Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Human Opponents Wanted for RHS

 
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 >> Opponents wanted >> Human Opponents Wanted for RHS Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/23/2006 1:33:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS has reached the point that continued testing using only AI vs AI isn't going to reveal very much. In order to examine the sorts of things that will only come out if people try things, I need to see some longer term games in which things AI won't attempt are tried.

RHS is an experimental series of scenarios designed to address several issues:

a) The RHS map allows ferry navigation between islands and other points where this was significant;

b) The RHS map allows river navigation on the Yangtze, the Pearl River (near Canton), the Ganges and the Chao Praya.

c) The RHS map restricts rail traffic on the Bengal and Assam Railroad - also the Whitehorse and Yukon RR - and the ALCAN highway is not a road - but a pioneer road.

d) The RHS map comes in three flavors - including a CHS like map - a satellite imagery based map - and a soft toned satellite imagery map. The RHS map is a lot rougher - particularly in Siberia, Manchuria and China - because the existing maps were too easy to cross - compared to reality.

e) RHS has reworked the aircraft model. Many new types of planes are introduced, and many older planes have different performance - often more range for Allied bombers for example. It has implemented the Matrix designed (but never used) drop tank devices for many planes. It has introduced air to air and air to ground rockets, a 75mm gun for bombers, Magnetic Anomoly Detectors, and other aircraft devices. And it has a "pseudo" aircraft - the hopefully functional K class blimps - which are (technically, under the hood) actually sub-chasers. [They can be said to "fly very low"!] Aircraft durability is reduced, and aircraft weapon lethality is reduced, with important effects on air combat, anti-aircraft combat and operational attrition. The Indian Air Force and the Soviet Pacific Ocean Fleet Air Flotilla were added. The Soviet Air Force also gains a medium bomber force. RHS bombs are not deceptive:
a 250 kg bomb is now bigger than a 500 pound bomb - not smaller as in CHS and stock. And many Japanese planes carry 50 kg bombs - because that was the Army standard. Aircraft weapon ranges are no longer greatly exaggerated. Planes do not go to more than 100% more altitude than service ceiling. Instead, they are rated for an "operational ceiling" - a system giving advantage to high altitude equipment on a plane - but in no case allows routine operations at marginal performance high altitude. You get 80%, 90% or 95% of service ceiling depending on the equipment - but never the erratic system in stock and CHS which sometimes gives you much less than ceiling, sometimes more than twice as much, and other things in between - often on purpose.

f) RHS has reworked many important ships. It has added entire navies, including (for the Axis) that of Thailand and (for the Allies) that of the USSR. Never mind that Soviet ships cannot refuel - in RHS they can.
To gain slots for many missing ships, RHS killed minor vessels, particularly those that didn't work (like rocket landing craft) or those that were exaggerated beyond all reason (minor fishing boats treated like proper minesweepers or sub chasers). Some RHS scenarios are experimenting with a new system of day and night ship ratings intended to show how doctrine and training evolved over the war. [Thus US ships in Dec 1941 are poor at night - but from 1943 US ships are very effective at night.] RHS ships have removed armor from ships that didn't have any, corrected ranges, and generally defined devices to a consistant standard.

g) RHS has attempted to make the economic model functional. As a by product of this, the old situation of "AKs to burn" is gone - you need to move resources, oil, supplies and fuel - and you always want more ships to move them. Secret supply at Chunking is gone - so the place might fall.

h) RHS has explicitly attempted to include every last Japanese heavy weapons formation; Similarly, it has added Free French units, Dutch units, Indian units, and missing but interesting US units like the 6th Ranger Battalion. Weapons are defined consistently - and AA weapons now all have ceilings. [Those with zero ceiling had - well - zero ceiling! In other words - no AAA value.] Instead of absolute ceilings, effective ceilings are used.

i) RHS has attempted to make the situation in the north historically ambiguous. Russia is active (although there are Russian passive RHS scenarios for anyone who doesn't like that). It is not at war with Japan - and either side has the ability to change that - when it wants to do so - just like really was the case. The reasons Russia won't do that early are the real ones - Japan might just eat Asiatic Russia if it did. Players are assumed to have the good judgement to handle these issues well. Even if they are not, one can argue the real historical powers didn't always behave very well. [See mini-wars between Japan and Russia in Manchuria/Mongolia and in Korea]. By which I mean - even aggressive player behavior is arguably historical!

The most radical of RHS scenarios is also the most balanced - the "Japan enhansed scenario" long theoried about: Empire of the Sun (EOS).
It has many unique planes, devices and ships - in addition to the standard ones. EOS is supposed to give AI an edge when played with AI running Japan (for players who do not do PBEM). I need to see this work from both points of view. So I need players willing to turn out a turn every so often on either side - but players who won't quit - since the object is to see what happens - not just "win the war." Since this is the scenario with "everything" it is the best one to test. Since this is the scenario in which Japan is likely to last a long time, that also makes it a good candidate to test.

I have almost no use for house rules. If it is on the map - it is on the map and you can go there. If you don't want me going there - stop me.
But don't do something that you think a historical commander would not do. For this, use common sense.

