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: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata

 
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: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata - 7/26/2006 11:19:55 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		No.52 Squadron RAF (device 1396) has a delay of 40715, should be 4x0715

No.211 Squadron RAF (device 1430) has a delay of 4210120

AA 7th AIF Div (Device 2852) has as parent HQ 214 = USSR Pacific O Fleet

< Message edited by Bliztk -- 7/26/2006 4:35:47 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 421
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata - 7/26/2006 10:42:48 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

No.52 Squadron RAF (device 1396) has a delay of 40715, should be 4x0715

REPLY : Should be 45 = 1945

No.211 Squadron RAF (device 1430) has a delay of 4210120

REPLY: So it seems: corrected.

AA 7th AIF Div (Device 2852) has as parent HQ 214 = USSR Pacific O Fleet


REPLY: This is true in 3 of 6 scenarios - it should be parent HQ 104 - and will be.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/26/2006 10:46:51 PM >

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 422
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata - 7/26/2006 10:51:41 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In RHS EOS 4.12, the two air groups on the CVL Hermes have reverted back to maximum size of '2'. In recent versions thay had been increased to '6' each (capacity of Hermes is 12 a/c).

Slot 2217 - FAA 1 Flt/814 Sqdn
Slot 2218 - FAA 2 Flt/814 Sqdn


Something is wrong with your file copy: None of the 6 scenarios has this issue.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 423
RE: RHS EOS 4.12 Errata - 7/26/2006 10:55:05 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Noticed something strange near Vladivostok (which is hex 65,33).

In hex 66,33 - which is a land-locked hex behind the city - there is a static CD unit 100% prepped for Vladivostok.

There are other units in the same hex, all prepping for Vladivostok (but they are mobile and can be adjusted by the player). Below is a list of all the units in hex 66,33.

Slot/Unit

2194 USSR 102nd Regional Fortress - CD
2198 USSR 549th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2197 USSR 199th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2196 USSR 273rd Gun Regiment - ART
2195 USSR 50th Gun Regiment - ART
2190 USSR 59th Rifle Division - INF
2189 USSR 39th Rifle Division - INF


I am not sure if this is an issue or not? The code cannot show a non-location hex directly, so it shows the "nearest" location. Perhaps they cannot plan to defend their hex? This is common for static fortification devices in RHS - we set them to be planned for local defense. It needs to be examined in some detail.
2182 USSR 58th Tank Brigade - ARM




I only confirm this issue for 2194 - the other slots have zero planning. On the other hand, other "fortress" units are the same. For safety I set them to zero - until we understand this setting is OK.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/26/2006 11:06:04 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 424
RE: RHS EOS 4.10 Errata - 7/26/2006 11:08:57 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

I should have bolded this to make it stand out since it was a copy with addition from a previous message.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

- KGV class battleships point to the wrong art (they point to the correct art in CVO). KGV class 187 points to bitmap 183, should point to bitmap 187.




This was right in CVO and RAO, but wrong in the others.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 425
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case) - 7/26/2006 11:10:42 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

4.08 Scen 60 - In Japanese Wake Island TF on Dec 7, 4 Cl and 6 DD. No AP ot ground pounders.

In another WITP copy it has 3 CL 6 DD 2 AP and Maizuru 2nd SNLF.

Did not find Maizuru 2nd SNLF in unit list.

Probably that is why no ground combat on Wake on Dec 7



The stock game, CHS and most RHS scenarios assign an NLF to Wake.
RHSEOS is different - it assigned the Maizuru 2nd SNLF - and supported them better. This is supposed to be a Japan enhansed scenario - with better planning.

(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 426
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata - 7/26/2006 11:15:05 PM   
el cid again

 

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

There are some eratta in some scenarios - so I will issue a correction for anyone who wants it. It is called 4.13.

The worst case may be the I - 1 Shotai - a two plane unit of E16A1 for a late war Type AM submarine. This submarine only exists in 2 RHS scenarios - and in others the air group should be 9999ed out. It is not and the group may appear on land: I have not found it myself - it will be anywhere AI wants to put it. The unit should not be used before 10/43.

