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 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final?

 
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 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final? - 9/6/2006 1:33:34 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It is tentatively planned to release a comprehensive Level 5 and 6 UNOFFICIAL x.413 set tomorrow.
This has many x.42 eratta corrected and it has a AI optimized revision for EOS. It also adds 1 and 2 Fiji
Commandos, 44 and 45 Independent Chutai's, and the beginning of fire team reforms (for support type
squads).

It is expected that x.42 will be returned to me tomorrow and I will officially release it - with whatever is appropriate folded in from x.413 - a day or two later. We play to play with this version.

Meanwhile, I have been working on Level 7 pwhex - and the PRESENT Level 5 and 6 versions have Level 7 oriented OB changes (where this was required). We have the OB done for Level 7 - we just need to make the maps work. Expect that in January - but if you are lucky - maybe January 2nd.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/28/2007 1:18:02 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: RHS File Set 4.40 Human Testing - 9/6/2006 1:34:45 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am going to create an open password set with turn one set up for both sides to facilitate
rapid human testing.

I seek comments on the new US division organization - and note the rearrangement of light
infantry support weapons - now including 2 inch and 60 mm mortars - and the addition
of vast numbers of machine guns.

I seek comments on the effects of reducing firepower on support squads of several kinds.

Note the 4.2 inch chemical mortar units were added as reinforcements.

Note Coronado has increased range, B-17, B-24 and B-29 have increased bomb loads (as
does Coronado), and F7F has been re rated as a twin engine plane maneuverability wise.

Proposed revisions for plane ranges are still under study for 5.00 - along with an experimental
set of maneuverability ratings - still in development by a volunteer.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/6/2006 1:45:47 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: RHS File Set 4.40 Human Testing - 9/6/2006 4:14:44 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RS v4.40 update posted on link page and available on RHS web Site

Cobra Aus

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
Art update 4.41 - 9/6/2006 6:37:53 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Cobra has a new RHSEOS art set

which separates D4Y2 from D4Y1-C

and also

separates L3Y1 from Ki-77

in terms of images - possible because all have their own slots.

Microupdate 4.41 will include this in a few hours - along with any eratta detected
by then.


(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 4
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 Revised - 9/6/2006 2:41:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS 4.41 is a micro update which incorporates the following changes from 4.40:

1) Two aircraft art pointers are changed in RHSEOS ONLY - for D4Y1-C and L3Y2 -
so they don't look like the D4Y2 or the Ki-77 (respectively);

2) The Chinese have been completely reconfigured with US mortars (vice British ones)

3) Chinese formations have been reconfigured using US mortars - and pointers in
Chinese units are in all cases now correct

4) Chinese Divisions not part of Field Armies or Group Armies are now made slightly
stronger for independent operations. These divisions - apparently always - had and have
more supply then they need - while larger "corps" sized units have less than they need.

5) The Chinese Provisional Corps has been repointed at a Field Army formation - the same
as in CHS and stock - except it isn't called a Field Army in them. This is a two division
formation - the normal ROC case. [A Group Army is a three division formation, it is both ROC
and PLA - and it still exists in that form].

6) US Army Divisions and Regiments, and the First USMC Division - all reinforcements to 6/42 -
updated to the new RHS orders of battle.

7) Chinese Guerilla regiments now point at the correct formation.

8) USMC pilot rate doubled as an interim measure until we get better data.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/7/2006 12:28:03 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/6/2006 3:15:34 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		I think that 25 replacements per month for the Marines is a bit too low.

One thing, all of the triangular divisions that start the game continued to maintain their organization or were upgraded to the square organization ?

Because as it`s now coded, they remain triangular

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/6/2006 3:27:38 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		El Cid Again, “weird” things in RHSCVO 4.40?

1) The chinese guerrilla regiments will upgrade to

USMC Raider Squad = 31
Support Squad = 28
etc.
etc.

?

2) The american Base Forces have lost the infantry squads (and their TOE is at 100%)? And they will not get them? Or is the upgrade path hidden => like the radar thing in USAAF Base Forces?

I’ll be posting more weird things if I see them. Now I have to leave.

P.S.:
needless to say, I cannot know if these “things” are intended. If yes, sorry in advance.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 7
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/6/2006 11:29:11 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

I think that 25 replacements per month for the Marines is a bit too low.

REPLY: Tell me about this. It is not my number. What should it be - and why? This is strait up CHS.
When I don't know something is wrong - I leave it alone.


One thing, all of the triangular divisions that start the game continued to maintain their organization or were upgraded to the square organization ?

