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 5.10 release

 
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 5.10 release Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 12:01:45 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS 5.10 is in the upload process

It has revised plane maneuverabilty as posted on the maneuverability thread.

It has about 2 dozen more supply sinks separated from units - mainly commands -
and weakened. Many commands are now mobile.

It has a lot of eratta and revised fields for technical reasons.

Some Japanese bombers and flying boats lost their dual torpedos in favor of bombs -
because the code will not use more than one torpedo. And I found IJ specification
information indicating we had the wrong load for G8N and probably Ki-91.

I am turning this over for another session of debugging for some days -
and I am going to focus on human testing - and issuing the pwhex for the new entry
path. 6.00 may be 5.10 with the new pwhex and appropriate revisions to reinforcements.
The Allies get some of their SLOC ships back. We hope that by next week a 6.x version
will be out with the new entry system and (impossible though it may be) perfect files in
the sense of no eratta. We think this version of 5.10 is cleaner than any version of anything
EXCEPT with respect to leaders - who remain an issue. 6.x will clear that up. A heroic
effort to clean leaders for 5.10 failed - but we understand the problem now.

Note that we do things that generate error reports which are not errors - including creating some
generic leaders (generic allied, generic axis and generic axis engineer are associated with supply
sinks and some construction battalions). We also get leader errors when we say a Mongol Cavalry
unit is Chinese - but give it an IJA commander - and put it in a Japanese slot. It is not an error - it
is deliberate - but the error software won't understand this sort of thing. And so on. What we need
to resolve is mainly duplicate leaders - and also bad date leaders. The first is actually a problem when
a unit is destroyed: the other units then lose their leader and it is not replaced properly.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/11/2006 12:11:45 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 211
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 3:25:18 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We also get leader errors when we say a Mongol Cavalry
unit is Chinese - but give it an IJA commander - and put it in a Japanese slot.


Does the code treat this as desired?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 212
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 3:39:19 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Well the code applies a negative combat modifier to Chinese troops so this is a means of ensuring these units have really negligible combat potentials. So, insofar as this is what Sid wanted to achieve, yeah, it works as desired.

Whether or not I agree that this choice is valid, especially when American,british etc engineer units don't get treated in the same way ( they get labelled as American, Indian, british etc and thus get superior combat modifiers), is another question entirely.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 213
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 10:36:27 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		What I mean is that the unit is said to be Chinese but put in a Japanese slot. Which side is the unit intended to be on - Allied or Japanese? Does the code treat it as desired by the modder in all ways (without some undesirable side-effect)?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 214
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 12:18:10 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We also get leader errors when we say a Mongol Cavalry
unit is Chinese - but give it an IJA commander - and put it in a Japanese slot.


Does the code treat this as desired?



Well - no. The effects are substantially as desired - and the undesired side effects are a compromise. [Modding is, above all, almost art in its requirement for a fine sense of compromise - a point on which Andrew and I have commented many times]. The bad effects include that casualties are probably reported as Allied in this case. Now that may or may not be wrong - since they really are NOT Japanese casualties. But it isn't exactly right in the sense we would keep score that way. Of course, casualties are a bit wierd to begin with: the "weight" of a unit is used as its "manpower"! I just noted - in an AI vs AI run - a battle on Bataan on May 10, 1942 - in which the Allies are stated to have 78,000 men and change: remarkably close to the 80,000 men that were there at that time - and the first time I have seen such uninflated manpower numbers (in this case, the sum of 38 land units). [I am used to reports of 230,000 men at Port Moresby - on one side or the other - so this is a pleasant change for me]. When we discovered that "nation" does not mean 'nation" or even "service" - and that side is a function of slot rather than of this assignment - we realized we could play with the values assigned these nationalities for combat purposes. Thus, many of the really big supply sinks are Chinese, and others are Indian or Filipino -
and similarly for colonial/allied troops on both sides (where there was no secondary nationality we substituted the closese of the ones available) - and presumably we get weaker units (at any given size and equipment level) because we did. It will take human testing to be sure.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 215
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 12:31:08 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well the code applies a negative combat modifier to Chinese troops so this is a means of ensuring these units have really negligible combat potentials. So, insofar as this is what Sid wanted to achieve, yeah, it works as desired.