Some other Glen groups of one plane may appear on land - no problem if they do - in scenarios where attack subs are built in leiu of aircraft carrier subs.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 427
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case) - 7/27/2006 1:21:50 AM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline 		Yes, my point was in Scen 60 (CVO) there were no troops assigned to Wake - iust a transport TF of CLs and DDs



_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 428
RE: RHS EOS 4.12 Errata - 7/27/2006 1:29:27 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Noticed something strange near Vladivostok (which is hex 65,33).

In hex 66,33 - which is a land-locked hex behind the city - there is a static CD unit 100% prepped for Vladivostok.

There are other units in the same hex, all prepping for Vladivostok (but they are mobile and can be adjusted by the player). Below is a list of all the units in hex 66,33.

Slot/Unit

2194 USSR 102nd Regional Fortress - CD
2198 USSR 549th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2197 USSR 199th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2196 USSR 273rd Gun Regiment - ART
2195 USSR 50th Gun Regiment - ART
2190 USSR 59th Rifle Division - INF
2189 USSR 39th Rifle Division - INF


I am not sure if this is an issue or not? The code cannot show a non-location hex directly, so it shows the "nearest" location. Perhaps they cannot plan to defend their hex? This is common for static fortification devices in RHS - we set them to be planned for local defense. It needs to be examined in some detail.
2182 USSR 58th Tank Brigade - ARM




I only confirm this issue for 2194 - the other slots have zero planning. On the other hand, other "fortress" units are the same. For safety I set them to zero - until we understand this setting is OK.


Perhaps you misunderstand my comment - It is the positioning of the CD unit in a landlocked hex that I presume to be an error. The other information I provided for your convenience in looking at the issue.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 429
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata - 7/27/2006 1:33:33 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In RHS EOS 4.12, the two air groups on the CVL Hermes have reverted back to maximum size of '2'. In recent versions thay had been increased to '6' each (capacity of Hermes is 12 a/c).

Slot 2217 - FAA 1 Flt/814 Sqdn
Slot 2218 - FAA 2 Flt/814 Sqdn


Something is wrong with your file copy: None of the 6 scenarios has this issue.



I copied 4.12 (all files, all scenarios) right from your email messages and then started a new game with it. Maybe you are looking at a different file than you sent out?

Just to be clear (in case I wasn't), my message is that (presumably) each of the two squadrons should be max size 6, but are instead max size 2 in EOS v4.12.

I will look at the next version you send out.

EDIT: Okay, I checked and this is fixed in 4.13.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 7/27/2006 2:09:09 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 430
RE: Scenario Screen - 7/27/2006 2:11:57 AM   
witpqs


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

This is just FYI in case it helps you track down any file issue.

Under 4.12, all but one scenario said '4.12' on the scenario screen. The other one said '4.11' (sorry but I forget which one).

Now, under 4.13, all six scenarios say '4.11'.

As I said, this is just FYI in case it helps you.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 431
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case) - 7/27/2006 6:42:49 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

Yes, my point was in Scen 60 (CVO) there were no troops assigned to Wake - iust a transport TF of CLs and DDs





OK - Go to Location File slot 1121 (51 Naval Guard Unit)
and check the planning field: it is for Wake. Also check the load unit field: it is for the Wake Island Invasion Force. In 104 tests, the problem with this is not that it does not go - it is that it does not survive more than a few days: If you don't support this unit, it dies - just as in history!

You can see this unit planning in the game too - in the lower right side of the 51st Naval Guard Unit screen.

(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 432
RE: RHS EOS 4.12 Errata - 7/27/2006 6:45:17 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Noticed something strange near Vladivostok (which is hex 65,33).

In hex 66,33 - which is a land-locked hex behind the city - there is a static CD unit 100% prepped for Vladivostok.

There are other units in the same hex, all prepping for Vladivostok (but they are mobile and can be adjusted by the player). Below is a list of all the units in hex 66,33.

