Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO

 
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 >> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/27/2006 11:30:59 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
Oops one more thing I noticed there is a RAF  base unit in the desert West of aden which I expect is a hangover from CHS   its base force 114 I think


& one last thing,  There never was A Royal Indian Army or Royal Australian Army   RIA & RAA or even a Royal British Army I believe at the time they just used Indian Army &  Australian Army (or AEF & Militia  till 1943)  

(Regiments can be royal,  but the army & Cromwell cut Poor Charles's  head off in 1648 so the army never became royal )  

Hipper

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 331
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/28/2006 2:23:34 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Oops one more thing I noticed there is a RAF  base unit in the desert West of aden which I expect is a hangover from CHS   its base force 114 I think

This is a techincal thing - there was no command assigned - and should have been. Fixed.

& one last thing,  There never was A Royal Indian Army or Royal Australian Army   RIA & RAA or even a Royal British Army I believe at the time they just used Indian Army &  Australian Army (or AEF & Militia  till 1943)  

It is quite true the Royal Army was abolished - unlike the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force. But I believe the Royal is retained by colonial and commonwealth services. For example, it is RIN and RAN - not IN or AN.
However, India is a very special case, and the Indian Army was not part of the British Army - but a separate - and larger - institution (albiet with British officers). I must admit I don't remember its official designation.


(Regiments can be royal,  but the army & Cromwell cut Poor Charles's  head off in 1648 so the army never became royal )  

Hipper


EDIT: OK - here we go - The Indian Army was - well - the Indian Army!
There was also a separate British Army in India! And both Chinese and US units were assigned to the Indian Army during WWII!!

Now Australia is equally complicated - it had TWO armies. There was the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) for duty OUTSIDE the country and the CMF (Citizens Military Force or something like that) for duty INSIDE the country.

Technically we should use AIF or CMF for Australian units - and do I have to GUESS which is in which? - and IA or BAI for UK units in the neighborhood of India. That is a bit of a chore - and again - do I have to GUESS which unit is in which? Or look up every one? For the moment I am inclined to let it go - but if someone gave me a list...


< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/28/2006 2:32:32 PM >

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 332
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/28/2006 3:53:48 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Oops one more thing I noticed there is a RAF base unit in the desert West of aden which I expect is a hangover from CHS its base force 114 I think

This is a techincal thing - there was no command assigned - and should have been. Fixed.

& one last thing, There never was A Royal Indian Army or Royal Australian Army RIA & RAA or even a Royal British Army I believe at the time they just used Indian Army & Australian Army (or AEF & Militia till 1943)

It is quite true the Royal Army was abolished - unlike the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force. But I believe the Royal is retained by colonial and commonwealth services. For example, it is RIN and RAN - not IN or AN.
However, India is a very special case, and the Indian Army was not part of the British Army - but a separate - and larger - institution (albiet with British officers). I must admit I don't remember its official designation.


(Regiments can be royal, but the army & Cromwell cut Poor Charles's head off in 1648 so the army never became royal )

Hipper


EDIT: OK - here we go - The Indian Army was - well - the Indian Army!
There was also a separate British Army in India! And both Chinese and US units were assigned to the Indian Army during WWII!!

Now Australia is equally complicated - it had TWO armies. There was the AIF (Australian Imperial Force) for duty OUTSIDE the country and the CMF (Citizens Military Force or something like that) for duty INSIDE the country.

Technically we should use AIF or CMF for Australian units - and do I have to GUESS which is in which? - and IA or BAI for UK units in the neighborhood of India. That is a bit of a chore - and again - do I have to GUESS which unit is in which? Or look up every one? For the moment I am inclined to let it go - but if someone gave me a list...



British units always remained part of the British Army - the term "British Army in India" was only used to hold British units apart from formations of the Indian Army (the Indian Army was raised and funded by the Indian Government). Even when serving as part of formations of the Indian Army (as many British artillery, armoured, and infantry regiments did) they remained part of the British Army. IA officially stood for Indian Artillery, not for Indian Army. Indian brigades and divisions used the prefix "Indian" (5th Indian Division, 14th Indian Brigade etc.).