Whether or not I agree that this choice is valid, especially when American,british etc engineer units don't get treated in the same way ( they get labelled as American, Indian, british etc and thus get superior combat modifiers), is another question entirely.


Actually - Japanese engineer units are usually treated the same way Allied ones are (but see notes below) insofar as they are rated as IJA or IJN. ONLY one formation is treated otherwise: the independent construction engineer battalion. [Note this formation is used by BOTH IJA and JAAF]. These units were almost worthless as combat units IRL - and they were often the ONLY IJA units to surrender in the battles for Pacific islands. They were NOT ethnic Japanese - but mainly Korean - and this is the reason I have classified them as "chinese" - which I do for almost all Manchukuo, Mongolian, Jehol and Korean units. [There is one "Russian" Manchukuo unit - a wierd one really composed 100% of ethnic Russians - including its commander] Technical notes on Japanese engineers:

1) These are the worst units in the game for support. This is based on real organizatoin. They are composed of various combinations of skilled people, pioneers and equipment - in the general order (higher getting better equipment and more skilled ratings):

a) Independent Engineer 'regiments"
b) Road Construction "regiments"
c) Independent Construction battalions [All three are battalions]

Japanese engineers were intended to be supported by other folks - and if you put support heavy units in the same hex they will build a LOT faster.

2) Japanese engineers are poor in motorized support and elements - in the same order as above - relative to the Allies.

3) Japanese engineers are poor in heavy weapons - in the same order as above - but the higher up the list the better they are in combat. The third (c) category construction units are supposed to be almost worthless in combat - but quite worth having for construction - and this is why they are classified as "chinese"

4) There is one real Japanese combat engineer unit in most scenarios - the 7th "Electric" Engineer - to which EOS adds a second - the 27th.
These units have a unique form of remote controlled armor - an actual device - which is similar to the German Goliath. [The Japanese invented this in the early 1930s and probably had more of this sort of thing than any other nation; otherwise they are second to Germany]. Electric refers to radio or wire control systems. This (or in EOS these) units also have some heavy mortars - just a section - because the Japanese believed in these for combat support.

5) Japanese "assault engineer squads" are the only units considered to have flamethrowers. Japanese soldiers did not like these - only educated engineers would use them.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 216
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 12:34:10 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What I mean is that the unit is said to be Chinese but put in a Japanese slot. Which side is the unit intended to be on - Allied or Japanese? Does the code treat it as desired by the modder in all ways (without some undesirable side-effect)?


It appears to work. Similarly, ships can be assigned to any nation - and they appear to work. Only air units are a problem - they must be classified as IJA or IJN to work properly. If they have Allied planes - these work fine in Axis units BUT they appear NEVER to replace. These units may upgrade to Japanese planes which then replace. Since this is done only for Thailand - and since during the war Thailand could not get US aircraft (with one exception) - it isn't a big problem. RTAF DID get 9 B-10s from captured Dutch equipment - but I cannot get the code to let them be Thai - no matter what I try.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 217
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 12:50:19 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		With all you have been able to "remedy" or work-around ,is it possible to give certain air units a "night bonus" for either search or attack? I refer specifically to the "Black Cats", (of which were used by USN and Australia)..?
Yes, I realize you have already burnt your hands and elbows with so many irons in the fire, just offering an idea for the back of your mind..

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 218
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/11/2006 10:27:31 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Don't know yet. But maybe radar helps? It is in RHS in many cases - first of all on the Swordfish. We need to play some human games to find out how it is working?

As for errors, our policy of addressing possible errors - not all "errors" are wrong even if software thinks they are -
is paying off. Some indications are that processing time is going down (by more than half) - and tools are showing much lower error counts (some remain - because tools and I disagree about what is an error). If we get the leader issues whipped there will be very few errors in the RHS data set - except to the extent you disagree with some value given on purpose. I long ignored leaders - except to set a very few to known leaders - but have learned that duplicate leaders are a problem for code when one of the units dies. So we will clean them up - and by the grace of God we have people interested in that - so I don't have to - for once. Even so - at RHS 5.10 level - you probably have fewer actual errors than in any variant of WITP ever issued - if tools can be believed.

