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&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED

 
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&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 5&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED - 11/4/2006 4:34:51 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		And they were built in the USA by, of all people, Kaiser!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 361
RE: RHS 5&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED - 11/4/2006 5:46:24 AM   
witpqs


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

Here's the deal with the Victory ships (as of EOS 6.15).

Slot 6738 - Ames Victory - Delay 999 (actually arrives 07-12-41)

Slot 6754 - Ames Victory - Delay 49999 (actually arrives 07-12-41)



There are many, many Victory and other ships with Delay 9999. I presume that is the code for 'do not arrive' and that you have purposely coded those for off-map SLOC use. If not, there are many, many ships to correct the Delay value.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 362
RE: RHS 5&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED - 11/4/2006 6:00:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		When of course the delay should be 9999 = never code. And they might come back in Level 7 - for SLOC work.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 363
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .19 UPLOADED - 11/6/2006 11:09:02 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		In order to distribute a version with a number of eratta fixed

and to get players used to new air groups on USN CVEs (to use as "change" if a CV unit resizes)

and to fold in British and Australian army updates to RHS Commonwealth standards

versions 5 and 6 are released at sub version x.19

I will continue this process for the time being -
and attempt to expand Level 7. Level 7 is being kept in parallel with these changes.
Next: pwhex

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 364
RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date - 11/8/2006 10:38:22 AM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		El Cid,

I am playing RHSCVO Scen 60 with 6.19 update.

Near New Zealand the Flag Icon for Hamilton (NZ) is located in the ocean at hex 50,138 instead of at land hex 62,126.

Is this unique to me?

DavidR

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 365
RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date - 11/8/2006 10:41:41 AM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		El Cid,

Apologies , correct land hex for Hamilton is 62,136.

DavidR

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 366
RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date - 11/9/2006 2:43:52 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: DavidR

El Cid,

I am playing RHSCVO Scen 60 with 6.19 update.

Near New Zealand the Flag Icon for Hamilton (NZ) is located in the ocean at hex 50,138 instead of at land hex 62,126.

Is this unique to me?

DavidR


Nope. It is a record from Level 7 in all Level 6 and Level 5 files! It should not be that way. Hamilton is busted until x.20 release.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/9/2006 2:50:43 PM >

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 367
RE: RHS 5&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED - 11/9/2006 2:56:50 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

Here's the deal with the Victory ships (as of EOS 6.15).

Slot 6738 - Ames Victory - Delay 999 (actually arrives 07-12-41)

Slot 6754 - Ames Victory - Delay 49999 (actually arrives 07-12-41)



There are many, many Victory and other ships with Delay 9999. I presume that is the code for 'do not arrive' and that you have purposely coded those for off-map SLOC use. If not, there are many, many ships to correct the Delay value.



You are correct - this is "never appear" code. 999 is a typo for 9999. So is 49999. However, UNLESS the letters LOC are in the ship name field - your assumption is incorrect. These ships do not appear for one of two reasons (LOC ships excepted):

1) The particular ship never entered PTO;

2) The ship is one of the 50% of ships which haul resources and supplies which are not modeled because of the way the code uses resources relative to oil. [Not enough resources are consumed - so we give you half - and half the ships to move them - and take away the other half that must be there moving the resources that must be moved - but which would not be eaten by industry. We let the half you have model them all.]

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 368
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .20 UPLOADED - 11/11/2006 12:19:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Much of the eratta and suggestions of the past few days are incorporated into 5 and 6 versions 20.

I will work for two days - then attempt to take the next two days to whip out Level 7.

I will do the pwhex files - which are almost done - for 5 and 6 - to get the RR right in Russia/Manchuria/China -
tonight.

There is a good deal of unplanned Russian work - due to feedback - and what it led me to. Additional land and naval units. Fixed naval units.

We may have eliminated duplicated leaders entirely (except where intended for supply sinks). Went through a report on them.