Slot/Unit

2194 USSR 102nd Regional Fortress - CD
2198 USSR 549th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2197 USSR 199th Howitzer Regiment - ART
2196 USSR 273rd Gun Regiment - ART
2195 USSR 50th Gun Regiment - ART
2190 USSR 59th Rifle Division - INF
2189 USSR 39th Rifle Division - INF


I am not sure if this is an issue or not? The code cannot show a non-location hex directly, so it shows the "nearest" location. Perhaps they cannot plan to defend their hex? This is common for static fortification devices in RHS - we set them to be planned for local defense. It needs to be examined in some detail.
2182 USSR 58th Tank Brigade - ARM




I only confirm this issue for 2194 - the other slots have zero planning. On the other hand, other "fortress" units are the same. For safety I set them to zero - until we understand this setting is OK.


Perhaps you misunderstand my comment - It is the positioning of the CD unit in a landlocked hex that I presume to be an error. The other information I provided for your convenience in looking at the issue.



OK - I looked at this a couple of times before. The ENTIRE Soviet border area on BOTH sides has LOTS of static forts classified as "CD" units. Some also have naval guns! They work fine. It is deliberate and it is from stock. We just follow this practice - and added the special 410 cm gun at Houtou Fort for example.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 433
RE: Scenario Screen - 7/27/2006 6:49:42 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

This is just FYI in case it helps you track down any file issue.

Under 4.12, all but one scenario said '4.12' on the scenario screen. The other one said '4.11' (sorry but I forget which one).

Now, under 4.13, all six scenarios say '4.11'.

As I said, this is just FYI in case it helps you.



OK - I sent out 4.13 twice - the second time saying I had failed to update the series 60 files used for distribution (I work in series 30 files).
This indicates the distribution was wrong. I create a separate note in the comment file saying the version number. Also, separately, the gross version number (the last digit may be missing) is in the camxxx.dat file - because I put it in a line of the Scenario Editor naming the scenario.

Since I have found some things wrong with unit planning I will issue a 4.14 before I leave. Just looking for more eratta to include. For example, a single ROC corps has a single squad - of Aussies! [Mercinaries?]

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 434
RE: Scenario Screen - 7/29/2006 3:27:29 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Device 1028 USSR 249th Fighter has as HQ 871 "IJN Kainan SNLF" Should be 128 USSR Far East Command

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 435
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft - 7/29/2006 11:09:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		In latest RHS EOS (4.13), The following Allied carriers are slated to arrive with no aircraft. Is this intended (the a/c arrive on land?) or is it an error?

CVE - USN
Long Island
Nassau
Copahee
Barnes
Breton
Prince William
Alava Bay
Alazon Bay
Natoma Bay
Chapin Bay
Tananek Bay
Takanis Bay
Thetis Bay
Ulitak Bay
Windham Bay
Didrickson Bay
Tonowek Bay
Kasaan Bay
Vermillion Bay
Willipa Bay*
Frosty Bay
Hobart Bay*
Elbour Bay

CVE - UK
Arbiter
Striker
Activity
Ruler
Begum*

CVL - USN
Cabot

CVL - UK
Unicorn

CV - UK
Illustrious*

* The 4 carriers with the asterisk have 1 squadron each (grossly under-populated).

< Message edited by witpqs -- 7/29/2006 11:14:48 PM >

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 436
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft - 7/30/2006 5:09:22 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		AA 3rd Tank Bn and 2nd Tank Bn have a TOE of a Philiphine Infantry Company.

All of the RAAF Australian Base Forces have a TOE of a Coastal Battery...

< Message edited by Bliztk -- 7/30/2006 5:30:05 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 437
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft - 7/31/2006 12:21:42 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

AA 3rd Tank Bn and 2nd Tank Bn have a TOE of a Philiphine Infantry Company.

Didn't know that. Seems wrong! When I get a system working it will change. Down for now. - traveling.

All of the RAAF Australian Base Forces have a TOE of a Coastal Battery...



This is apparently correct - it is strait up CHS at least. We found two errors - important ones - and CHS and RHS changed them at PM and Rabaul.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 438
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft - 7/31/2006 12:22:51 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In latest RHS EOS (4.13), The following Allied carriers are slated to arrive with no aircraft. Is this intended (the a/c arrive on land?) or is it an error?