Because as it`s now coded, they remain triangular


They start, and remain, triangular. This is correct. The Hawaii Division was square - and changed only in
November 1941 - combining with two regiments of the Hawaii National Guard to form two triangular divisions.
[Later the two HNG regiments combined - after being stripped of Japanese Americans - who were sent to
the 100th Battalion - and the two regiments were not at full strength to begin with - which is in RHS - and
in a sense also in CHS - because they "disabled" a % of these divisions. But RHS makes the missing men
be missing - and it takes longer to build up than to "repair" disabled - I think. Anyway, a regiment of the
Washington NG replaced the missing regiment - keeping these units triangular. The most famous was the
25th Division.]

A number of other divisions began the war square (I think) - but reformed before they became operational.
I have a giant book on the US Army Order of Battle - and it gives details for each - including a quite complex
liniage. The problem is not so much data as the time to look it up case by case - and I was told the US units
had been done "more than once" for CHS. And I do see some attempt at accuracy: a US Army RCT was
given 24 mortars - which is right - only they were all 81mm - because no 60mm device was available. IRL
18 were not 81s. The US Army was in transition over to triangular from its historical square form.

Square divisions were a creature of an era when divisions actually walked - I mean onto the battlefield -
and so they were organized into two brigades each with two regiments. This formation permitted going from
road march formation to tactical battlefield formation in one day. It was not germane to WWII era operations
which were either semi-motorized (mainly not PTO) or were amphibious (mainly PTO). Triangular organization
permitted a single staff handle operations - and permitted a very efficient "two operational teams plus one
reserve team" organization for that single staff. The nearest thing to a square division was the USMC division
which was doctrinally and philosophically triangular - and remains so to this day. Nevertheless, there are so
many "extra" battalions it is entirely feasible to organize four regimental combat teams - each stronger than
a US Army RCT - from an all up USMC Division.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/6/2006 11:30:46 PM >

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 8
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/6/2006 11:33:13 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, “weird” things in RHSCVO 4.40?

1) The chinese guerrilla regiments will upgrade to

USMC Raider Squad = 31
Support Squad = 28
etc.
etc.

?

REPLY: So it seems. I found and corrected hundreds of pointers per scenario (thousands when you consider I had to upgrade six scenarios. But I didn't check that one. Seems a bit harsh! Since there is a correct formation - 2086 -
I will revise it to that. It is in 4.41. Note the pointer was off only in one digit - the usual error: I wonder if somehow the database editor sometimes changes fields - and globally? This is a typical example. If not - it must be humans - like me - somehow find a way to screw it up.

2) The american Base Forces have lost the infantry squads (and their TOE is at 100%)? And they will not get them? Or is the upgrade path hidden => like the radar thing in USAAF Base Forces?


REPLY: Actually - they will get them. There are 30 or 40 squads. I am not at all sure this is right either - 30 sounds a lot more reasonable to me for a security battalion (I served in a security regiment). But it is strait up CHS - and I didn't change it. Note the formation has the squads in a slot not used by the units - so they will get them - as mobilization proceeds - I guess.

I’ll be posting more weird things if I see them. Now I have to leave.

P.S.:
needless to say, I cannot know if these “things” are intended. If yes, sorry in advance.



Thanks. Data theory says there must be errors. And with 133,000 fields - no way any human can look at them all in a reasonable time. It is nice to have someone watching your flank.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/6/2006 11:54:05 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 9
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 12:18:37 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Ok, then my other point. USMC air replacements is too low IMHO.

25 per month for a total of 1638 avaliable aircrafts is too low, only with operation losses and the pool win run dry.

Marine aircraft deployed in RHS 4.31

1/42 = 185
7/42 = 269
1/43 = 497
7/43 = 715
1/44 = 1116
7/44 = 1386
1/45 = 1546

I think that onwards mid43 the replacement pool is simply inadecuate. And as far I know USMC air units didn´t have shortages of pilots


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 12:26:15 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Ok, then my other point. USMC air replacements is too low IMHO.

25 per month for a total of 1638 avaliable aircrafts is too low, only with operation losses and the pool win run dry.

Marine aircraft deployed in RHS 4.31

1/42 = 185
7/42 = 269
1/43 = 497
7/43 = 715
1/44 = 1116
7/44 = 1386
1/45 = 1546

I think that onwards mid43 the replacement pool is simply inadecuate. And as far I know USMC air units didn´t have shortages of pilots





OK - nothing I look at data wise ever seems well thought through. The rate was probably set for stock units and never changed. But CHS - and then RHS - probably added units - without changing this.