And I think that the designations AIF and CMF were only used up to battalion level in official terminology (eventually many CMF battalions served as part of AIF divisions and many AIF battalions served in "CMF" divisions in the PTO).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 333
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/28/2006 11:15:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
That would present a conundrum - and in fact the reason we use abbreviations is so compelling it must not in fact be practice. Just as one does not say "Royal Australian Navy" or write it out - particularly when there is not enough space - there must be SOME way to say it or write it briefly - with the meaning "Army of Australia" - as opposed to some other army. One assumes that AA would do fine for our purposes.

I understood that British Army in India did not mean the army was no longer British! [Further, I note with some glee, being really British in ancestry, that it isn't the English Army! We Britons were conquered twice - first by the Anglo-Saxons, then by the Norman-French - and in my case not even the language survived - but some terms did. Cornwall was conquered in 917 and is not even a "principality" like Wales is. The last fluant Cornish speaker died in 1848 - the language having been officially repressed - along with just about everything else.] Anyway, we have a bigger problem - we have a need for an abbreviation for British Army units that are NOT in India - nor attached to the Indian Army. I have been using UK for units not in RAF or RN. I suppose I would use RM for Royal Marines - but I don't remember seeing any. Possibly BA would do for British Army? But what of the Indian Army? IF IA means Indian Artillery, and if RIA is incorrect usage, what might we use? Indian is just too long for an abbreviation. INA might serve.

OK - This cost me a day folks - 2.5 hours of data entry time - but I only had 2 hours before work - so I lost 9 more hours to work - and STILL have 2 hours work to do on other things! Might as well look for other feedback and test results - and fold it all in by morning. But having looked at the ENTIRE land unit data set, I came up with the following RHS names/abbreviations:

AA = Australian Army - occasionally Australian is used instead
BA = British Army - but UK used for civil organizations and sometimes
special abbreviations are used where appropriate
CA = Canadian Army - occasionally Canadian is used instead
IA = Indian Army - but you can read it Indian Artillery when appropriate
NZA = New Zealand Army - but NZ for a civil organization

Similar codes already in use include
PpA = Philippine Army
INA = Indian National Army
IJA = Imperial Japanese Army
IMA = Imperial Manchukuo Army
RTA = Royal Thai Army
IVA = Imperial Vietnamese Army
PLA = Peoples Liberation Army

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/29/2006 12:30:27 PM >

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 334
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 1:37:53 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 335
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 9:03:08 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...



I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?


They were stndard issue for a medium tank bn from early 43 and were found in BN Hq Co (3) and 1 in each Med Tank Co for a total of 6 in each BN. And yes, they were used in the Pacific. I think if you check the TOE of the Tank BN's you will see them already included. They were armed with the 105mm How M2, basically the same gun as equipped the canon companies of the Inf Regiments.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 336
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 12:32:49 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).


Look carefully: Dutch B-10 groups upgrade to type 198 = Mitchell!!
Always have in RHS.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/29/2006 12:33:09 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 337
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 12:35:30 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...



I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?


They were stndard issue for a medium tank bn from early 43 and were found in BN Hq Co (3) and 1 in each Med Tank Co for a total of 6 in each BN. And yes, they were used in the Pacific. I think if you check the TOE of the Tank BN's you will see them already included. They were armed with the 105mm How M2, basically the same gun as equipped the canon companies of the Inf Regiments.



Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!] I think this SHOULD BE the tank intended - but it isn't - the gun values in all scenarios are wrong. I will go that way now. I will plug in standard armor and 105mm guns (of the howitzer variety).



< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/29/2006 12:38:41 PM >

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 338
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 1:06:56 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
oops Cid I feel guilty now   but well done for making the changes

Hipper

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 339
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 8:26:11 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).


Look carefully: Dutch B-10 groups upgrade to type 198 = Mitchell!!
Always have in RHS.


We conversed about this - the number of British Mitchells is very low. Makes more sense that in real life the more numerous US version would have been made available.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 340
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/29/2006 9:58:12 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

It would be great if you could add the US B-25 to the upgrade list for the Dutch bomber squadrons (no huge loss if you don't).


Look carefully: Dutch B-10 groups upgrade to type 198 = Mitchell!!
Always have in RHS.


We conversed about this - the number of British Mitchells is very low. Makes more sense that in real life the more numerous US version would have been made available.



I see. Well - they were British Mitchells and they were also very restricted in numbers - tiny in fact. I see no problem here. Further, can't you change the plane at will - at least if under human control?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 341
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/30/2006 2:50:44 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...



