Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Respawning of Carriers in RHS: Cured

 
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 >> Respawning of Carriers in RHS: Cured Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Respawning of Carriers in RHS: Cured - 9/25/2006 4:35:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		::In my 4.46 medium term game, USN lost 6 (of apparently 6) big carriers in 1942 - to only
Junyo for IJN - in an AI vs AI game.

ALL SIX are back in the game - that is - are on the list of ships under construction.
Theoretically this isn't supposed to happen if you fill up the slots used by AI for ships.
Maybe it does not use a slot? That is, maybe it just changes the date of the OLD slot - and
copies Essex data into it?

In a human game I would not use such a replacement ship. But if AI is playing - it will use them.
Of course - you are not supposed to use AI as Allies anyway - it not being bright enough to manage them
well.

Still - I am surprised to see them. Since RHS has ALL the carriers in it - the only way to get more is to transfer one from the Atlantic. I suppose we might change the name of a new ship on Atlantic side and send her over - just to irritate the enemy - but really - free replacements? I don't really like it - and if I can understand it - I will prevent it.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/28/2006 6:34:59 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/25/2006 5:34:40 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In my 4.46 medium term game, USN lost 6 (of apparently 6) big carriers in 1942 - to only
Junyo for IJN - in an AI vs AI game.

ALL SIX are back in the game - that is - are on the list of ships under construction.
Theoretically this isn't supposed to happen if you fill up the slots used by AI for ships.
Maybe it does not use a slot? That is, maybe it just changes the date of the OLD slot - and
copies Essex data into it?

In a human game I would not use such a replacement ship. But if AI is playing - it will use them.
Of course - you are not supposed to use AI as Allies anyway - it not being bright enough to manage them
well.

Still - I am surprised to see them. Since RHS has ALL the carriers in it - the only way to get more is to transfer one from the Atlantic. I suppose we might change the name of a new ship on Atlantic side and send her over - just to irritate the enemy - but really - free replacements? I don't really like it - and if I can understand it - I will prevent it.



This is exactly why I did not bother to fill up all the slots to "prevent respawning". There are just way too many undocumented elements within the editor to even bother with. Complete waste of time and bloody frustrating.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/25/2006 9:28:47 PM   
barnacle bob

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 10/24/2003
From: Southaven, Ms
Status: offline 		What about in the "class section" moving the Essex to a differant slot and leave the old Essex slot empty. If a CV respawns it should respawn as nothing.

In a mod I made for myself I moved the Essex and replaced it with the Midway. The lost CVs will respawn as Midway class CVs in late 1946 (I accelrated the arrival date and my mod goes well into 47).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/25/2006 10:51:08 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I suppose we might change the name of a new ship on Atlantic side and send her over



Although intended for the Pacific to begin with, the USS Gambier Bay (sunk at Samar) was commissioned USS Midway. The superstitiously-unlucky name change was made when the powers that were decided the name Midway warranted a more substantial bearer.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 4
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:17:22 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: barnacle bob

What about in the "class section" moving the Essex to a differant slot and leave the old Essex slot empty. If a CV respawns it should respawn as nothing.

In a mod I made for myself I moved the Essex and replaced it with the Midway. The lost CVs will respawn as Midway class CVs in late 1946 (I accelrated the arrival date and my mod goes well into 47).



I like it. Will see. It probably also messes up the resize routine too. That depends on Essex being in its slot. I like this a lot. [I hate resizing - and am glad we learned how to avoid it - but I want to kill it]


By respawning as Midways - you get these ships years sooner than history - and you get up to six of them (only five were even planned). This you do on purpose?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/26/2006 12:39:49 AM >

(in reply to barnacle bob)
Post #: 5
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:28:05 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		You just gave me a thought about CVL Hermes - I wonder if slot has to do with it resizing (from 12 planes to 4) on the second or third turn of a scenario? Minor issue - not worth much time and trouble.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:28:32 AM   
barnacle bob

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 10/24/2003
From: Southaven, Ms
Status: offline 		Resizing? Are you talking about air groups?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 7
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:39:22 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		El Cid, Seems that you have screwed with 9999ing some slots. I would check all the spacers which probably are in RHS ship database.

