Slitherine

quote:

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Sure, like during Schweinfurt raid...

Well..we all have our own petty grievances...I'd feel opposite if I'd play IJ..but I fear the productions system still after playing over yr and half !!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdfluger

So will there be a 2.06 soon? It does not look like it from everything I read, but I want to make sure.

1. Canada base now has its own (static) base force.
   
2. Port Alice Base Force renamed to Coal Harbour Base Force.
   
3. The Fort Scratchley CD unit at Newcastle, Australia, now has 30 aviation support, to represent the seaplane base (Rathmines) located near Newcastle.
   
4. All Indian Air base forces renamed using the format "No. 1xx RIAF Base Force".
   
5. All RAF base forces are now using a consistent naming format "No. 1xx RAF Base Force".
   
6. All RAF Groups renamed using the format "No. 2xx RAF Group".
   
7. No.457 Squadron RAAF changed to appear at Sydney on 420901.
   
8. The Spitfire Vb has been provided with a starting pool of 11 aircraft. These now allow for some replacements to No.457 Squadron RAAF before January 1943, which is the availability date of the aircraft as of CHS 2.04.
   
9. The "Max Load" value of the Liberator III has been corrected from 8000 to its original value of 8800 (All other aircraft have already been corrected in a previous update).
   
10. Two duplicate leaders have been removed - D'Albiac, J.H. (15667) and Peirse, R. (18484).
    
11. The later Essex class carriers have been split off into the separate "Ticonderoga" class. The class is identical to the Essex class, except for the addition of two 40mm Bofors quad mounts forward. The Essex class carriers are dividied between the two classes as follows:
    
    Ship
    Class
    Essex
    Essex
    Bunker Hill
    Essex
    Intrepid
    Essex
    Franklin
    Essex
    Hancock
    Ticonderoga
    Randolph
    Ticonderoga
    Ticonderoga
    Ticonderoga
    Bennington
    Essex
    Boxer
    Ticonderoga
    Bon Homme Richard
    Essex
    Antietam
    Ticonderoga
    Shangri-La
    Ticonderoga
    Lake Champlain
    Ticonderoga
    
    Replacement carriers for sunk US Navy carriers will still be Essex class.
    
12. Type STS Japanese submarines had duplicated Type 22 radar. Fixed.
    
13. Tench Class US submarines had duplicated Type SJ radar. Fixed.
    
14. Japanese DD Hatsuharu 9/43 upgrade had duplicated Type 22 radar. Fixed.
    
15. Port Alice renamed to Coal Harbour.
    
16. Baguio and Lucena in the Philippines have been changed from "Philippines" to "US Army" nationality.
    

quote:

Also, is there a difference between stock and CHS 2.05 in terms of how large an airbase must be to support bombers?

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 ?

Where's the Any key?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Hi,

I'm playing my "own" version of scenerio 159 (with other personal changes and with the addition of Ron's "no-respawn ships) and am at 17 Dec 41. One of the changes I made was to create in device slot 144 a new Betty/Nell torpedo which has a dud rate of 50%, and I also set the dud rate of the Beaufort to 50%. This was done in the hopes of getting away from the super torpedo bombers. I made an error when I set up device 144 and left it to upgrade to device 101 (the standard torpedo). So the betties/nells reverted back to their old torpedos. However, I have not seen a single torpedo attack by these planes to date. Perhaps it is because of the lowered experience of the pilots for this particular scenerio, altho I believe that effects the Allies more at the start of the game. I did switch over on the 16th and took a look at the Japanese side and found that the Betty/Nell squadrons were suffering from low morale. In previous games I had reduced the accuracy rating but failed to see any significant change.

So, because I do not have an InGame Editor which would allow me to make a simple change to fix the problem I caused, I now have to restart the game in order to get it fixed. This is what I truly love about this game.....always restarting. I am sure that on my deathbed I will be mumbling "No, not now! I must restart the game one more time"!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I think that dud-rate thing can be very useful. I have been toying with the idea of giving for example aircraft weapons a dud rate to reduce lethality of A2A. Actually, in real life most WWII weapons should have dud rate of at least 10 %.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

There is scope to play with dud rates and/or air-to-surface weapon accuracy in the experimental CHS scenario. In fact I almost did this. Maybe I should try something along these lines after all?

Andrew