I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?


They were stndard issue for a medium tank bn from early 43 and were found in BN Hq Co (3) and 1 in each Med Tank Co for a total of 6 in each BN. And yes, they were used in the Pacific. I think if you check the TOE of the Tank BN's you will see them already included. They were armed with the 105mm How M2, basically the same gun as equipped the canon companies of the Inf Regiments.



Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!] I think this SHOULD BE the tank intended - but it isn't - the gun values in all scenarios are wrong. I will go that way now. I will plug in standard armor and 105mm guns (of the howitzer variety).




The 75mm GMC HT (dev 469) upgrades to the M4 CS Tank (dev 475). The BN's were equipped with the 75mm GMC until the CS tank appeared.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 342
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/30/2006 2:56:19 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!]



The US Armored Div were not called Tank Divisions, thus the Armored. I question whether the the suffix has any effect in the game other than inidicating command levels or ability to subdivide.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 343
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 6/30/2006 3:41:09 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I see. Well - they were British Mitchells and they were also very restricted in numbers - tiny in fact. I see no problem here. Further, can't you change the plane at will - at least if under human control?


Unfortunately no - the only choices allowed for upgrade (even with PDU = ON) are Hudson IV (better than nothing!), and Mitchell III/B-25.

Like I said, it would be nice to add the US B-25 but not a huge loss if you don't. Thanks for considering it.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 344
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/1/2006 2:30:46 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...



I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?


They were stndard issue for a medium tank bn from early 43 and were found in BN Hq Co (3) and 1 in each Med Tank Co for a total of 6 in each BN. And yes, they were used in the Pacific. I think if you check the TOE of the Tank BN's you will see them already included. They were armed with the 105mm How M2, basically the same gun as equipped the canon companies of the Inf Regiments.



Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!] I think this SHOULD BE the tank intended - but it isn't - the gun values in all scenarios are wrong. I will go that way now. I will plug in standard armor and 105mm guns (of the howitzer variety).




The 75mm GMC HT (dev 469) upgrades to the M4 CS Tank (dev 475). The BN's were equipped with the 75mm GMC until the CS tank appeared.



This is meaningless: the date of all AFVs is 4112 - and upgrades are nearly instantaneous! Further, it isn't true - even after the tank is made it was not issued as a general replacement - but as you yourself said - in tiny numbers per unit. Not quite the one unit issue of Firefly in British service, but four was normal. Anyway, I don't have the tank upgrade at all. If a unit does not call for that tank, it does not get it. ANY Sherman was worth having in PTO - unless it could not navigate the terrain - which we don't simulate. Generally, even a light tank was worth having - and in even more terrain types.

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 345
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/1/2006 3:03:03 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I see. Well - they were British Mitchells and they were also very restricted in numbers - tiny in fact. I see no problem here. Further, can't you change the plane at will - at least if under human control?


Unfortunately no - the only choices allowed for upgrade (even with PDU = ON) are Hudson IV (better than nothing!), and Mitchell III/B-25.

Like I said, it would be nice to add the US B-25 but not a huge loss if you don't. Thanks for considering it.



OK - Here is my present analysis and action:

1) Mitchells really come from the USA. Changing how many go to the Allies is a POLITICAL decision. It would also have consequences - in the form of fewer planes for US forces. SO for strictly historical or best estimate scenarios (CVO, RAO, BBO, RPO) you are stuck with historical choices;

2) In the games with lots of political options (PPO and EOS) it is different. And the trade off of fewer planes is built in too - any plane in a Dutch unit is not available for an American one. So in THESE scenarios I have set the B-10s to upgrade to the B-25
the fighters to upgrade to the P-40
and the flying boats to upgrade to the PBY.

That caused me to note that PBY production is too low. It is the same as CHS - 10 per month. For a plane of which 3200 plus were made during the war. Now CHS allowed 5 to Commonwealth and allied navies. I increased this on British data to 16. I also have 2 of a Soviet version per month. I think 30 is a better estimate for US production - and increased to this level in ALL scenarios. That is you get 16 UK/allied and 32 US/Russian production PBY-5s (representing a dozen models of PBYs - but NOT the British/Canadian models). Actual production averaged 72 per month, but some went to ETO, and some do missions we don't have - like SAR (although it is built in to the code we have learned that Allied SAR is better than Japanese).