Have you lost any other nominally respawning ships? Minesweepers? Cruisers? Are they respawning?

In my own mod only two ships are now respawning, and no more. One is a CA, and other is actually a Japanese MSW respawning into allied slot. So I know that Japanese slots are filled properly but I was unable to track 2 incorrectly filled allied slots (but frankly I stopped searching for them)

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 8
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:39:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Yep. And nope. Hermes is victim to rezizing because it is a CVL. To avoid it -
don't let it stay at its command base. It will never resize UNLESS it is there.

CV air groups are similar - and so are even the semi-carriers. However, the US ones
cannot resize by WITP standards because they have the wrong names. By starting
a name with USN instead of VF, VT etc - we prevent the routine from understanding what
units to resize to the peculiar US rules. Still - ALL CVs will resize if at the command base -
just not the shift from 4 to 3 squadrons - and later back to 4 different squadrons of USN
CVs. Strange rule.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/26/2006 12:43:33 AM >

(in reply to barnacle bob)
Post #: 9
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:46:56 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

El Cid, Seems that you have screwed with 9999ing some slots. I would check all the spacers which probably are in RHS ship database.

I wonder? Do you mean that a comment should say "9999" in the delay field?

Have you lost any other nominally respawning ships? Minesweepers? Cruisers? Are they respawning?

Not that I see. I am getting landing craft to report early - and PT boats. This was lost in CHS due to slot changes. I moved some into the right slots - and they now appear. I don't like the rule much - but you cannot carry them as cargo so I live with it. Not sure how to know if they respawn? Got to track a sunk one I guess.

In my own mod only two ships are now respawning, and no more. One is a CA, and other is actually a Japanese MSW respawning into allied slot. So I know that Japanese slots are filled properly but I was unable to track 2 incorrectly filled allied slots (but frankly I stopped searching for them)


There are apparently two dead Allied slots. If you put something in them it won't work - so I have them labeled "BAD SLOT" in caps. Maybe those are they?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/26/2006 12:48:24 AM >

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 10
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:47:22 AM   
barnacle bob

 

Posts: 125
Joined: 10/24/2003
From: Southaven, Ms
Status: offline 		Yeah..that one messed me up.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 11
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:56:45 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There is something called

Lost CV Respawn Area in CHS -

and I never took it out in RHS!

This area is NOT present in stock though. I wonder if it matters?
Anyway - the blank slots in the CV area - ten of them - probably are what is being used.

(in reply to barnacle bob)
Post #: 12
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 1:21:25 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Free slot = ship will respawn there.
I don't think that this Lost CV respawn area does matter at all.

1. What slots are those BAD SLOTs? I searched CVO 4.46 and found only one such labelled (4200). What is the second one?
2. Why are those slots bad? What is happenning to ships in those slots?

As I see you didn't corrected all Soviet Navy errors: (based on RHSRAO)
*incorrect names of minesweepers (T-xxx instead of TShch-xxx) and subchasers (B-xxx instead of BO-xxx)
*some of their subs have Dutch instead of French nationality. Is it on purpose (or they should all be French?)
examples slots: 9439 9440 9443
*subs S-52 and S-53 are ready from start of war, while they were not completed yet - should arrive later.
*S class is still called Stalinets.
Are you ever going to fix it?

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 13
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 2:03:08 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Free slot = ship will respawn there.
I don't think that this Lost CV respawn area does matter at all.

1. What slots are those BAD SLOTs? I searched CVO 4.46 and found only one such labelled (4200). What is the second one?

REPLY: The first (4200 probably) is labeled as such in WITPExcel - and I don't know why. I found another one - and should have labeled it as such. The one I found seems to be unable to accept data - that is no matter what you tell it data wise, it has its own impression - and changes it back. Possibly my "BAD SLOT" got changed in this way too! Don't remember the number.