EDIT: I should have said - but did not - that I only play single day turns. The AI is not bright enough to be trusted for multiple day turns. Nothing compels you to change anything - you can simply say "yes" and reply to the turn - but the OPTION to be able to do something more is vital IMHO.
And I am a micromanager by attitude: I don't see how to make logistics work efficiently if I must make ships wait a day or two when they should be loading with a new assignment for example. And when your units land - why wait three days before attacking? Even waiting one isn't really correct: ever seen the Marines land? [Airborne attacks at once. So should over the beach assaults. This stuff of "land today, attack tomorrow" is more or less nonsense. You want to add to that "land today, attack three days from now?" Not for me.]









< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/23/2006 11:07:34 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/23/2006 5:01:40 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
Sayyid Diaz,

I have a couple of questions as Aztez and I are starting an EOS scenario.

1. Guerilla Regiments... I note they have static elements. Does this mean they are unable to retreat if one gains a more than 2:1 assault ratio and they have a valid retreat path?

2. So with lowered durability and lowered aircraft weapon effectiveness air to air combat will be less bloody while AAA will become more effective. Looks like there will be a premium on Cannon-armed aircraft and it seems the Me-109 remake is available from the beginning of 1942 ;).

3. Glad to hear that about the bombloads... Have any changes been made re: the routine for planes choosing whether or not to carry AP bombs on attacks against enemy shipping?

4. Is there still a FlaK gap where units cannot fire below 1/4 of their top ceiling such that a weapon with a max ceiling of 28,000 feet cannot fire below 7,000 feet?

5. I notice that you have been able to change pilot replacement rates for both sides and made other changes which seem to speak of an ability to impact on how the code handles things... How deeply have you been able to change things?


lastly is there any document listing all the changes and reasons for them etc so new players could get up to speed? Aztez and I are, when the game gets going, planning separate AARs and a joint thread in the scenario forum to discuss issues as we come across them to help with the continued improvement of RHS.

I have to say though from what I've seen so far ( and I've spent about a dozen hours researching into it over the past few days) RHS looks like an amazing body of work. I am deeply impressed... and that's uncommon.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/23/2006 10:35:23 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sayyid Diaz,

I have a couple of questions as Aztez and I are starting an EOS scenario.

1. Guerilla Regiments... I note they have static elements. Does this mean they are unable to retreat if one gains a more than 2:1 assault ratio and they have a valid retreat path?

REPLY: In my experience, no. I noted a report of a "problem" with the static device - if it dies a unit becomes mobile - so it "solution" was to always assign at least 3. I assigned only one on purpose - and tests indicate it works. 100% of the time so far the device dies and the unit retreats! Now there must be an exception one day - I have an attack going in with two divisions and air strikes on a single regiment - and it really is a weak battalion - so I might just kill it - we will see. But I am not very hopeful it will retreat. Which was my intent - I wanted slippery guys - and I got them. The idea was I wanted to make these units different - more tied to a location - less able to mass - than regular units. I think it works better than I had dared hope for. A guerilla regiment will contribute to an attack - but you cannot easily get ten of them to the same place like you can regular units. Note also that these units usually start with NO static device - on turn one they WILL move. ONLY if I want to block a road do I start a unit with a static device.

2. So with lowered durability and lowered aircraft weapon effectiveness air to air combat will be less bloody while AAA will become more effective. Looks like there will be a premium on Cannon-armed aircraft and it seems the Me-109 remake is available from the beginning of 1942 ;).

REPLY: YEP. And IJA is allowed to buy Zeros - also armed with cannon - too! For that reason the plane has TWO official names: A6M2/Ki-65! Later the Navy flies the carrier version of the Ki-44III - which is called A10N3. The army also can convert some units over to the G3M2 (called Ki-42s) or the G4M1 (called Ki-50). P1Y1 in IJA service is the Ki-82.
G8N1 is called the Ki-90. G5s are called Ki-68s (real - there were two different army KI numbers assigned G5s - and all the designations are almost real if not actual - a plane of that type was given that Ki number).
The Ki-91 4 engine bomber is called G8K1 if the Navy buys it (up to you).
The Ki-83 is called J9M1 if the Navy buys it. The ultra long range transport Ki-77 is called L9T1 if the Navy buys it (think of a Lily with even more range!). The Army can buy real dive bombers - D3A is Ki-47
(almost real - both planes are derivitives of the Stuka) and D4Y is Ki-71 (in reality that was a different version of Ki-51). The Army can buy fantastic navy recon planes (C6N is Ki-75) but early on the Navy can buy (and it really did) the Ki-46 (C7M2 and C7M3).

3. Glad to hear that about the bombloads... Have any changes been made re: the routine for planes choosing whether or not to carry AP bombs on attacks against enemy shipping?