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 346
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/1/2006 3:04:22 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!]



The US Armored Div were not called Tank Divisions, thus the Armored. I question whether the the suffix has any effect in the game other than inidicating command levels or ability to subdivide.


Well - it DOES affect the ability to subdivide. So without a suffex - can a US armored division subdivide? If so, it must be hard code, like the unwritten (but present) name.

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 347
RE: Essec Class Air Groups - 7/2/2006 11:43:04 PM   
witpqs


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

This is from that CVO game I've been running for over a month. So be warned it's an old version - you might have already addressed this problem.

The game is in late September '43. I have 3 Essex class carriers. 1 of them seems fine, but the other 2 have inflated airgroups that are not adjusting no matter how long they sit in PH. They are both over the ceiling of 115% that allows air operations.

Here's the data.

Name
Capacity/Actual
Squadrons

Essex
81/80
VF-9 32 x Hellcat
VB-9 32 x Dauntless
VT-9 16 x Avenger

Bon Homme Richard
81/98
VF-16 32 x Hellcat
VBF-16 18 x Corsair
VB-16 32 x Dauntless
VT-16 16 x Avenger

Cabot
81/98
VF-15 32 x Hellcat
VB-15 32 x Helldiver
VS-15 18 x Avenger
VT-15 16 x Avenger

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 348
RE: Essec Class Air Groups - 7/3/2006 5:04:08 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

This is from that CVO game I've been running for over a month. So be warned it's an old version - you might have already addressed this problem.

The game is in late September '43. I have 3 Essex class carriers. 1 of them seems fine, but the other 2 have inflated airgroups that are not adjusting no matter how long they sit in PH. They are both over the ceiling of 115% that allows air operations.

Here's the data.

Name
Capacity/Actual
Squadrons

Essex
81/80
VF-9 32 x Hellcat
VB-9 32 x Dauntless
VT-9 16 x Avenger

Bon Homme Richard
81/98
VF-16 32 x Hellcat
VBF-16 18 x Corsair
VB-16 32 x Dauntless
VT-16 16 x Avenger

Cabot
81/98
VF-15 32 x Hellcat
VB-15 32 x Helldiver
VS-15 18 x Avenger
VT-15 16 x Avenger


I have not addressed this - but I have heard of it - and it is a problem in all games to some degree. It is a function of code. After a certain date code has its own ideas and what I program is not on the table. We may have to change the ship aircraft rating to cope with it? I shall test.



OK - I figured it out. It is a CHS problem - and it exists for only a few squadrons. They never defined max size - and they set fighter squadrons to 38 machines - which confuses the code - and it tries to build them UP to that level (there being no limit even to say no). Regretfully this will have to be in a patch - I just released 4.00 - but I will review ALL allied squadrons for this issue and it will be in 4.01 shortly. Maybe just an air group file change? It is not really right - Essex carriers were designed for fighter squadrons of 27 - 9 more than a Hornet type. [Whatever they did, that was the ship design data - see Friedman]

Two workarounds:

1) You can always land a squadron;

2) There is a button on the player screen for each squadron - it controls wether or not the code can resize (downsize) the unit - although you might not guess that. Try it. I think it is "replacements on/replacements off" and it needs to be set to "on" to work properly for the fighter squadron of an Essex.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/3/2006 12:09:41 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 349
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 6:38:09 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
RHS v4.00 upgrade for all scenarios includes formal release of EOS + new text and art files by Sid for CVO

also available rail art fixes for digital panels 000 - 001

see download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 350
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 9:34:52 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is meaningless: the date of all AFVs is 4112.....


I really do not understand what you are saying here. You appear to be saying that every AFV in the game is available on 4112 where this is patently false or misleading. Sometimes your logic is not understandable at all. Many AFV in your own scenarios had dates other than 4112. Perhaps you do not have a firm grip on the concept of upgrades?


471 - M5 Sturat - 4212
472 - M24 Chaffee - 4412
474 - M4 Sherman - 4212
475 - M4 Sherman CS - 4405
476 - M26 Pershing - 4506

Just a small sample....




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 351
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 9:39:04 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Nope. I see light tanks and medium tanks in the tank battalion. However, 18 are shown in a US armored division - which has a strange name! [only armored is in the field, but armored division shows up - in spite of no suffex being designated!]