2. Why are those slots bad? What is happenning to ships in those slots?

As I see you didn't corrected all Soviet Navy errors: (based on RHSRAO)
*incorrect names of minesweepers (T-xxx instead of TShch-xxx) and subchasers (B-xxx instead of BO-xxx)

REPLY: We have a problem with length of names at the moment (WITP II may give us a longer reporting window) -
so adding Shch is not a good move just yet. But no reason not to add O to make BO.

*some of their subs have Dutch instead of French nationality. Is it on purpose (or they should all be French?)
examples slots: 9439 9440 9443


REPLY: Naw. That is our wonderful editor doing its thing. A shift in field values - particularly by only one - is pretty common.

*subs S-52 and S-53 are ready from start of war, while they were not completed yet - should arrive later.

REPLY: WHEN do you think they arrive? I think I used Conway.

*S class is still called Stalinets.

Yeah - I know. It is in the standard international reference on Submarines I use that way. Also in USN material.
There is also a US S class - and it might be confusing. But I believe in international relations - so if you like it - I will change it. Maybe to S Class (Soviet)?

Are you ever going to fix it?


(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 14
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 2:54:49 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In my 4.46 medium term game, USN lost 6 (of apparently 6) big carriers in 1942 - to only
Junyo for IJN - in an AI vs AI game.

ALL SIX are back in the game - that is - are on the list of ships under construction.
Theoretically this isn't supposed to happen if you fill up the slots used by AI for ships.
Maybe it does not use a slot? That is, maybe it just changes the date of the OLD slot - and
copies Essex data into it?

In a human game I would not use such a replacement ship. But if AI is playing - it will use them.
Of course - you are not supposed to use AI as Allies anyway - it not being bright enough to manage them
well.

Still - I am surprised to see them. Since RHS has ALL the carriers in it - the only way to get more is to transfer one from the Atlantic. I suppose we might change the name of a new ship on Atlantic side and send her over - just to irritate the enemy - but really - free replacements? I don't really like it - and if I can understand it - I will prevent it.



Sid, would you PM me the Scenario files only which you are talking about? I got a no-respawn to work for me by filling up all the slots.

One possibility: did you fill up EVERY space with 9999? This must include spaces with headers in them for instance if a space has the header "ALLIED CVs" but no delay of 9999 then it WILL become a respawn slot.

EDIT: Also I remember doing a little bit more than simply filling the slot name and delay fields. I think I put in a ship class (I used PT) and I also put a "nationality" (I used US Navy for the Allies)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 9/26/2006 3:05:34 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 3:50:35 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		When I look at this you did not changed any of the errors I was pointing before... :( Seems that many of them are waiting since 2.X version.

S-52 - commisioned 430609
S-53 - commisioned 430130

Old ones:

1. Class 1585 (Leninet):
a) Name should be changed to Leninets (as last cyryllic sign in their name is in English transcribed as ts), or even better "L (proj. XI/XIII)"
b) To few torpedo tubes, ships of "L class proj. II" had 6 torpedo tubes, proj. XI and XIII had 8 torpedo tubes (6xF 2xR). There is no need for averaging them as all Far East ships were of 2 latter subclasses.
c) They were capable of carrying 20 mines, not 28 as in RHS. -
d) Are you sure that they should have better manuv. than S-class? These were large and not so new minelayers...

2. Class 1588 (Stalinets):
a) Name should be changed to Srednaya, or even better "S (proj. IX-bis)". Since later names of types were no longer named after ships but after its size (Srednaya means medium) and name Stalinets was already used by ship of another class (L2), thus it was NOT POSSIBLE to name this class Stalinetz.
b) Wrong number of torpedo tubes. Should have only 6 (4xF 2xR).

3. Ship 3893 Raztoropny:
a) Should be named Rastoropny - this is most common version of its name in English.

4. Ship 3813 Baku:
She was on Far East from commisioning (401211) until leaving to North fleet in late 1942. Its arriving date (420915) in not correct. She was leaving theater on late 1942, not arriving - change its start date to 411206

5. Ship 3418 Tibilsi:
Incorrectly named as Tibilsi, should be Tbilisi

6. Ship 4106 Revnostny:
Commissioning date: 411214

7. Ship 4115 Razyaryonnyi:
a) Should be named Razyaryonny (to keep consistent with style in which other ships names are transcribed into English)
b) Commissioning date: 411214

8. Ship 4320 Razyaryonny:
Ship doubled with 4115

9. Ship 4227 Vnushitelnyi:
a) delete it, it was commisioned 471229. (I know you wont do this )
b) at least name her Vnushitelny to keep her name consistent with others.

