch, Malaya, Burma, Sarawak and the Philippines, so yes, interdiction is the name of the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 You have to play Japan to really appreciate how much they really rely on those convoy routes. Get those Allied subs in there and you can quickly make a Japanese player feel like his military is too big to support... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgold07 Posted December 8, 2008 Author Share Posted December 8, 2008 Thanks for the replies, Guys. Does this game model the fact that the Japanese never had enough oil to allow unlimited movement of large fleet units like BB's and CV's? If not, then the Japanese player would have an ahistorical flexibility with his powerful fleet units. During the war, many of the BB's did not move because they used so much oil. An interesting rule or mod would be that it would cost the Japanese player 1 PP to move a BB or CV unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Yeah, we've discussed making oil more integrated into the game several times, but doing so would go against HC's design philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 And MPP's have always been an abstract way of representing a lot of things like this. For example, later in the game as Japan I simply don't have enough MPP's to reinforce and repair every unit, every ship. You have to start deciding what needs it the most. My damaged BB might sit in port for a month as I have more important units to reinforce and repair. So in this sense you get basically the exact same effect without the added complexity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Thanks for the replies, Guys. Does this game model the fact that the Japanese never had enough oil to allow unlimited movement of large fleet units like BB's and CV's? If not, then the Japanese player would have an ahistorical flexibility with his powerful fleet units. During the war, many of the BB's did not move because they used so much oil. An interesting rule or mod would be that it would cost the Japanese player 1 PP to move a BB or CV unit. The MPPs satisfy this for me. When you are short and can not repair a battleship moving it is most likely suicide. The abstract works well for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Energy jobs Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 Baitullah Mehsud's Taliban pose in front of a captured US Humvee. Baitullah's Taliban flag is draped over the hood. Photo from AFP. A convoy carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan was hijacked by the Taliban in Pakistan's lawless tribal belt. Thirteen containers of NATO supplies and at least one US Army Humvee were taken by the Taliban as the convoy traveled through the Khyber tribal agency en route to Afghanistan. Pakistani security forces have since retreived much of the supplies, Daily Times reported. A large force of fighters loyal to Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was reported to have been behind the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts