RHS scenarios (revised)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RHS scenarios (revised)

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 >> RHS scenarios (revised)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RHS scenarios (revised) - 1/4/2006 12:53:46 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

I propose to take CHS as a foundation (for one thing, it has that extended map, and some databases have been reworked with lots of research). The focus is PBEM - while you can play the AI nothing we can do will make it as smart as a good player - so we won't do things that mess up PBEM in favor of getting the AI to do things slightly better.

I propose to add to it some corrections and options not presently in CHS.
In my view, it is more historical if players begin with the historical building programs, and then cancel what they don't want. In my veiw, the game needs some supply issues addressed, and some technical combat issues addressed. [For example, air craft altitude and AAA altitude need to be better modeled for realistic averages rather than "you can go right up to the limit and still be really effective."]

At the moment I propose to create the following scenarios:
[Note that a number is the year the scenario begins]

RHS41CVOriented: The campaign game with major ship versions optimized for aircraft carriers. Thus, Ibuki is a CVL, and Shinano a CV. Lots of similar things. You cannot know that Shinano will be completed at all - I for one will never pay for her - but you can know that this enemy is air oriented and is likey to build every possible carrier it thinks is useful. Chitose and Chiyoda will build as CVLs right away (because they could have).

RHS41BBOriented: The campaign game with major ship versions optimized for "battleships" (meaning gunships). Thus, Ibuki is a CA, and Shinano a BB. You still cannot know that Shinano will be completed at all - I for one will never pay for her - but can know that this enemy is run by battleship admirals and is likely to build every possible gunship it thinks is useful. Chitose and Chiyoda will build as CVS (because they did). This is the most historical option - IF Shinano and Ibuki really converted, that was not the plan when the war began. Had Midway occurred later in time, or not at all, those conversions are unlikely and impractical. Japan will start with Kii (Hull 111, sister of Shinano) building - both in modified form with different AAA. US will start with all six Iowas building. That sort of thing.

RHS42CoralSeaStart: A campaign game with historical events up to Coral Sea, starting with that campaign. Because it is pre Midway, it uses 41B type ship options - ships will stay gunships.

RHS43GilbertsStart: A campaign with historical events up to the offensive in the Central Pacific, starting with that campaign. Because it is post Midway, it uses 41A ship types - ships will convert to carriers.

RHS44MarianasStart: A campaign game with historical events up to the Marianas. The idea is that you get to redo that campaign and then go on from there.

RHS45IwoJimaStart: A campaign game with historical events up to the Iwo Jima campaign. The idea is that you get to redo that campaign and then go on from there.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/10/2006 8:54:28 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/4/2006 3:43:00 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

As I understand, you assuming in scenario RHS41B that also US 11xCLs WERE NOT converted to CVLs and arrived as a normal cruisers? This was historical as I think...

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 2

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/4/2006 8:05:07 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

What do you plan to do about the US CV respawn feature?

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 3

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/4/2006 8:37:16 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

As I understand, you assuming in scenario RHS41B that also US 11xCLs WERE NOT converted to CVLs and arrived as a normal cruisers? This was historical as I think...

I will review this in US Cruisers, but I think there were changes. There were essentially 2 classes of CVLs - one based on CL hulls and one based on CA hulls. At least the latter were late additions. I think the plan that matters is the one at war start - not the one of 1940 or some earlier period - that was my standard for Japan. You are stuck with what was planned when the war breaks out. Japan can cancel things - the US can't (unfortunately) - but also it does not matter - the US can afford it and will get everything it has building. [You don't have to use it of couse]. As I recall there were about 3 CA conversions completed, and maybe a few more planned.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 4

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/4/2006 8:41:25 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

What do you plan to do about the US CV respawn feature?

I have noted some controversy about it. I also have noted a technical way to kill it - if that is desireable. I have no opinion about it. What is the problem with it? Do you want it, or not?
And why? I am willing to go either way. I think it is realistic - as I understand it ALL it does is change the name of a future hull to the name of a hull that is lost - and if that is correct - it seems historical to me.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 5

RE: RHS scenarios (revised) - 1/4/2006 11:02:53 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

What does RHS stand for? REALLY Historcal Scenario?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 6

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/4/2006 11:32:18 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

What do you plan to do about the US CV respawn feature?

I have noted some controversy about it. I also have noted a technical way to kill it - if that is desireable. I have no opinion about it. What is the problem with it? Do you want it, or not?
And why? I am willing to go either way. I think it is realistic - as I understand it ALL it does is change the name of a future hull to the name of a hull that is lost - and if that is correct - it seems historical to me.

I'm speaking as an allied fanboy when I say this. (I'm really a historic fanboy, but that's not the point.).

The respawn feature is terrible. If I play the game well, and don't lose any CV's (or CA's & CL's), then I will be shorted, historically, by 40 some hulls (4 CV's, a dozen or so cruisers, tons of DD's, DE's and SS's).

Also, if I play with no abandon and lose most of my 1942 and 1943 fleet, I could get up to 40 additional hulls that were not really possible (assuming all other construction is completed as well.) I've even read about Japanese players who sink Lexington 3 times in a game vs AI. (yeah, at this point the Japanese player will probably win by points anyway)

Another issue is the missing DD, DE, DM, APD and SS hulls that have the name of a sunk ship, but don't have a respawn rule. CHS has not added any ship that is named after a sunk ship. There's a lot of them out there. Ron S has posted the list a few times.

I don't care what you implement in your mod. (well, I do care, but you're free to do what you want) It takes some effort, but I can modify the scenario I play to eliminate the respawn rule and put in the total number of historic hulls. It actually takes a fair amount of time, because there are so many.

Anyway, there are some who like the respawn feature. I don't. But, I'm anal about things being exact and not having random things in a historic game.

Oh, one more thing, the 4 missing CV's came into the war in late 43, early 44. The allied player needs to lose his CV's pretty early in 42 to get replacements that allow him a late 43 offensive. Timing is really screwed up with this feature. All 4 CV's that are missing were under construction in December 41. So, the allied player makes decisions based on things like: don't fight prior to May because the zero bonus will probably assure you of lost CV's and no sunk Japanese CV's. But, if you wait for an engagement then your replacement CV's will come so late that your offensives will start slower than historic. If you ask me, this line of decision making is not representative of leaders in the actual war in 42. (I know this example is not the only outcome, and things happen differently in all games.)

< Message edited by Bradley7735 -- 1/4/2006 11:34:06 PM >

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 7

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/5/2006 2:34:24 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have noted some controversy about it. I also have noted a technical way to kill it - if that is desireable. I have no opinion about it. What is the problem with it? Do you want it, or not?
And why? I am willing to go either way. I think it is realistic - as I understand it ALL it does is change the name of a future hull to the name of a hull that is lost - and if that is correct - it seems historical to me.

Well, Bradley stated the case pretty well. I only knew about CV's, CA's, & CL's respawning, I was unaware of DD's etc. respawning.

I want historical accuracy in capabilities, OOB, etc. in a package that it playable (not 4 hours spent per turn because all supply is manual or something like that!). Winnable is a different matter - that's what the point system is for. Making the actual war winnable by either side would require that the game depart massively from historical capabilities.

The respawn feature takes ships that would have gone to the Pacific and witholds them unless a similar ship is sunk. I suppose the rational is that they go to the Atlantic because they are not needed in the Pacific. The problems are timing as Bradley noted if respawn does happen (CV and CA/CL losses), or unrealistic diversion of hulls to the Atlantic if respawn does not happen (no losses).

I would rather just have what would have gone to the Pacific and forget this respawning business. The naming of the ships is pretty much irrelevant to me. I don't care about a hull being named after a sunk ship or not, only that it shows up when in service.

One small note on Bradley's post, I thought that up to 5 CV's would be respawned (maybe I remember wrong).

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 8

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/5/2006 8:47:39 AM

Bliztk

Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline

Hi, don�t you think that doing the work for the two latter scenarios is a bit waste of time? Nearly everybody plays scens 15 or 16(and variants), and the others scenarios, mainly starting in may42, in a very limited fashion

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 9

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/5/2006 2:49:00 PM

Akos Gergely

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline

How could one change the rules for respawning? Could you include more classes or remove some?

_____________________________

My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to Bliztk)

Post #: 10

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/5/2006 4:58:32 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

How could one change the rules for respawning? Could you include more classes or remove some?

You add "blank" ships into every empty spot in the ship database. Then no ships will respawn. (IJN MSW's, allied MSW's, US CV's, US/Aus CA's and US CL's.) If there are no open spaces, no respawn. (blank ships have a delay of 9999)

witpqs, DD's do not respawn. However, there are about 30 DD's, DE's, DM's, APD's and SS's that are not included in the stock and CHS scenarios because they are named after a sunk ship. (Aaron Ward II, Sims II, Shark II, ect etc etc.)

I haven't tested this, but I read that any respawnable ship sunk prior to 1/1/44 will respawn. Yes, Essexes will respawn if sunk. So, more than 5 CV's will respawn. I think the air groups get screwed up if more than 4 or 5 respawn, though. I've heard a lot of complaints that groups will be missing eventually.

< Message edited by Bradley7735 -- 1/5/2006 7:10:09 PM >

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Akos Gergely)

Post #: 11

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/5/2006 6:50:11 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have noted some controversy about it. I also have noted a technical way to kill it - if that is desireable. I have no opinion about it. What is the problem with it? Do you want it, or not?
And why? I am willing to go either way. I think it is realistic - as I understand it ALL it does is change the name of a future hull to the name of a hull that is lost - and if that is correct - it seems historical to me.

Well, Bradley stated the case pretty well. I only knew about CV's, CA's, & CL's respawning, I was unaware of DD's etc. respawning.

I want historical accuracy in capabilities, OOB, etc. in a package that it playable (not 4 hours spent per turn because all supply is manual or something like that!). Winnable is a different matter - that's what the point system is for. Making the actual war winnable by either side would require that the game depart massively from historical capabilities.

The respawn feature takes ships that would have gone to the Pacific and witholds them unless a similar ship is sunk. I suppose the rational is that they go to the Atlantic because they are not needed in the Pacific. The problems are timing as Bradley noted if respawn does happen (CV and CA/CL losses), or unrealistic diversion of hulls to the Atlantic if respawn does not happen (no losses).

I would rather just have what would have gone to the Pacific and forget this respawning business. The naming of the ships is pretty much irrelevant to me. I don't care about a hull being named after a sunk ship or not, only that it shows up when in service.

One small note on Bradley's post, I thought that up to 5 CV's would be respawned (maybe I remember wrong).

I HATE the respawn feature. A feature proven to be flawed in the PacWar days "respawns" in WITP. Ironic or what? Way out there...

Here is the list of vessel affected by the respawn thingy.

Missing US Navy Vessels

**** (denotes vessel needing name)

USN Vessels Omitted/Affected By Spawning Feature/Name Duplication Issue

Essex Class

CV 10 Bon Homme Richard May/43 (historically Yorktown II)
CV 12 Kearsarge Dec/43 (historically Hornet II)
CV 16 Cabot March/43(historically Lexington II)
CV 18 Oriskany Dec/43(historically Wasp II)
CV 31 Reprisal Dec/44(historically Bon Homme Richard) *(Named after cancelled Essex)

Four Essexs in the game arrive early so need to be moved back to original dates.

Independence Class

CVL 28 Chesapeake Aug/43 (historically Cabot)*(Famous Revolutionary War Battle).

Baltimore Class

CA 70 Pittsburg Nov/43 (historically Canberra II)
CA 71 St. Paul Jan/44 (historically Quincy II)
CA 72 Albany Nov/44 (historically Pittsburg)
CA 73 Rochester March/45 (historically St. Paul)

Cleveland Class

CL 64 Flint Feb/44(historically Vincennes II)
CL 81 Vicksburg Jan/44(historically HoustonII)
CL 86 Cheyenne July/44(historically Vicksburg)
CL 90 Wilkes-Barre June/44(historically Astoria II)
CL 103 Buffalo Aug/44(historically Wilkes Barre)
CL104 Tallahassee Jan/45(historically Atlanta II)

Atlanta Class

CL 97 Spokane Oct/44(historically Flint)

These following ships need to be added as they were simply omitted because of name duplication...why DDs and SSs are not respawnable when other classes and MSWs (???) are eludes me. These hull numbers historically were in the Pacific Theatre During WW2 and deserve to be included...who for instance sank Kongo?

Balao Class

SS 313 Nerka Jan/44(historically Perch II)*named after cancelled Balao and sub in "Run Silent, Run Deep".
SS 314 Eel Feb/44(historically Shark II)*named after cancelled Balao
SS 315 Adder March/44(historically Sealion II)*early US sub name

Tench Class

SS 476 Sole Feb/45(historically Runner II)*named after cancelled Balao

Fletcher Class

DD 795 Boon Apr/44(historically Preston II, named after USN DD in C.S. Forrester Short Stories)
DD 796 O'Leary March/44(historically Benham II, named after USN DD in William P Mack novels)
DD 797 McKenna July/44(historically Cushing II, named after "Sand Pebbles" author.
DD 798 Mack Apr/44 (historically Monssen II, named after author W.P. Mack)
DD 799 Caine Aug/44 (historically Jarvis II, named after fictitious Wouk DMS)
DD 800 Percival Aug/44 (historically Porter II, named after cancelled DD )
DD 801 Watson Sep/44 (historically Colhoun II, named after cancelled DD)
DD 802 Oswald A. Powers Sep/44 (historically Gregory II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 803 Groves Nov/44 (historically Little II, named after incomplete DE )

Allen M Sumner Class

DD 722 Keith Sep/44 (historically Barton II, named after main character in 'The Caine Mutiny" and incomplete DE)
DD 723 Alfred Wolf Sep/44 (historically Walke II, named after incomplete DE )
DD 724 Keppler Sep/44 (historically Laffey II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 725 Holman Sep/44 (historically O'Brien II, named after main character in "The Sand Pebbles")
DD 726 Gaynier Sep/44 (historically Meredith II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 727 Curtis W. Howard July/44 (historically DeHaven II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 744 John J. Vanburen July/44 (historically Blue II, named after incomplete DE)
DD 758 Paul G. Baker May/45 (historically Strong II, named after incomplete DE)

Allen M Sumner Minelayer

DM 33 (ex DD 772) Milton Lewis (historically Gwin II, named after incomplete DE)
DM 34 (ex DD 773) George M. Campell (historically Aaron Ward II, named after incomplete DE)

Gearing Class

DD 784 Rogers Blood (historically McKean II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 805 Carpellotti (historically Chevalier II, named after cancelled DE)
DD 877 Francovich (historically Perkins II, named after cancelled DE)

Edsall Class DEs

DE 129 Cramer July/45 (historically named Edsall II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 131 Ely July/45 (historically named Hammann II, named after incomplete DE)
DE 238 Delbert W. Halsey July/45 (historically named Stewart II, named after incomplete DE)

Buckley Class DEs

DE 154 Sheehan Jan/45 (historically named Sims II, named after incomplete DE)

Australian ship affected by respawn...

Tribal Class DD HMAS Kurnai (renamed Bataan)

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/5/2006 7:44:47 PM >

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 12

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/5/2006 8:19:19 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

And APD Simms II

edit: I see you have Simms II as a DE. It was converted to APD prior to entry in the Pacific theatre. (but, yes, it was originally a DE.)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 13

RE: RHS scenarios (revised) - 1/6/2006 11:01:27 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

What does RHS stand for? REALLY Historcal Scenario?

Joe said there was submarine game that did this - he suggested we use RHS for "Real Historical Scenario" when I had made a slightly different proposal - following a practice that already happened in the game area.

This because I was not allowed to fix bad data on ships - which seemed not very "historical".

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 14

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 11:14:58 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The respawn feature is terrible. If I play the game well, and don't lose any CV's (or CA's & CL's), then I will be shorted, historically, by 40 some hulls (4 CV's, a dozen or so cruisers, tons of DD's, DE's and SS's).

Also, if I play with no abandon and lose most of my 1942 and 1943 fleet, I could get up to 40 additional hulls that were not really possible (assuming all other construction is completed as well.) I've even read about Japanese players who sink Lexington 3 times in a game vs AI. (yeah, at this point the Japanese player will probably win by points anyway)

I do not understand this - and it is not my understanding of what happens.
However, some points of interest:

1) IF we fill the respawn area with names, nothing will respawn;
2) There is NO chance I will NOT include EVERY warship builing when the war begins - at least not a warship sent to the Pacific theater. If there are four missing CVs, I will either identify their deployment, or I will assign one to them, and probably only one will go to the Atlantic. If there is historical evidence where they went I will use it. So in any case this issue will be addressed;
3) I am going to add significant interesting ships if they are missing;
4) There are slots devoted to things that do not warrant simulation. These include things that do not work (LSM(R) for example) and things that are too small to matter and should not get player attention (minor patrol vessels is a good example). The US Army had more vessels than the US Navy - 12000 if I remember right - and there are not enough slots for every last minor thing. So I will strip these out of both sides, so players have room for ships of significance. Including the Soviet Fleet, which I just added to CHS, but which lacks the slots to put it all in.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 15

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 11:22:54 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Winnable is a different matter - that's what the point system is for. Making the actual war winnable by either side would require that the game depart massively from historical capabilities.

For a game situation like this, I think the truth is that victory is in the eye of the beholder. Let each player decide how well he did for himself. If Japan even survives past Nov 1945 it is a victory by the standards of the USSBS, which said it must surrender by then even if not invaded and if not bombed with atom bombs. But that may be controversial - so if you have a different view - fine. For me the game is about seeing how well you can do - it is not going to be a football game with a clear decision in a couple of hours.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 16

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 11:24:53 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The respawn feature takes ships that would have gone to the Pacific and witholds them unless a similar ship is sunk. I suppose the rational is that they go to the Atlantic because they are not needed in the Pacific. The problems are timing as Bradley noted if respawn does happen (CV and CA/CL losses), or unrealistic diversion of hulls to the Atlantic if respawn does not happen (no losses).

I would rather just have what would have gone to the Pacific and forget this respawning business. The naming of the ships is pretty much irrelevant to me. I don't care about a hull being named after a sunk ship or not, only that it shows up when in service.

If your understanding turns out to be correct, RHS will give all ships their original names, respawn nothing, and omit nothing.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 17

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 11:26:21 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Hi, don�t you think that doing the work for the two latter scenarios is a bit waste of time? Nearly everybody plays scens 15 or 16(and variants), and the others scenarios, mainly starting in may42, in a very limited fashion

I am told some players like the late war planes and ships so much they don't want to start early.

(in reply to Bliztk)

Post #: 18

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 11:29:10 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

How could one change the rules for respawning? Could you include more classes or remove some?

Respawning occurs in the "respawn area" of the ship name database. If we fill it with names, the code thinks it already used all the slots, and stops respawning. There IS a problem with ship name slots: there are ZERO for Japan and ALMOST ZERO for the allies - so more slots that can be used is a good thing. RHS will create hundreds more slots getting rid of junk auxiliary minesweepers, subchasers, etc that are rated in code just as good as real ones, but are in fact not that good.

(in reply to Akos Gergely)

Post #: 19

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 11:36:18 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I HATE the respawn feature.

If I am not confused, respawn occurs in different places for different ships. Thus, minesweepers have their own respawn area. This seems good - we can let a reasonable number of minesweepers exist and replace if needed. This is what CHS people think. IF they are right, I will probably keep respawn for minor vessels.

I don't care if ships rename in code. If you lose Enterprise and want to call the next Essex "Enterprise II" - just call it that. Why should code have to worry about that? I think it is enough if a ship has her original name.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 20

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/6/2006 4:58:29 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I HATE the respawn feature.

If I am not confused, respawn occurs in different places for different ships. Thus, minesweepers have their own respawn area. This seems good - we can let a reasonable number of minesweepers exist and replace if needed. This is what CHS people think. IF they are right, I will probably keep respawn for minor vessels.

I don't care if ships rename in code. If you lose Enterprise and want to call the next Essex "Enterprise II" - just call it that. Why should code have to worry about that? I think it is enough if a ship has her original name.

