Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Important CHS announcement

 
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 >> Important CHS announcement Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 12:11:58 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline 		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
Post #: 1
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 12:51:12 AM   
MkXIV


Posts: 343
Joined: 6/4/2005
From: North Georgia
Status: offline 		So then what do you use to set the bombload of an aircraft?

_____________________________

F4U Corsair; When you Absolutely, Positively need to kill every freaking Zero in a 40 mile hex....

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 2
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 1:30:36 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Load capacity, I would presume...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to MkXIV)
Post #: 3
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 2:17:09 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline 		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.

Andrew

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 2:27:09 AM   
witpqs


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

Scared the hell out of yourself, eh?!

I hear all of Australia has been out of kilter since that penalty kick!


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 5
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 2:43:30 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Since I am now a pseudo "Japanese Fanboy" this doesn't bother me anymore.

Too late for us, we're already on 2.05.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 6
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 2:52:43 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

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.

Andrew

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 7
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 3:58:37 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		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. 

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 8
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 4:50:44 AM   
jwxspoon


Posts: 167
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Myrtle Beach, SC USA
Status: offline 		We've completed our first 2 days of turns under 2.05 in the new team game.  So far so good.  AA is wicked under scenario 157 for low flying aircraft.

jw

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 9
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:01:16 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

(in reply to jwxspoon)
Post #: 10
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:03:02 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 11
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:06:48 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 6/29/2006 11:50:09 AM >

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 12
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:16:16 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I officially retire any games I have if my opponents are so willing.


?????????????????????????

If that is what you want, I have scrapped my first turn.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 6/29/2006 6:39:17 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 13
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:23:04 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 14
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 9:17:42 AM   
racndoc


Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline 		I went back and compared just a few bombers between Stock Scenario 15 and CHS 2.04.
Here are just a few comparisons for max load at normal range:

B-17E stock: 12x500lb.....B-17E CHS 2.04: 6x500lb
LB-30 stock: 16x500lb.....LB-30: CHS 2.04: 5x500lb
B-25C stock: 6x500lb......B-25C: CHS 2.04:4x500lb
B-29 stock: 40x500lb.....B-29: CHS 2.04: 24x500lb

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 15
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 9:33:52 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

I went back and compared just a few bombers between Stock Scenario 15 and CHS 2.04.
Here are just a few comparisons for max load at normal range:

B-17E stock: 12x500lb.....B-17E CHS 2.04: 6x500lb
LB-30 stock: 16x500lb.....LB-30: CHS 2.04: 5x500lb
B-25C stock: 6x500lb......B-25C: CHS 2.04:4x500lb
B-29 stock: 40x500lb.....B-29: CHS 2.04: 24x500lb


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

(in reply to racndoc)
Post #: 16
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 11:46:25 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I officially retire any games I have if my opponents are so willing.


?????????????????????????

If that is what you want, I have scrapped my first turn.


Boy of boy, can't even whine anymore. I really need to remember to use the emoticons when I drop one of these babies.


< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 6/29/2006 12:03:31 PM >

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 17
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 12:04:16 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 18
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 2:43:27 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

I went back and compared just a few bombers between Stock Scenario 15 and CHS 2.04.
Here are just a few comparisons for max load at normal range:

B-17E stock: 12x500lb.....B-17E CHS 2.04: 6x500lb
LB-30 stock: 16x500lb.....LB-30: CHS 2.04: 5x500lb
B-25C stock: 6x500lb......B-25C: CHS 2.04:4x500lb
B-29 stock: 40x500lb.....B-29: CHS 2.04: 24x500lb


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

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 19
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 3:00:41 PM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

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?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 20
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 3:46:06 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		As far as I could tell, it's already been done. So AB won't be changing anything...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to worr)
Post #: 21
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 3:51:37 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: worr


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

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

Andrew

(in reply to worr)
Post #: 22
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 3:52:54 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

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!!!

Andrew

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 23
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 4:10:00 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 24
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 4:16:09 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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).

Andrew

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 25
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 4:23:44 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Dammit...thought so....

Maybe just reduce the accuracy... But I can already see people screaming bloody murder...

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 6/29/2006 4:25:24 PM >

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 26
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 4:40:38 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		And yelling fanboy-related obscenities in your general direction...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 27
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:00:17 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Wonder why...prolly I should also increase F4U and F6F speed another 100 mph too...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 28
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:02:21 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		And set A6M armament to one 7.7mm MG.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 29
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:03:15 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		With penetration of 0...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Important CHS announcement Page: [1] 2   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

1.328