The US Armored Div were not called Tank Divisions, thus the Armored. I question whether the the suffix has any effect in the game other than inidicating command levels or ability to subdivide.


Well - it DOES affect the ability to subdivide. So without a suffex - can a US armored division subdivide? If so, it must be hard code, like the unwritten (but present) name.



You may be correct here.. For the purpose of enabling them to divide then maybe the suffix should be there (i.e. Tank Div instead of Armoured Div). Again, an indiosyncracy of the game.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 352
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 9:48:20 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


This is meaningless: the date of all AFVs is 4112 - and upgrades are nearly instantaneous! Further, it isn't true - even after the tank is made it was not issued as a general replacement - but as you yourself said - in tiny numbers per unit. Not quite the one unit issue of Firefly in British service, but four was normal. Anyway, I don't have the tank upgrade at all. If a unit does not call for that tank, it does not get it. ANY Sherman was worth having in PTO - unless it could not navigate the terrain - which we don't simulate. Generally, even a light tank was worth having - and in even more terrain types.


So what you are saying is that an upgrade from say M3 -> M5 -> M24 will never happen in the game. Thus any unit that starts with M3 will never be able to upgrade (not replace - replace and upgrade are two totally different definitions)to a better model as the years go by? Very interesting and undefensable set of logic you state above.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 353
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 10:21:45 AM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is meaningless: the date of all AFVs is 4112.....


I really do not understand what you are saying here. You appear to be saying that every AFV in the game is available on 4112 where this is patently false or misleading. Sometimes your logic is not understandable at all. Many AFV in your own scenarios had dates other than 4112. Perhaps you do not have a firm grip on the concept of upgrades?


471 - M5 Sturat - 4212
472 - M24 Chaffee - 4412
474 - M4 Sherman - 4212
475 - M4 Sherman CS - 4405
476 - M26 Pershing - 4506

Just a small sample....






As often happens, this issue is linguistic - not real. We happen to be in total harmony - but communication is hard to achieve - and you misunderstood my meaning:

You are absolutely correct that in RHS AFVs (and radar and lots of other things) appear at different dates. And (hat off) the game designer seems to have intended that should be the case. But in stock and CHS too often all things appear on 4112 - and that is what I referred to. I don't like it - and it makes upgrades instantaneous - which is silly. So I looked at when a vehicle was available - or could have been available - and don't allow it to upgrade sooner. I am quite sure that is what you are advocating - and so I conclude you didn't understand what I tried to say.
No harm done - if I meant what you thought I HOPE you would dispute it!

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 354
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 10:32:02 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


This is meaningless: the date of all AFVs is 4112 - and upgrades are nearly instantaneous! Further, it isn't true - even after the tank is made it was not issued as a general replacement - but as you yourself said - in tiny numbers per unit. Not quite the one unit issue of Firefly in British service, but four was normal. Anyway, I don't have the tank upgrade at all. If a unit does not call for that tank, it does not get it. ANY Sherman was worth having in PTO - unless it could not navigate the terrain - which we don't simulate. Generally, even a light tank was worth having - and in even more terrain types.


So what you are saying is that an upgrade from say M3 -> M5 -> M24 will never happen in the game. Thus any unit that starts with M3 will never be able to upgrade (not replace - replace and upgrade are two totally different definitions)to a better model as the years go by? Very interesting and undefensable set of logic you state above.



Once again this may be linguistic. Or it may be technical - in which case I am the confused one - not you. But IF I understand it right, there are two entirely different meanings to the word "upgrade" -

each is represented by the record in which you find the upgrade field

For Aircraft, you are allowed to control a unit upgrade directly - even if it has a weapon that does not upgrade - because there is an upgrade field for you to use. Thus I have some bomber units upgrading to different bombers than a similar unit does - and some even "upgrade" backwards - when that is what happened. But when you say "upgrade" in the AIRPLANE field, it means "after the date of the new plane, all production shifts to the new type"

For land units, it is more tricky - you cannot upgrade directly UNLESS you upgrade in the vehicle field - which probably means the same thing as for an airplane. Now this is a nice feature - and I use it often - when there is a clear progression - and when there are enough slots. The only problem with it is that we don't have a proper manufacturing system - not even in the sense we do for airplanes - and worse - the "date" field of the new vehicle is more or less a decoration. I found Japanese AT units that upgraded two levels in about four days! Not exactly what we want is it?

