Nemo121
Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
|
Well, I would consider myself a big fan of RHS... OTOH liking the mod doesn't preclude one from being able to assess its flaws and comment on them... I particularly reject any of the sort of balderdash which has been presented here in the last few hours which, at the very least, intimates that if one criticises something that one shouldn't play it or that trenchant criticism is incompatible with a reasonable assessment of the mod.
I think the mod is very good BUT if thinking it is good means that one can't criticise what are major flaws with great impact on the combat model then we truly have entered a depressing low. If that's what you guys want though then fine I'll shut my mouth and not comment on it again. I will point out, however, that I was the first person to spot this problem and the only person who seems to have modded RHS into 1944 ( albeit on a small scale) to act as a testbed. But fine, you want to create an atmosphere in which criticism is equivalent to ungratefulness then so be it.
I will say the following before I go though:
1. 1944 and 45 air combats.... Interestingly the tactic of using low-quality planes ( Ki-27s and 43s) to occupy the Allied CAP while bombers sneak past does work. In addition while most planes except the Shinden do very poorly the Shinden does very well against Corsairs. With equal experience the Shinden can match the Corsair even when outnumbered 1.5 to 1.
2. Torpedoes in the Me-264 and other planes which carry bombs and torps at the same time.... Query whether these work. I have run several thousand Me264 sorties and have yet to see a single torpedo launch. In addition when using them as kamikazes they tend not to penetrate armour belts in the same way as kamikaze G4Ms do. I wonder if the torpedo is actually being modelled as being carried even if it shows up as being carried?
3. Taking into account pilot replacement issues it looks like air parity can be maintained into mid-43 and then on a local basis into 44. It will definitely be lost from mid-44 to mid-45 though.
4. Even in 44 and 45 with 300 Corsairs on CAP over a CV TF it is possible to sneak planes into CV TFs.
5. High-altitude kami attacks over the altitude of most CAP is still possible. Fortunately the planes that do this don't tend to do much damage.
6. Rockets in the Stan... Don't seem to be used against naval targets at all. Is this correct? The cannon is deadly to DDs so I would expect the rockets to be used as well. Several thousand sorties of Stans done to test this. Nil rocket firings vs naval targets.
There's more but those are the biggies. Essentially though there can be parity until mid-43 and then local parity until mid-44. From mid-45 local parities will be possible again but only on a defensive basis for Japan.
quote:
I also suspect that even if we have a perfect solution, you are going to be upset that a major economic area is not able to be captured by a squad - a la stock.
Well, that's your erroneous fantasy and says more about you than it does about me ( as do most of our projections about others). The reality is I am happy so long as things perform historically. Now I don't know the Pacific War well compared to other theatres BUT I know that it did not require 5 divisions to take Toboali or 10 to take Kuala Lumpur in the absence of a single allied combat unit ( which is what it took in one of my test games in which ONLY the supply sinks remained in the bases in question).
quote:
Something must be wrong with my composition skills: Major elements should not be interpreted as "tiny units".
Indeed. OTOH a single NLF is quite sufficient to the "siege" task in-game when facing a supply sink since a supply sink's offensive AV is usually almost zero, whilst its defensive AV is usually equivalent to several divisions. Quite a contrast.
quote:
One player at 4.46 level reports better behavior than ever seen before in important respects.
And so do I BUT that doesn't mean I'm going to turn around and blow smoke up your a*s and tell you everything smells wonderful. RHS is a MAJOR improvement over stock but that doesn't mean it is problem-free. Now if you and others involved in making it would prefer not to hear criticism ( which is intended to be constructive) and would, instead, prefer to just have a cheerleading team cheering about how wonderful you are then that's fine I'll cease and desist. If, on the other hand, you are committed to improving RHS even more then you should welcome constructive criticism.
Now I don't have 4.47 so if that solves this problem, brilliant. I DO have 4.46 and I can say conclusively that the problem is far from solved in that iteration. I also think that it bodes ill that you and others are focussing on firepower in your answers when it is clear that adjusted AV is more of a problem than firepower.
Question: When you took out production lines did you add the production you removed in one base to another base??? Otherwise those changes won't be production-neutral.
As re: PT boats... Hmm, I should have probably used the term torpedo boat. The Japs had a range of them in design and production for heading off the Allied fleets. Sure they would only show up in 44 and 45 and they would be slow and poorly armed compared to the Allies but they would be a threat worth honouring and a lot more useful than barges. You don't have to add it... I'm just asking if it is possible. If 4.47 doesn't properly address the supply/resource situation I may make a mini-mod myself and I would appreciate your insight as to whether the torpedo boat/barge thing is possible.
M10bob,
Criticism which reveals problems is valid. If you wish to ban criticism just so you and yours can feel good about what you've done then you're going to end up with an inferior product. Your stance is emotional and not based on what is and isn't, rationally, valid. Thus it is an inferior stance.
Complaining about errors or decisions which have had unintended, unrealistic side-effects ( unless of course you want to argue that historically Kuala Lumpur took 10 divisions to capture because of the resistance of tens of thousands of field hands???) is not ingratitude or invalidated by the fact that those gamers who might make the complaint didn't spend hours helping develop the mod.... I've spent several hundred hours in the past 6 weeks testing aspects of RHS and coming up with conclusions about the model but I suppose that's worth nothing because some of my conclusions are negative and you don't like to hear negative things about RHS??? Absolute balderdash and completely anti-inimical to improvement
And in general to those who seem to want to stifle criticism of aspects of RHS.
Great mod, a really good bit of work with major improvements in aerial combat, naval combat and the general pacing of the advance ( due to the paucity of Japanese transport) but you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to draw a link between criticism and ingratitude.
BTW as an aside. here's a 200 J7W7 escort going in against 300 Corsairs. Absolutely equal experiences.
Japanese aircraft
J7W1/Ki-99 Shinden x 198
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina x 75
Allied aircraft
F4U-4 Corsair x 300
Japanese aircraft losses
J7W1/Ki-99 Shinden: 109 destroyed
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina: 7 destroyed, 19 damaged
Allied aircraft losses
F4U-4 Corsair: 139 destroyed, 7 damaged
It should be noted that almost all of the bombers damaged were damaged during the bombing run... Also, NO torpedo attacks were launched at all.
Any ideas about the torpedo problem in planes with dual loadouts?
< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 9/25/2006 3:20:08 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: RHS 4.47 status report - 
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