In one sense you must be wrong: There would be no pilot rates if the number was unlimited - everyone must have problems - which is why the pilot rates are what they are. But tell me what you think it should be? It may indeed be inadequate for the number of "pilot slots" we have even in ideal conditions.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/7/2006 12:27:21 AM >

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 11
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 12:36:42 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Stock has 60 monthly replacements
CHS 2.07 has 60 too.

60 seems good. Not too high, not too low. I have tried to google to find how many marine pilots were trained in WWII, but I didn´t come with anything concrete

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 12
RE: RHS File Set 4.40 & 4.41 Micro Update Released - 9/7/2006 1:02:41 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		4.41 as described above is uploaded and will be distributed in due course.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 13
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 1:05:39 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Stock has 60 monthly replacements
CHS 2.07 has 60 too.

60 seems good. Not too high, not too low. I have tried to google to find how many marine pilots were trained in WWII, but I didn´t come with anything concrete




I used CHS 1.55 as the foundation - and I don't remember changing this. I did increase the allocation for Indian Air force for 4.40 though - since I had added many squadrons.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 14
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 1:22:55 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		I guess that its and oversight. As you have said several times, you have 133,000 slots to manage. You are going to have mistakes in the database, on every update that you add material.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 2:40:08 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.41 update posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 16
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 3:47:10 AM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

I have tried to google to find how many marine pilots were trained in WWII, but I didn´t come with anything concrete.


Can't find it in History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II (not well indexed) but it does show there were just over 10,000 trained Marine pilots on August 31, 1945. At any one date there were roughly 150-300 pilots in training, dependent on the month & year. In JUne 1944 there were student pilots which was the high point.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 17
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 6:38:50 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Those numbers correspond to about 25 to 50 pilot graduates per month - if the definition of student pilot means
"between ground school and operational training" - and if it lasted about six months - or if it lasted only three months but students in operational training were also counted as "student" pilots. It may be the values we are using are indeed in the right range.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 18
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 5:37:43 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, “weird” things in RHSCVO 4.40?

1) The chinese guerrilla regiments will upgrade to

USMC Raider Squad = 31
Support Squad = 28
etc.
etc.

?

REPLY: So it seems. I found and corrected hundreds of pointers per scenario (thousands when you consider I had to upgrade six scenarios. But I didn't check that one. Seems a bit harsh! Since there is a correct formation - 2086 -
I will revise it to that. It is in 4.41. Note the pointer was off only in one digit - the usual error: I wonder if somehow the database editor sometimes changes fields - and globally? This is a typical example. If not - it must be humans - like me - somehow find a way to screw it up.

2) The american Base Forces have lost the infantry squads (and their TOE is at 100%)? And they will not get them? Or is the upgrade path hidden => like the radar thing in USAAF Base Forces?


REPLY: Actually - they will get them. There are 30 or 40 squads. I am not at all sure this is right either - 30 sounds a lot more reasonable to me for a security battalion (I served in a security regiment). But it is strait up CHS - and I didn't change it. Note the formation has the squads in a slot not used by the units - so they will get them - as mobilization proceeds - I guess.

I’ll be posting more weird things if I see them. Now I have to leave.

P.S.:
needless to say, I cannot know if these “things” are intended. If yes, sorry in advance.



Thanks. Data theory says there must be errors. And with 133,000 fields - no way any human can look at them all in a reasonable time. It is nice to have someone watching your flank.



I found some more of the TOE upgrade problems in RHSEOS, Gull and Sparrow force upgrade to a div. and Batavia coastal gun bat. upgrades to a US combat eng unit.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 10:48:07 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		One person questioned if the Japanese supply sinks or new units were set to appear in different places (ie Singapore) and the base were in allied hands, then the units would appear on Tokyo.

This is incorrect, ¡¡¡ the units actually appear on the Allied Base¡¡¡

Device units 28, 31, 33, 32, 36, and 38 (Plus several others Koku Kantai) have 3.9in/50 TP88 DP gun as a fixed location, thus there are 6 Koku Kantai units in Tokyo.

There are more Kokus Kantais and all of them have as fixed device the 3.9in DP gun, thus making all the units inmobile.

DEvice 1612 (2nd Imperial Guards) have the order of the Japanese Assault Engr and the Type 92 HMG changed on the TOE and unit (They are different)

All of the Japanese Tank Companies have as designed TOE 36x150 mm Mortar instead of having tanks assigned. Device 1451 have the same problem

All of the Indian National Army units have a TOE of nothing. The TOE says "not avaliable". Maybe this is intentional.