REPLY: Not the routine - I cannot write the code in the program! [Well - maybe I could - but not unless Matrix let me]. But I did change the default bombloads in many cases. Many bombers carry smaller bombs. I added the 50 kg bomb so Japanese army planes can be correctly armed - mostly with 50 and 100 kg weapons - and then 250s. A couple of Allied bombers get torpedo loadouts - which automatically switch to bombs at long range or for land targets. So this torpedo bomber thing is not just Japanese any more. See in particular the PV Ventura and the first version of the B-26.

4. Is there still a FlaK gap where units cannot fire below 1/4 of their top ceiling such that a weapon with a max ceiling of 28,000 feet cannot fire below 7,000 feet?

REPLY: I am not sure I understand your question, but I didn't change the code - because I cannot. But FLAK is generally much more dangerous IF it can reach you - and generally does not reach as high IF it was working. Flak is complex: many WITP devices had no ceilings - so they didn't work at all. Others had much too high a ceiling - so they worked too well. RHS gives you an "effective ceiling" value - and it is never zero - but ranges of weapons are limited to that same value. [A DP gun or a FLAK gun would have more range in real life than in RHS: its range is defined for FLAK purposes - not for maximum range on the ground where - by definition - altitude is zero!] This is combined with "operational ceilings" to give a reasonable outcome. Planes do not fly to unrealistic altitudes to evade flak. But they can evade flak - and should. Fly at 2000 feet even the worst .30 AAMG is a problem (a small problem, but in mass it matters). At 4000 feet a .50 AAMG can get you.
Light AAA weapons have other ceilings - 6000 feet - 8000 feet - etc.
These will round to range: a ceiling of 5000, 6000 or 7000 feet will round to range = 2 (2000 yards) for example. Thus, all mgs round to range = 1 (the longest range mg is given a ceiling of 4000 feet - still rounds down to 1000 yards).

5. I notice that you have been able to change pilot replacement rates for both sides and made other changes which seem to speak of an ability to impact on how the code handles things... How deeply have you been able to change things?

REPLY: The pilot replacement rates are in the Scenario Editor - but anyone can change them. If it ain't in the Scenario Editor or the Database Editor, only rarely can I change it. A few fields are accessable via WITPExcel - thus I can make a unit airborne - or have a cavalry symbol - for example!

lastly is there any document listing all the changes and reasons for them etc so new players could get up to speed? Aztez and I are, when the game gets going, planning separate AARs and a joint thread in the scenario forum to discuss issues as we come across them to help with the continued improvement of RHS.

REPLY: There is a plan for an RHS manual. Since we hear there will be a new WITP manual, it may wait until that comes out. But the collection of material for it has begun.

I have to say though from what I've seen so far ( and I've spent about a dozen hours researching into it over the past few days) RHS looks like an amazing body of work. I am deeply impressed... and that's uncommon.


REPLY: Bear in mind several principles:

1) You can always improve on any product. If you do anything right, you should end up with a better product.

2) A great deal of work was done by many people and no one was willing to publish it: RHS just adopted the work of others - on the principle of "if it is better than what we have it is in" - no politics - no concern about whose feelings might be hurt if we messed with "their" work. No one owns RHS - or the forum does. It has a manager - but no plank owners.
No vote is required - no one has a veto - and anyone can challenge/suggest anything. This means that you get the sum of a lot of people's work - not just one guy's work. In fact, Cobra may have put in more hours on art than I did on data, and AKDreamer may have put in more hours on US land units and ships than I did total. Do not think this is the work of a single person - it is truly a team product.

3) There was a serious lack of definitions. RHS has at least openly defined things - and then attempted to apply them consistently. This has to result in a better data set. Now we need to "calibrate" the values - they may be relatively right - but are they in the right range to begin with? Some longer games are going to help us with the statistics to make even better versions.

4) Thank you.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/23/2006 11:03:06 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 3
RE: Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/24/2006 7:50:54 PM   
Hornsby

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 7/24/2006
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
I'd be happy to do my bit for RHS. However you may have to make allowances for the fact that it is my first PBEM. I have played CHS against the AI for about a year but only as the allies.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/24/2006 11:47:41 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline
If you want a volunteer for playing Allies I`m for it

(in reply to Hornsby)
Post #: 5
RE: Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/25/2006 6:50:17 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
OK guys - I will do a Japanese set up (to do it well takes a bit of time) and issue it as sort of a standard opening gambit. What happens then depends on what you do as allies. I will need an address to send. My address is trevethans@aol.com

Note that a week from yesterday I am going to leave Alaska for a while - but I carry a laptop - and I will be at Metro Seattle Gamers with high speed access. But there may be days I don't do turns - I am traveling with my daughter.

Note that I operate with a few self imposed restrictions:
for example the Rail gun (First Independent Artillery Company) never leaves a standard gage main line. When I found some zeros actually flying from Nagato - I beached them! [And learned we can have Judys fly from Ise if anyone wants them]. My general concept is - don't do it unless you think they might have done it. Otherwise - all is fair - it is war.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 6
RE: Human Opponents Wanted for RHS - 7/25/2006 10:36:04 AM   
Hornsby

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 7/24/2006
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
My e-mail is LWolstencroft@aol.com.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Opponents wanted >> Human Opponents Wanted for RHS Page: [1]
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

0.828