This is not true. If you fill up all the allied slots, but leave some Japanese slots open, then the first respawnable allied ship that sinks will respawn as a Japanese ship (because the only slot open is Japanese.) I tried this once. I filled up all the allied slots and left about 100 open for the Japanese. Well, USS Penguin sank at Guam the first day and in the list the next day was USS Penguin slated to appear in Tokyo. I assume the reverse works as well. I don't think you can stop some ships from respawning and allowing others to. It's an all or nothing thing.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 21

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/7/2006 4:49:31 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

If you fill up all the allied slots, but leave some Japanese slots open, then the first respawnable allied ship that sinks will respawn as a Japanese ship

Fear not. CHS 1.6 used 100% of Japanese ship slots. 1.7 changes what ships are in it - but only by killing 1 for 1 - thus a second Shinano (as a battleship) came by killing a merchant ship. There will be NO free slots for Japan.

I just about used 100% of the Allied slots with the Soviet Fleet.

Note that in your example what respawned was a tiny vessel - these appear to use different code than major ones. It is minor ones that may be OK - and I am a test technician - I will test to see if it works. Or seems to - there is no guarantee that everything will be perfect.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 22

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/7/2006 4:52:26 PM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I don't think you can stop some ships from respawning and allowing others to. It's an all or nothing thing.

You may be correct. Which is unfortunate - it means we have a big problem with landing craft and minesweepers (etc). IF testing reveals you are correct, I think it can be solved by killing it - and trading minor auxiliaries for valuable ones - leaving no free slots to respawn in ought to work. If only we could do code... but that is for the future.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 23

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/7/2006 6:16:41 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I HATE the respawn feature.

If I am not confused, respawn occurs in different places for different ships. Thus, minesweepers have their own respawn area. This seems good - we can let a reasonable number of minesweepers exist and replace if needed. This is what CHS people think. IF they are right, I will probably keep respawn for minor vessels.

I don't care if ships rename in code. If you lose Enterprise and want to call the next Essex "Enterprise II" - just call it that. Why should code have to worry about that? I think it is enough if a ship has her original name.

The class number needs to be changed for MSWs though. I think the respawned ones appear as old Bird class when one would think the most modern available class would be the default respawn class.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 24

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/8/2006 3:16:16 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I will review this in US Cruisers, but I think there were changes. There were essentially 2 classes of CVLs - one based on CL hulls and one based on CA hulls. At least the latter were late additions. I think the plan that matters is the one at war start - not the one of 1940 or some earlier period - that was my standard for Japan. You are stuck with what was planned when the war breaks out. Japan can cancel things - the US can't (unfortunately) - but also it does not matter - the US can afford it and will get everything it has building. [You don't have to use it of couse]. As I recall there were about 3 CA conversions completed, and maybe a few more planned.

All 9 CVL's the US launched in WWII were based on the CLEVELAND class CL hulls. There was some discussion of a second group based on the BALTIMORE class CA hulls, but they were never laid down.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 25

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/8/2006 3:48:17 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I will review this in US Cruisers, but I think there were changes. There were essentially 2 classes of CVLs - one based on CL hulls and one based on CA hulls. At least the latter were late additions. I think the plan that matters is the one at war start - not the one of 1940 or some earlier period - that was my standard for Japan. You are stuck with what was planned when the war breaks out. Japan can cancel things - the US can't (unfortunately) - but also it does not matter - the US can afford it and will get everything it has building. [You don't have to use it of couse]. As I recall there were about 3 CA conversions completed, and maybe a few more planned.

All 9 CVL's the US launched in WWII were based on the CLEVELAND class CL hulls. There was some discussion of a second group based on the BALTIMORE class CA hulls, but they were never laid down.

CVL Saipan and Wright?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 26

RE: RHS scenarios (request for comment) - 1/8/2006 10:04:54 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

All 9 CVL's the US launched in WWII were based on the CLEVELAND class CL hulls. There was some discussion of a second group based on the BALTIMORE class CA hulls, but they were never laid down.

Saipan and Wright actually converted. They launch in July and September 1945 respectively. This means they are NOT available in the game as CAs - and if the war lasts long enough - they should show up as CVLs. Saipan historically commissioned 14 July 1946 and Wright on 9 Feb 1947 - both completed at a less than wartime pace. These are not fictional ships - and they began as CA 48 and 49. Our war runs into 1946 - so they are real possibilities in either form.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/8/2006 10:07:25 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 27

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS scenarios (revised)

Page: [1]