Our biggest problem now is seeing about longer range issues. The supply sinks may appear too early for example.
Stuff like that.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/11/2006 10:33:49 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 219
RE: RHS 5.10 release - 10/12/2006 5:59:14 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Since the real "glory days" of the Black Cats were when utilized in the Solomons slot and near shorelines,maybe the bonus could be tied into night port attack or something like that?..Just an idea..

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 220
Comments RHS 5.10 release - 10/12/2006 10:48:22 AM   
witpqs


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

I ran a few turns of EOS 5.10. Two comments:

1) At game start there is a Japanese unit in Hong Kong. Some sort of rapid fire gun unit. Is this intentional?

2) It appears that supply sinks have been substantially weakened - at least if Wake Island is any indication.

In the immediately prior version, the assault on Wake Island had finally become competitive (instead of certain failure), with the Japanese usually winning within several days. In EOS 5.10 the attack is a complete steam roller, with the Japanese winning by odds of between 11 to 1 and 16 to 1 on the very first day.

In fact, to get it back to being a fight, I recommend that the weakness in the USMC unit be removed. Slot 2669, USMC Detachment, 1st Defense Battalion has many weapons, et al that start the game disabled. I believe this was done because the supply sink was too powerful in prior versions. Now that the supply sink is fixed, all items in the unit should be enabled.

To make the defense even more true to life, the USMC fighter unit that begins the game at Wake Island should start with Naval Attack orders (IRL the fighters made many attacks on the assaulting ships).

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 221
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 11:30:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have begun the 6.x pwhex - and am testing it - and it looks good. I expect to release the 6.x pwhex files Thursday.
[Plural because there are two of them: regular and Panama]

I will then do some kind of 6.x scenario set - wether or not the location files are returned to me. I also have figured out a duplicate leader fix for generic leaders. Not sure if other leaders will be addressed - but maybe - need to study some reports and review email. There are also a few eratta - one of which may matter.

I will do a 5.11 release at the same time - for anyone who does not want the new map scheme. For the time being I will do parallel 5.x and 6.x releases - until it is clear everyone has converted to using the new maps.

I may put in a new plane - if it has achieved favorable comment. It will use G4M2m22 art - so that isn't an issue.

But the radical news is I have figured out how to do Madagascar - and if Cobra likes it - we may do this immediately. Any delay will be so I can do OBs and pwhex work - Cobra is so fast he can put his art on the 6.x map virtually instantaneously - once I tell him how/where.

This DOES raise political/mechanical issues.

South Atlantic Entry Hex and Port Stanley (Falkland Islands) are meta hexes with zero victory points, and no airfields (and the Allies are not allowed to build airfields on them).

Capetown was to be a meta hex - but I think it should be a real hex in terms of having an airfield - and I think I will also put in Durban (for shorter ranged aircraft hopping to Madagascar). Japan will be allowed to enter the Indian Ocean Entry hex to go to Madagascar - but not the South Madagascar Exit hex towards Africa. Capetown is semi-meta - no VP - no need to defend because attack forbidden - but it CAN send planes to Madagascar. Same for Durban.
BUT Madagascar is just like regular stuff - except it is in its own box. A big one. Ships may leave Madagascar for any point by entering the map edge ship path - and there are two ways onto that path - North and South of Madagascar.
I think we turn Aden - which is losing some of its oil and resources and supplies - those that came from Capetown -
into a semi-meta as well. No need to defend - but ships and planes can enter the map there. This means that planes can board ships at Capetown or Aden - which they cannot do at the South Atlantic Entry hex - which is really a mid ocean point just now.