CVE - USN
Long Island
Nassau
Copahee
Barnes
Breton
Prince William
Alava Bay
Alazon Bay
Natoma Bay
Chapin Bay
Tananek Bay
Takanis Bay
Thetis Bay
Ulitak Bay
Windham Bay
Didrickson Bay
Tonowek Bay
Kasaan Bay
Vermillion Bay
Willipa Bay*
Frosty Bay
Hobart Bay*
Elbour Bay

CVE - UK
Arbiter
Striker
Activity
Ruler
Begum*

CVL - USN
Cabot

CVL - UK
Unicorn

CV - UK
Illustrious*

* The 4 carriers with the asterisk have 1 squadron each (grossly under-populated).



OK - ignoring Illustrious - this is all right. It is a major RHS reform that carriers with no groups are used that way. Illustrious varies with scenario. Back later.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 439
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft - 7/31/2006 1:44:38 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again


OK - ignoring Illustrious - this is all right. It is a major RHS reform that carriers with no groups are used that way. Illustrious varies with scenario. Back later.


Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain what this means (bolded above)? Were these carriers used with a/c transferred in from land arrivals? I thought that carriers without airgroups were used for:

1) ferrying aircraft

2) target practice - by the enemy!

Anyway, there are somthing like 20 USN CVE's (not counting Long island) plus 1 USN CVL without a/c, plus 4 UK CVE and 1 UK CVL, and that seems like more than is needed for ferry duty.

Also, I went in and looked at the db, CVL Cabot's a/c are delay=9999, so that one seems to be an error (Cabot did have an airgroup, yes?).

< Message edited by witpqs -- 7/31/2006 1:45:39 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 440
RE: Carriers Without Aircraft - 7/31/2006 5:37:36 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


OK - ignoring Illustrious - this is all right. It is a major RHS reform that carriers with no groups are used that way. Illustrious varies with scenario. Back later.


Thanks for the reply. Could you please explain what this means (bolded above)? Were these carriers used with a/c transferred in from land arrivals? I thought that carriers without airgroups were used for:

1) ferrying aircraft

2) target practice - by the enemy!

REPLY: I think you misunderstand the UK CVL case: she is not technically a CVL - she is a bit like Shinano - a repair ship! She repairs planes!

Otherwise, you have it pretty close: they were ferry planes. And it is not enough - never mind too much. IF you operate like the Allies did, these are very useful ships.

And you do NOT have to leave them without air groups either. I transfer planes to carriers all the time.

Wether it is the right amount or not - it is taken from Aircraft Carriers of the World - it is what they did. END of REPLY

Anyway, there are somthing like 20 USN CVE's (not counting Long island) plus 1 USN CVL without a/c, plus 4 UK CVE and 1 UK CVL, and that seems like more than is needed for ferry duty.

Also, I went in and looked at the db, CVL Cabot's a/c are delay=9999, so that one seems to be an error (Cabot did have an airgroup, yes?).


Actually, I think the Cabot is an error - she is in the game twice. It depends on the scenario. In a CVO type scenario she is present with planes. In a BBO type scenario she is present under a different name as a CL. And in EOS she should be present with planes - maybe I un-9999ed the ship but failed to un-9999 the planes? When I get a machine working for WITP (tomorrow???) I will look at that.

RHSBBO (and RPO which is similar with passive Russian) assume different shipbuilding decisions - and so 3 CVLs appear as CLs (and a Japanese CVL appears as a CA). EOS is supposed to be like CVO for the Allies.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/31/2006 5:39:25 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 441
RE: Coronado - 8/1/2006 3:11:34 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I've noticed that the PBY Coronado has reverted back to short range (6/8). A few releases ago you had updated it to be somewhat longer ranged than the Catalina.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 8/1/2006 3:12:08 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 442
RE: Carriers Cabot - 8/1/2006 3:13:32 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		In EOS it seems that there are two Cabots defined as carriers, one a CVL, one a CV. No idea which one is supposed to be there (or both?). I do not know about a CL Cabot, but I will look.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 443
RE: Carriers Cabot - 8/1/2006 3:17:39 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The Essex-class carrier Lexington was laid down as Cabot, being subsequently renamed Lexington.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 444
RE: Carriers Cabot - 8/2/2006 10:43:25 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		USS Cabot was originally a CL - all these CVLs were converted cruisers.
It did not have that name, and RHS uses the historical name for the cruiser - which I cannot look up where I am. [EDIT USS Wilmington]

I need to check the concept of two USS Cabots out - or even three (in the form of a different named CL) -

before I release 4.14 - which has now repaired most of the issues noted (which were valid) - including most of the Chinese army planning points and the formations of two Australian tank battalions. Thanks for pointing this out.