10. Ship 3586 Radyashtchi:
Should be Razyashchy.

PS. Could you tell me why name TShch-271 is too long? There are longer names in game...

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 3:51:30 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is something called

Lost CV Respawn Area in CHS -

and I never took it out in RHS!

This area is NOT present in stock though. I wonder if it matters?
Anyway - the blank slots in the CV area - ten of them - probably are what is being used.


Woops, just saw this post. YES! EVERY SLOT MUST BE FILLED IN A NON-RESPAWN, NO EXCEPTIONS.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:30:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Monter: I probably forgot.

ALL the changes - except the dates for the S52 and S53 - are ALREADY done - except the names of the PT boats - which are not going to work at this time.

I will do the two dates now.

I also found a number of other Soviet issues - and then someone put me on to a minelaying problem with a sub class - and I found it also present on the DLs and a class of DDs - all already fixed.

I am collecting stuff like this for a micro update which will be called 4.48 - which I will release tomorrow before going to work. I am going to issue my standard starting turn at this level.

Today I did a pwhex update - aside from technical changes - I am trying to help the pathfinding program.

Maybe some of these changes got lost? I remember doing some of them. Sometimes older files get in place of revised ones - for reasons I don't always grasp. So I have to fix it again - drat.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/26/2006 12:40:39 PM >

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 18
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 12:32:21 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is something called

Lost CV Respawn Area in CHS -

and I never took it out in RHS!

This area is NOT present in stock though. I wonder if it matters?
Anyway - the blank slots in the CV area - ten of them - probably are what is being used.


Woops, just saw this post. YES! EVERY SLOT MUST BE FILLED IN A NON-RESPAWN, NO EXCEPTIONS.



And I was going to do that - but I did not. I forgot I had concluded I LIKE respawn for small vessels.
I still want to kill it for CVs - and I am running a test now to see if I have killed it in fact? If so - it goes into 4.48.
The problem is I give the Allies ALL the Essex carriers - wether or not they lose any - and so I don't want more showing up - and way too soon at that. I am hopeful the idea of moving the Essex class will work.


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 19
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 10:29:58 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		I remember some time ago you lost your newest files and you had to recreate them from earlier version. Maybe you forgot to recreate those Soviet Navy changes.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 20
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/26/2006 10:37:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I found some of the things on your list were done. The duplicated ship was missing, for example. I have done those not found again - or for the first time - whichever applies.

On carrier respawn - I cannot tell if it is fixed? NO Allied carriers were lost in my test to find out!

So I also adopted a suggetion to move the six offending carriers - between that and moving Essex I am pretty sure it won't be an issue. Hopefully sooner or later someone will sink an Allied carrier - then we will know.

RHSCVO is a lot more historically correct - and Japan does not do nearly as well - as in RHSEOS - which was the point of EOS. But the lack of a clear edge - in this case I suspect the carrier recon planes (Kates with no bombs but more gas - called C3N1) - makes it less likely to sink Allied carriers - much less likely than one might expect. Apparently the Japanese - who went on to perfect the concept with the D4Y1-C and the C6N1 - should have mass produced the progenator - the C3N1.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/26/2006 10:39:56 PM >

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 21
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 1:11:44 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Respawn definitely still happens.

In my testbed AI vs AI game Hornet was sunk on 21st May 42 and it looks like it showed up in the replacement queue due for arrival 480 days after being sunk. So, respawning is definitely in.


Interestingly in this game the Japanese are still stuck in Malaysia ( only took Kuala Lumpur on the 20th May 42 after a 6 month siege) and the Phillipines ( Bataan and Manilla). In addition they have been unable to take a single DEI supply sink...

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 5:03:56 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Okay - how did you fix the Soviet minelaying subs? I couldn't find how to make them work.