I also have concieved of a way to redo the Eastern map edge - maybe putting a path to New Orleans from the present South Atlantic Entry Hex - and the proposed Caribbean Entry hex - in which case both hexes would disapper - and ships sail all the way to New Orleans - which will tie by RR to United States (Salt Lake City) for supplies, resources, etc.
Panama will turn on its side (correct anyway) and move a bit South - so space is available to its NW for approach contesting - and multiple convoy routing (to evade submarines and fine efficient routes to different destinations).
This is still being worked out - but it may be we will tie in ALL points of entry via off map paths except Aden. The key new idea is that the Madagascar-Aden route is via the new map edge path. The distance isn't quite right - but I am working on that as well. Just had another idea. This may come up fast.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/12/2006 1:53:46 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 222
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 12:57:22 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Where on the physical map will the new Madagascar Box be located?

Ignore - answered in another thread.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 10/12/2006 1:03:47 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 223
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 1:35:41 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have begun the 6.x pwhex - and am testing it - and it looks good. I expect to release the 6.x pwhex files Thursday.

I will then do some kind of 6.x scenario set - wether or not the location files are returned to me. I also have figured out a duplicate leader fix for generic leaders. Not sure if other leaders will be addressed - but maybe - need to study some reports and review email. There are also a few eratta - one of which may matter.

I will do a 5.11 release at the same time - for anyone who does not want the new map scheme. For the time being I will do parallel 5.x and 6.x releases - until it is clear everyone has converted to using the new maps.

I may put in a new plane - if it has achieved favorable comment. It will use G4M2m22 art - so that isn't an issue.

But the radical news is I have figured out how to do Madagascar - and if Cobra likes it - we may do this immediately. Any delay will be so I can do OBs and pwhex work - Cobra is so fast he can put his art on the 6.x map virtually instantaneously - once I tell him how/where.

This DOES raise political/mechanical issues.

South Atlantic Entry Hex and Port Stanley (Falkland Islands) are meta hexes with zero victory points, and no airfields (and the Allies are not allowed to build airfields on them).

Capetown was to be a meta hex - but I think it should be a real hex in terms of having an airfield - and I think I will also put in Durban (for shorter ranged aircraft hopping to Madagascar). Japan will be allowed to enter the Indian Ocean Entry hex to go to Madagascar - but not the South Madagascar Exit hex towards Africa. Capetown is semi-meta - no VP - no need to defend because attack forbidden - but it CAN send planes to Madagascar. Same for Durban.
BUT Madagascar is just like regular stuff - except it is in its own box. A big one. Ships may leave Madagascar for any point by entering the map edge ship path - and there are two ways onto that path - North and South of Madagascar.
I think we turn Aden - which is losing some of its oil and resources and supplies - those that came from Capetown -
into a semi-meta as well. No need to defend - but ships and planes can enter the map there. This means that planes can board ships at Capetown or Aden - which they cannot do at the South Atlantic Entry hex - which is really a mid ocean point just now.

I also have concieved of a way to redo the Eastern map edge - maybe putting a path to New Orleans from the present South Atlantic Entry Hex - and the proposed Caribbean Entry hex - in which case both hexes would disapper - and ships sail all the way to New Orleans - which will tie by RR to United States (Salt Lake City) for supplies, resources, etc.
Panama will turn on its side (correct anyway) and move a bit South - so space is available to its NW for approach contesting - and multiple convoy routing (to evade submarines and fine efficient routes to different destinations).
This is still being worked out - but it may be we will tie in ALL points of entry via off map paths except Aden. The key new idea is that the Madagascar-Aden route is via the new map edge path. The distance isn't quite right - but I am working on that as well. Just had another idea. This may come up fast.


Will any of these new entry points be usable as points of origin for auto-convoys?
Seems logical if Aden is to lose some of the supplies to Capetown, and the angle of entry (on the map) might finally resolve some of the issues regarding auto convoy sailing thru enemy ZOC's enroute to the "far reaches".
Hitherto, it has been necessary to create waypoints, and for me, this has been "do-able", but possibly no longer necessary?


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 224
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 1:56:36 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I do not know. Nor can we know this until we try it. But - well - maybe.

Certainly since the version six South Atlantic Entry hex is the original Bombay Slot-
and since the version seven New Orleans hex is the same thing
it is a British exit point as well as a reinforcement entry point.