Device 1167,1168,1177,1180,1211,1212,1213,1240,1266,1285,1286,1302,1420,1422,1423,1425,1468,1473,1474,1475,1476, 1773,1938 have the same problem.(And I Guess that this is not intentional).

Device 1759 has a TOE of an Infantry Regiment instead of an Arty Unit

Device 1382 22nd Kks AV unit has a TOE of an Mortar Bn

All RTA divisions have a TOE of a Japanese Calvary BDE.

I will continue tomorrow, but I guess that you have some sort of corruption in the file



< Message edited by Bliztk -- 9/7/2006 11:20:11 PM >

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 20
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 9/7/2006 11:21:28 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

One person questioned if the Japanese supply sinks or new units were set to appear in different places (ie Singapore) and the base were in allied hands, then the units would appear on Tokyo.

This is incorrect, ¡¡¡ the units actually appear on the Allied Base¡¡¡


REPLY: Theoretically a unit will not appear if its point of appearence is in enemy hands. In practice we will have to see. I don't recommend Japan skip taking places of major economic significance in the SRA in RHS! But it is not entirely beyond rationalization if something like this ever happens: we do nothing whatever to simulate the formidable things done by Gen Nasution (an Indonesian nationalist who eventually created a country who got his start with Japanese arms and lots of native volunteers) in this system.


Device units 28, 31, 33, 32, 36, and 38 (Plus several others Koku Kantai) have 3.9in/50 TP88 DP gun as a fixed location, thus there are 6 Koku Kantai units in Tokyo.

REPLY: I tried to make these fixed weapons immobile. This has some unfortunate side effects - including adding 10,000 (minus one) men to the location! They can be moved - although they should not be considered mobile. I need to think about this. It affects other units I am sure.

There are more Kokus Kantais and all of them have as fixed device the 3.9in DP gun, thus making all the units inmobile.

DEvice 1612 (2nd Imperial Guards) have the order of the Japanese Assault Engr and the Type 92 HMG changed on the TOE and unit (They are different)

OK - that is probably a mistake.

All of the Japanese Tank Companies have as designed TOE 36x150 mm Mortar instead of having tanks assigned.

REPLY: I do not see this. But I did find bad pointers - and so it may be realted to what you would see over time.

All of the Indian National Army units have a TOE of nothing. The TOE says "not avaliable". Maybe this is intentional.

REPLY: A pointer issue - they pointed at an Allied unit - and no Allied devices were available to them!

Device 1420,1422,1423,1425,1938 have the same problem.(And I Guess that this is not intentional)

REPLY: No it isn't.

Device 1382 22nd Kks AV unit has a TOE of an Mortar Bn

REPLY: I have corrected all Aviation Unit pointers - they were wrong.

All RTA divisions have a TOE of a Japanese Calvary BDE

REPLY: They did - corrected already for unissued 4.42 - still correcting pointers.




(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 21
RE: RHS File Set 4.40 Series (Update at end) - 9/7/2006 11:26:33 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There needs to be a 4.42 revision of the location file.

Running AI vs AI tests (at 10+ days per hour) has demonstrated some significant improvements.
However, it also has demonstrated some strange things. Leading the pack is units with wierd
orders of battle. It appears significant pointer issues remain - and I am correcting these.
If a unit points to the wrong formation, it upgrades wrong.

In addition, I found about two supply sinks not converted to the new format, I added one
supply sink in Manchukuo which probably should be there as burdon for that area's resource
production, and revised many supply allocations to units when they appear.

Finally, I wish to update the orders of battle of US Infantry Divisions and Regiments and
US Marine Divisions post June 1942- they remain in CHS format and wrong. Note I added the
5 inch gun coast defense unit to the First Marine Division.

EDIT: I am completing a review of naval and anti-aircraft weapons because many of them have
load costs = 9999 - preventing land units with them from moving. This is reported with respect to Japanese
units - but would apply to any Allied units with similar devices - so I am curing them all in one shot.
I may take this opportunity to do to shells what I did to bombs - differentiate between soft effects between
AP and HE weapons. This may help further reduce complaints of "nuclear bombardment" by heavy ships.
I already adopted a power function system to reduce anti-soft values to the square root of effect. Now it
will be sq root of 2/3 of effect.






< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/8/2006 1:19:55 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
Updated Update - 9/9/2006 12:10:29 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am pretty happy with 4.42 -
but I am running out of hours too.

I need to finish the conversion of the device file so ALL artillery uses the same criteria - which now distinguishes
between AP and HE oriented weapons.