Nevermind - I found your message in the other thread.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/27/2006 5:08:52 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 23
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 12:18:20 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Respawn definitely still happens.

In my testbed AI vs AI game Hornet was sunk on 21st May 42 and it looks like it showed up in the replacement queue due for arrival 480 days after being sunk. So, respawning is definitely in.

I doubt it. I just uploaded 4.48 with the fixes in it. Since I could not confirm the first worked - I have not been able to sink a US carrier! -
I put in a second one. EITHER ONE should do the job. I am pretty confidend both must have done. I will keep running my 4.48 test until we know.



(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 24
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 12:20:38 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Interestingly in this game the Japanese are still stuck in Malaysia ( only took Kuala Lumpur on the 20th May 42 after a 6 month siege) and the Phillipines ( Bataan and Manilla). In addition they have been unable to take a single DEI supply sink...



In my 4.48 test game - using CVO - which is dramatically weaker than EOS - Japan was able to take Batavia and Soerabaja pretty easily. It is on its way to attack the ones on Sumatra overland - having invaded from the South and is using the rail lines to go north - with supplies - never saw that before! Malaya has fallen - but Manila and Bataan still hold out. Manila is invested though - and so it will go first.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 25
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 12:22:28 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Okay - how did you fix the Soviet minelaying subs? I couldn't find how to make them work.

Nevermind - I found your message in the other thread.


The subs - and the Lenningrad class DLs - and one of the destroyer classes - all had nothing in the "turret" field. It is just like guns - if you have two mine racks - you need a "turret" value of 2 - to lay two at once. If you fail to do that, the code gets all messed up - as you saw - at reload time.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 26
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 7:53:23 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well as of January 1943 the DEI in my game is still not fully cleared. The north and south are still holding out although Palembang, batavia etc have finally fallen,.


Interestingly the AI was dumb enough to leave FOUR British CVs and 2 BBs in Tjilitjap when it fell to ground assault and so all were scuttled

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 27
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 8:01:40 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Interestingly the AI was dumb enough to leave FOUR British CVs and 2 BBs in Tjilitjap when it fell to ground assault and so all were scuttled


Proving once again that "AI" stands for "Animated Idiocy". Though to be fair, CID did say that the AI was hopeless at playing the Allies...

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 28
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 8:42:54 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Aye, AI stupidity says little about RHS EOS itself... One thing I've been very gratified to see is poorly escorted Betty Daitai managing to slip a few planes through CV TF CAP and get hits on Allied CVs. Admittedly this is in mid-42 when Allied CAP isn't that great but in stock games these same strikes would return no kills.

There certainly do seem to be a lot more "leakers" in RHS and from stopping the game every 6 months and reviewing outcomes things look to be progressing along quite historical lines.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 29
RE: Respawning of Carriers in RHS - 9/27/2006 10:11:13 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Interestingly the AI was dumb enough to leave FOUR British CVs and 2 BBs in Tjilitjap when it fell to ground assault and so all were scuttled


Proving once again that "AI" stands for "Animated Idiocy". Though to be fair, CID did say that the AI was hopeless at playing the Allies...


Actually - Joe said that - and I just quote him regularly.

But I have repors AI is getting "smarter." And if so this is for cause: I have attempted to "program" it by changing data of various kinds. However, mostly my focus has been on improving Japanese AI for initial ops and for production: since it is my understanding many players like to do Allies vs AI as Japan - and that AI as Allies is not realistic. Still- I never miss a chance to help it if I can.

I just saw AI take Palembang in AI vs AI - by a very sensible method (approach by land, supply the assault force, which was a single division - 2nd - the historical one - this fully 9 months sooner and also in CVO which is not as strong as EOS).

But yes, AI is dumb as a post. In 1943, the Japanese economy is a lot stronger - because FINALLY it has expanded all its ports, airfields, fortifications - and it cannot waste supply points on that any more! It appears to me the switch "set all facilities to expand at start" is only for human players: AI ALWAYS does that.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/27/2006 10:12:04 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Respawning of Carriers in RHS: Cured 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

0.641