OK - RHSBBO, RHSRPO and RHSPPO were right: no CVL - no air squadrons for it. RHSCVO, RHSRAO and RHSEOS were wrong - yes CVL but still no air groups - will be fixed in 4.14 - which will release as soon as I fix all the Chinese units planning fields. Looks like ALL scenarios have the CV Cabot - which must be a rename of an Essex - it should have some other name.

EDIT: USS Cabot was originally CV-28 - later redesignated CVL-28 - there was apparently not an Essex type USS Cabot - but RHS uses ORIGINAL names for Essex - and it may be one of these was Cabot? I am not sure why I have a CV and a CVL - running it down.

OK - USS Lexington (the second) was originally USS Cabot (the first)!!!
RHS uses original Essex names - so we have a problem in three scenarios. No problem in BBO, RAO or PPO - there is no CVL Cabot!
But in CVO, EOS and RPO we need a different name - so we will use USS Wilmington! Thanks .

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/2/2006 11:05:31 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 445
RE: Carriers Cabot - 8/2/2006 11:47:10 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Essex-class carrier Lexington was laid down as Cabot, being subsequently renamed Lexington.


Correct. Note that in RHS all the Essex class CV are given their ORIGINAL names - so we will retain this convention here. This does cause a conflict in the case of CABOT - so the CVL - in the 3 scenarios that use it - will from now on call her by her original name - Wilmington.

Players complained about not getting all the Essex carriers in CHS and stock. And if we don't use the respawn rule, we cannot know what ships are sunk - risking duplicated names. So we use the original names - and you don't have a problem - except you may not know which ship is intended in history without looking it up.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 446
RE: Coronado - 8/2/2006 11:48:47 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I've noticed that the PBY Coronado has reverted back to short range (6/8). A few releases ago you had updated it to be somewhat longer ranged than the Catalina.


I fixed this as you say - and it somehow got lost. I will fix it again. This also involves increasing the weapons load of Coronado. It is a virtual heavy bomber - of the flying boat variety - a sort of American Emily. A fine plane - if you let her have her true range - which is 2310 miles.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 447
RHS 4.14 [Eratta; Chinese Army planning] - 8/2/2006 11:04:08 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am uploading (only to a very few) the 4.14 - since I do not have my regular list (not being home).

This includes various eratta I found or which were reported - and a total revision of Chinese (ROC and PLA) planning - which was very wrong. That was painful - too many slots for fun.

The USS Cabot CVL - in the 3 scenarios in which it appears - is called USS Wilmington. This because in those same scenarios there is a USS Cabot of Essex class - we use ORIGINAL names - and an Essex was so named. Also, the USS Cabot air group will appear with the ship (where appropriate - when the ship does). The other 3 scenarios have USS Wilmington in her CL form.

Australian Army tank units (2nd and 3rd) now point at the right formation and will get their tanks. 1st is reorganized - it won't lose its original tanks when it gets the standard ones. These units are very weak and build up to their correct values (too fast - but it is the best we can do).

The Coronado has (for the second time) had its range extended - not sure how it lost it ? It is a fine plane.

Other minor eratta - particularly of the supply sort - and a few command assignments - corrected.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 448
RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata - 8/3/2006 2:12:22 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.14 posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 449
RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to te... - 8/6/2006 1:24:03 AM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
Just a couple of small things I've seen for RHSCVO/RHSBBO
Ship slot 4226 is coming up as a Ognyevoi DD, the slot is the header for the PG’s.  (it arrives in Tokyo).
Locations Slot 2839 for the US Army 111th base force has IS-III Heavy Tanks in slot 3 (should be device 403 not 503). 
(I personally think this is a great upgrade but all my other base forces are fighting over them)
      The bit map for the Alaska class BC is set to 205 which is the Omaha class CL picture. The Omaha class uses bit map 204, which is correct.
  
Thanks for all the hard work you have put into this mod, I'm really enjoying it.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 4.12 EOS Errata Page: <<   < prev  12 13 14 [15] 16   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

1.095