When there are several tanks in a series - Japanese lights - Japanese "mediums" - Allied lights (in two series - one American - one British) - we do use this system and HOPE the dates are meaningful. So units with these vehicles should upgrade if conditions are right - probably within less than a week of the date of the new weapon.

But in the case of the Sherman - there is no such series. The Sherman CS tank is NOT an "upgrade" of the Sherman - nor do we have the Sherman that IS an upgrade. The CS tank is - as you yourself posted - a SUPPLIMENTAL tank - which is why it is listed separately. You are not going to get a tank unit 100% of these tanks.

Since the British Sherman is the same as the American one - we COULD combine them - get a slot for the 76mm gun version - and THEN we could allow the upgrade to happen. Do you like that?


EDIT: I intended to also say that Joe invented a different way to upgrade a land unit. It produces "errors" in utilities that test for things being "right" with your scenaio. It is deliberately making the formation a unit points at different than the unit itself. A variation on this is to give the land unit some disabled elements. I use both methods. It has one neat effect: you can start a unit on 8 Dec 1941 (Tokyo Time - the only time that makes sense to me - the only time zone used by Japanese wherever they are) with the right unit - and it will evolve to the formation it had later. But the problem is it does so too fast - unless some rare circumstances prevent it (e.g. lack of supply, lack of production of what it needs). The only exception is when the things needed are date delayed. But a few days after the device activates - wham everyone has it! [If only the real world was like that!] Sometimes in RHS you will see blank lines in a unit. Usually that means some device will appear there - it is in the formation the unit points at.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/3/2006 7:12:18 PM >

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 355
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/3/2006 12:28:38 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
RHS v4.01 all scenarios posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 356
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/4/2006 8:43:04 PM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline
RHS 4.01, Scen 60 -
1)AO Kaskaskia, anchored at San Francisco, has -11,072 endurance
2)F2A-3 Buffalo - no pic
3)P-43A Lancer - no pic
4)Lancer/P-43 - pic of B-24D
5)Anson 1 - believe pic is P-38

Are P-43A Lancer and Lancer/P-43 different planes?



_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 357
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/5/2006 12:48:31 AM   
Herrbear


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

RHS 4.01, Scen 60 -
1)AO Kaskaskia, anchored at San Francisco, has -11,072 endurance
2)F2A-3 Buffalo - no pic
3)P-43A Lancer - no pic
4)Lancer/P-43 - pic of B-24D
5)Anson 1 - believe pic is P-38

Are P-43A Lancer and Lancer/P-43 different planes?





In 4.01 I did not see that problem for all that you listed.
I show the F2A-3 (091) shows the correct picture as Bit Map 210.
I show the P-43A Lancer (143) shows the picture as Bit Map 200.
I show the Lancer/P43 (192) shows the picture as Bit Map 196. Note this is also shown in US pre-war markings and looks like a different a/c than the other Lancer. The Lancer/P43 (192) is the version for the Chinese.
You are correct about the Anson (167). The picture showing is a type of P-38 using Bit Map 167 and it should be Bit Map 97, I believe.

(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 358
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/5/2006 1:16:55 AM   
Herrbear


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

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 7/6/2006 7:28:20 AM >

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 359
RE: The Main RHS thread at this time (renamed) - 7/5/2006 1:23:51 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
El Cid Again --

This is regarding artwork so no impact on database. In 4.02 Scenario 60 I show the following:

T-IVa (208) shows as Bit Map 235. I think it should point to 140.
Anson (167) shows as Bit Map 167. I think it should point to 97. BM167 seems to look like a P-38 type.
IL-2 (224) shows as Bit Map 225. I think it should point to 229.
TBD (247) shows a Bit Map 20. I think it should point to 80.

Also, the CIXV-W (178) is classified as a float plane which I believe is correct as this was the planes on some of the Dutch Cruisers. The Bit Map showing is 135 which is a Dutch plane but is not a float plane. I think this is the wrong art, and I believe it comes from the art in CHS which shows the same. I think the stock 15 scenario shows the correct plane.

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 7/5/2006 1:29:42 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

1.219