Auto convoys seem to route to points where supplies etc are available -
and I note they go up the Yangze to Wuhan - to Panama - to Aden - all points not in stock.
I am 99% sure they will go to the South Atlantic Entry Hex and to New Orleans in appropriate versions.
Since the entry and exit hexes are at different points than present - it MAY help some routing issues.
But maybe it will also have some entirely new ones!

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 225
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 2:02:03 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		m10bob,

CS convoys (the computer controlled supply TF's that sail point to point continuously delivering supplies or fuel) are probably a better option for this than the auto-convoy system.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 226
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 2:03:17 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I do not know. Nor can we know this until we try it. But - well - maybe.

Certainly since the version six South Atlantic Entry hex is the original Bombay Slot-
and since the version seven New Orleans hex is the same thing
it is a British exit point as well as a reinforcement entry point.

Auto convoys seem to route to points where supplies etc are available -
and I note they go up the Yangze to Wuhan - to Panama - to Aden - all points not in stock.
I am 99% sure they will go to the South Atlantic Entry Hex and to New Orleans in appropriate versions.
Since the entry and exit hexes are at different points than present - it MAY help some routing issues.
But maybe it will also have some entirely new ones!

Would not putting Pearl Harbor on the auto-convoy system kill the need for some ships to use PH as a refuel point??(Auto convoys from Aden/Bombay wanting to refuel in PH enroute to the DEI is a classic...)


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 227
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 2:05:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Tell me about this: how can one put a port on the auto convoy system as a refueling point - or remove it?

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 228
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 2:07:05 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

m10bob,

CS convoys (the computer controlled supply TF's that sail point to point continuously delivering supplies or fuel) are probably a better option for this than the auto-convoy system.


This is precisely what I had been trying to do but I thought it was broken, and found small interest for "fixing"..I had gotten used to the "waypoints" and making points of destination new "home bases" to accomplish what Sid's new points of entry might finally allow.(Avoiding those nasty Japanese bombers!).


< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/12/2006 2:09:06 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 229
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 2:13:17 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		CS convoys work fine. Auto-convoy got broken in one release, fixed in the next. It turns out that auto-convoy is intertwined with things it shouldn't be. If as the allies you capture Truk, do not disband any AK's or TK's there or you lose control of them! When they fixed that problem auto-convoy broke, so they reversed the fix next time around. Auto-convoy is still fickle, so I avoid it.

I only used to use auto convoy for small bases behind the lines, and where a direct course went nowhere near the enemy. I now use either CS or manually routed convoys (with fake 'waypoints' like you are saying).

Inside a trackway like Sid is describing, CS convoys should work like a charm. We'll see!

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 230
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/12/2006 2:29:29 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tell me about this: how can one put a port on the auto convoy system as a refueling point - or remove it?



Before right now, I had been under the impression auto convoys were wanting to refuel at Pearl (regardless of homebase, because of a hardcode issue making Pearl the "gas station of choice", but after reading this:"Auto convoys seem to route to points where supplies etc are available "(quote), I thought in your vast explorations you had figured something out which had eluded me.(BTW, you have, on several previous points, so you can forgive my ignorance with computer programs, routines, etc.)..

My "forte" is history, OOB's, older aircraft, and railroads of "Fallen Flags"..
In these threads, I AM the proverbial kid "in the toy store"..
I have earned this right, and have paid my dues.


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 231
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/13/2006 12:08:09 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Just to be clear, auto-convoys are only simple point to point convoys just like all others. They start at SF or K/A, and go directly to the base which needs supplies/fuel and has the auto-convoy option turned on. No refuel points, no waypoints, etc.

CS convoys are similar, except they go from any friendly base to any friendly base, you create them, and they continue to sail until the last ship sinks from rust or you stop them.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 232
RE: RHS 6.00 release - 10/13/2006 12:15:01 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Just to be clear, auto-convoys are only simple point to point convoys just like all others. They start at SF or K/A, and go directly to the base which needs supplies/fuel and has the auto-convoy option turned on. No refuel points, no waypoints, etc.

