I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game.
I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported).
It seems I have outsmarted myself with this one. Looking at the Max load values, I have already changed them back - at least some of them. I now rememeber doing this a while ago when there was a previous discussion about what Max Load was used for. I think I did it "just in case". So hopefully there is no need for further adjustments, but I will do another check just to be sure.
Since I am now a pseudo "Japanese Fanboy" this doesn't bother me anymore.
Too late for us, we're already on 2.05.
Well, I don't remember hearing any complaints about this from CHS 1.x, which did use the reduced load values. Probably because the main effect would be when the B-29s come into service, and not many people get that far in the game. It looks to already be corrected anyway, as I said above. But if I do find any remaining differences I will fix them.
Actually, earlier today I was ypdating my list (availability, radius, replacement, bomb load) of Allied aircraft from both CHS and Iron Storm from stock scenarios and I noticed a significant decrease in bomb loads for most Allied bombers. My heavies weren't that heavy and my B-25C carried 6x 500lb GP while a B-17E carries 8x 500lb GP. Yes, at a greater distance, but not much different in bomb load.
Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002 From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece Status: offline
Now I'm really confused. Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?
_____________________________
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002 From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Now I'm really confused. Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?
Seriously...this is three years and counting. I should have become a programmer so I could sell my useless efforts for a profit. Must be nice....
_____________________________
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Now I'm really confused. Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?
Seriously...this is three years and counting. I should have become a programmer so I could sell my useless efforts for a profit. Must be nice....
This has nothing to do with the editor, Ron. This is about the "Max Load" values for aircraft. Lemurs originally decreased these values for 4E bombers, in an attempt to reduce their effectiveness. This was way back at the start of CHS development. Recently, after hearing that the Max Load value may not be used, except for determining base size for effective operation of the aircraft, I went and changed them back to the stock values (and then forgot I did it!). So the values are the same in CHS and stock now (although I have yet to verify that all the aircraft valules are OK).
Those are weapon loadouts, not "max load". Max load is a single number for the aircraft type. For example, the value for the B-29 is 20,000. In the old CHS it was 14,000. This is the number that is apparently used to calculate required base sizes, and is not used for anything else.
Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002 From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Now I'm really confused. Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?
Seriously...this is three years and counting. I should have become a programmer so I could sell my useless efforts for a profit. Must be nice....
This has nothing to do with the editor, Ron. This is about the "Max Load" values for aircraft. Lemurs originally decreased these values for 4E bombers, in an attempt to reduce their effectiveness. This was way back at the start of CHS development. Recently, after hearing that the Max Load value may not be used, except for determining base size for effective operation of the aircraft, I went and changed them back to the stock values (and then forgot I did it!). So the values are the same in CHS and stock now (although I have yet to verify that all the aircraft valules are OK).
Andrew
Whoohoo
_____________________________
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Those are weapon loadouts, not "max load". Max load is a single number for the aircraft type. For example, the value for the B-29 is 20,000. In the old CHS it was 14,000. This is the number that is apparently used to calculate required base sizes, and is not used for anything else.
Andrew
Is it all right for those of us who are flamed about those &!%*$#@%%^ (%$%*&++ Betties carrying 200 torpedos a day halfway across the Pacific to increase the load outs for some semblance of revenge?????????????? Maybe we can put at least a small dent in Rabaul for the insane IJA favor of that nonsense!
_____________________________
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game.
I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported).
I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game.
I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported).
Andrew
So is the above still true?
Are you going to change something?
I just did another check of the Max Load values. I only found one error, and it is a small one. The Liberator III was 8000 instead of 8800. That will be fixed in the next CHS update. So there is no problem with the CHS Max Load values
ORIGINAL: RevRick Is it all right for those of us who are flamed about those &!%*$#@%%^ (%$%*&++ Betties carrying 200 torpedos a day halfway across the Pacific to increase the load outs for some semblance of revenge?????????????? Maybe we can put at least a small dent in Rabaul for the insane IJA favor of that nonsense!
Not much I can do about the Betties. So mod away!!!
maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?
Not really, as the normal and extended ranges are both calculated, using fixed ratios, from the ferry range (which itself is calculated from the cruise speed and the endurance).