Along the way I finally remembered to fix Surface to Surface rockets - which have never worked - in any
scenario of mod. Bet the work now!

And I have not yet addressed the post June 1942 US land combat units.

It may take another day - but I have high hopes 4.42 is going to be what I hoped 4.40 would be - plus a better model
for artillery.

On a slightly different subject, I like the results of changing the aircraft maneuverability ratings in sample form -
but I am not getting any more comments on aircraft ranges. SHOULD the focus be correct operational range
instead of correct transfer range (as it is now)?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 23
RE: Updated Update - 9/9/2006 12:22:21 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		My personal opinion: I think the Operational Range should matter. Give us -- if possible -- the historical bombing missions (I mean the rule, not the exceptions).

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 24
RE: Updated Update - 9/9/2006 12:25:14 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		Accurate operational ranges are more important than transfer/ferry ranges

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 25
RE: Updated Update - 9/9/2006 3:55:48 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Operational Range is by far more important to the game than is ferry range. The only exception would be if a formula made ferry ranges so short that a/c could not move around in reasonable fashion. Being able to ferry further than IRL is a very small matter.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/9/2006 3:57:32 AM >

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 26
RE: Updated Update - 9/9/2006 5:17:29 AM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		I like having the ferry range correct but having the operational range correct is much more critical for game play.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 27
RE: RHS File Set 4.40 Series (Update at end) - 9/10/2006 12:01:23 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There needs to be a 4.42 revision of the location file.

Running AI vs AI tests (at 10+ days per hour) has demonstrated some significant improvements.
However, it also has demonstrated some strange things. Leading the pack is units with wierd
orders of battle. It appears significant pointer issues remain - and I am correcting these.
If a unit points to the wrong formation, it upgrades wrong.

In addition, I found about two supply sinks not converted to the new format, I added one
supply sink in Manchukuo which probably should be there as burdon for that area's resource
production, and revised many supply allocations to units when they appear.

Finally, I wish to update the orders of battle of US Infantry Divisions and Regiments and
US Marine Divisions post June 1942- they remain in CHS format and wrong. Note I added the
5 inch gun coast defense unit to the First Marine Division.

EDIT: I am completing a review of naval and anti-aircraft weapons because many of them have
load costs = 9999 - preventing land units with them from moving. This is reported with respect to Japanese
units - but would apply to any Allied units with similar devices - so I am curing them all in one shot.
I may take this opportunity to do to shells what I did to bombs - differentiate between soft effects between
AP and HE weapons. This may help further reduce complaints of "nuclear bombardment" by heavy ships.
I already adopted a power function system to reduce anti-soft values to the square root of effect. Now it
will be sq root of 2/3 of effect.



Any change in making the LCI(R) and similar ships work?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 28
RE: RHS File Set 4.40 Series (Update at end) - 9/10/2006 1:11:44 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Yes and no. I took the LCI(R) out of RHS - to get slots. Any OTHER ships that uses rockets will now work.
Any ship put in that uses rockets will now work.


Note that the AA rockets on late war Japanese carriers now work.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/10/2006 1:12:05 AM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 29
RE: RHS File Set 4.42 (4.4 series; Update at end) - 9/10/2006 1:19:23 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am still updating Allied LCUs
and now finding ALLIED pointer issues big time.

I do not expect to release 4.42 until tonight.

Tests are showing the fixes implemented are working well -

Also - I have made all gun weapons ratings more consistent -
between types. Thus a tank armed with a particular AT Gun
is rated the same as the ATG - etc.

Machine guns are somewhat more important in 4.4 than before:

support squads are not rated as significantly more powerful than
MMG or HMG are - but vice versa. A support squad has a firepower
of 1, an MMG of 2 and a HMG of 3 - and the effect values are
1, 3 and 7 respectively (if it scores a hit on a naval unit). The
penetration ratings are 0, 9 mm and 15 mm. This STILL does not mean
a support squad cannot kill an AFV - thanks to WITP die rolls it is
still possible - just not very common. MOST of the time, an AFV with
10mm of armor is proof against an MMG - but not all the time.
And MOST of the time an AFV with 10mm of armor is NOT proof against
an HMG - but sometimes it is.

Some additonal changes: Japanese naval stations had their guns redefined
as land (vice ship) devices - and point at formations using the same
layout line by line. Some Allied units got similar treatment. Japanese air
units upgrades changed so, if you build (say) heavy transports, some units
will accept them. If you (or AI) do not invest in them - you stay with
the original planes. Additional changes of the tweek sort to help AI with
economics - particularly in places it does like to use things.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/19/2006 10:12:54 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.922