CS convoys are similar, except they go from any friendly base to any friendly base, you create them, and they continue to sail until the last ship sinks from rust or you stop them.


Truthfully, if I ever knew the difference, I had forgotten!..Thank you compadre!


_____________________________




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 233
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 12:32:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I will release a slightly updated RHS 5.11 - with some eratta and with supply sinks redefined so NONE is Chinese - Chinese regenerate - probably today. I will release a RHS pwhex set for map art 6.x today. I will release a RHS 6.11 set almost the same as 5.11 - but meant for use with the 6 maps (the Allies get their SLOC ships back) - probably tomorrow.

Some files are being worked on for various issues at other sites. When this process is ended, I will release updates as 5.12/6.12. For the time being we will support both version 5 and 6 maps.

We have a version 7 map project - adding Madagascar - and changing the OB - which may come up very fast - Tuesday is my present guess. Will report. At this point we probably will stop updating versions 5 and 6 - but may keep them posted for a while.

Longer term - but nearer than hoped just two days ago - we have a version 8 project - messing with the Eastern map edge - integrating Panama and the Atlantic Entry Hex so both communicate with New Orleans (US Gulf Coast) - itself connected to United States by rail. New Orleans will then be the alternate British entry/exit hex, and a major ship repair point - representin US East Coast, UK and US Gulf Coast assets. Allied units may move off map between ANY entry point - only Aden cannot be approached by Suez - but even Aden can be approached by the Cape of Good Hope route. This now appears feasible and only an exercise in data entry. If this works we won't support earlier versions. But for the present work is unreleased and won't be released until it works properly.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/13/2006 12:35:17 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 234
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 2:38:22 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		BTW 5.1 error.

Location database. Slot 1201. Location is 43,42. Should be changed to 43,41.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 235
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 2:45:33 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Other problems.

Making various units Chinese means that they end up ONLY being able to choose from chinese leaders. End result, many of my Japanese supply sinks are being led by Chinese officers AND the Japanese player now has the ability to assign Chinese leaders to his units, robbing the Allied player of the ability to use the best Chinese leaders for his own troops.


Seriously Sid, as I've said to you before, this work-around is elegant BUT it is going to raise a whole HOST of problems. Even fixing it by making them Dutch or Phillipino will mean you are going to have Dutch or Phillipino officers commanding Japanese fort/supply sinks and you can't make them Japanese or you will have them respawn...

< Message edited by Nemo121 -- 10/13/2006 2:51:48 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 236
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 2:48:22 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Also, can you explain why slot 1019, the Tokyo Bay fortress has some 7,000 support troops when no resources are even produced in Tokyo....

We've gone from supply sinks at resource centres to supply sinks where there are no resources at all. What's up with that?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 237
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 5:18:55 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

BTW 5.1 error.

Location database. Slot 1201. Location is 43,42. Should be changed to 43,41.





Got it - but please list the names - so you are communcating. This is a small rapid fire unit
at Hong Kong which should be at Canton.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 238
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 5:20:53 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Other problems.

Making various units Chinese means that they end up ONLY being able to choose from chinese leaders. End result, many of my Japanese supply sinks are being led by Chinese officers

Not so. ALL Japanese supply sinks are led by IJA or IJN officers. In fact - at the moment - by the SAME officer!
I will presently change that. And it is forbidden to change the leader of a supply sink - or a player could defeat our mechanisms which make them reasonable in a fight. And you know both these things.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 239
RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release - 10/13/2006 5:22:31 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Other problems.



Seriously Sid, as I've said to you before, this work-around is elegant BUT it is going to raise a whole HOST of problems. Even fixing it by making them Dutch or Phillipino will mean you are going to have Dutch or Phillipino officers commanding Japanese fort/supply sinks and you can't make them Japanese or you will have them respawn...



No - it means they will STILL have the SAME "Generic Axis Officer" - except now it will be "Generic Axis Officer No 3" or maybe even a named officer with generic values. And again - you already know that. Short term memory problems?

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5.10 release Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

1.859