Minor tweeks to air units and aircraft - and a couple of increases in Allied replacement levels. The Ki-45 gained drop tanks in all marks.

PP changed in EOS and PPO - to reflect the generally larger size of divisions. The rationale remains as it was -

Japan initial: 3 divisions
Allied initial: 1 division
Japan daily: 1 division
Allied daily: 2 divisions

A division is approximately 1500 pp. [A really tiny division is less than 1000. And a USMC division is exactly 2000.]

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 369
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .20 UPLOADED - 11/11/2006 12:51:28 AM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline 		"I will work for two days - then attempt to take the next two days to whip out Level 7." Thank you for the update, it is appreciated. Though with my schedule I was hoping a bit sooner.

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 370
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .30 UPLOADED - 11/14/2006 12:55:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		A fairly air oriented update is uploaded.

This affects the pilot training table, the new EOS carriers for USN, the assignment of air groups for
RN carriers that were aviation transports, and changes to Japanese bombers.

The Australian Army had its brigades brought up to RHS standard as well.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 371
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .30 ABORT: .31 PLAN - 11/14/2006 11:12:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Unless you NEVER need to transfer units between commands, do NOT use x.30.

Will figure it out and update at .31 level.

We will then check for eratta, and freeze the scenarios, so I can do Level 7.

ETA Level 7 One week.

Any changes not requested now won't get in.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 372
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .31/32 update - 11/15/2006 12:49:49 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS Level 6 files were uploaded at 6.31 level

A 6.32 aircraft file set was then issued.

The problem with pp is fixed

Some Soviet MS added - and a couple other things folded in.

5.32 set to upload plus 9 hours.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 373
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .30 ABORT: .31 PLAN - 11/15/2006 4:39:17 AM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline 		"We will then check for eratta, and freeze the scenarios, so I can do Level 7." Alright time to turn on the data microscopes and see what can lurking about. It is good to hear that level 7 is being worked on.

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 374
RE: RHS 5.32 update uploaded - 11/15/2006 1:25:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Level scenarios uploaded as a combined .31 and .32 package

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 375
RE: RHS 5&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED - 11/16/2006 1:19:56 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		databese error
jap DE Hashidate type has 5 durability
its 6/44 upgrade has 10 durability


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 376
RE: RHS 6.33 update uploaded - 11/17/2006 1:05:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This revises Allied pilot numbers (non US)
adds a shipyard to Vladivostok (repair)
and changes some EOS ships for USN/RN per request (well - the RN one is a gift).


Otherwise some eratta folded in.

Will be at least one more version with eratta - working on some things.

And 5 level uploads plus 10 hours.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 377
RE: RHS 5 AND 6.33 update uploaded - 11/17/2006 12:52:31 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		5.33 file set uploaded

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 378
RE: RHS 5 AND 6.33 update uploaded - 11/18/2006 12:02:18 AM   
witpqs


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

In EOS 6.33 the port size for Salt lake City (main USA base) got set back to 0. This means that the damaged industry and resources there will possibly not repair (certainly not consistently). I checked the other places you had made that change before and they are still fine. With the large daily supply compliment at Salt Lake City I am not certain it will matter, just pointing it out in case it does.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 379
RE: RHS 5 AND 6.33 update uploaded - 11/18/2006 12:37:13 AM   
el cid again

 

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 380
RE: RHS 5 AND 6.34 update plan - 11/21/2006 6:59:32 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Aside from requested changes for EOS mod and eratta (not much - reports are this is pretty clean)
there is significant work on aircraft. Aircraft are being given alternate loadouts. This work has revealed that Allied bombers - defined correctly - were not upgraded at the unit level in many cases - so be prepared for large increases in bomb loads. B-29 is coming in 3 flavors - with standard 500 pound GP bombs, 1000 pound AP bombs, and 400 pound cluster bombs - for example. Swordfish comes in three flavors too - with a torpedo, 3 500 pound bombs or 3 depth charges - as another case. Some Ventura will feature bombs vice torpedoes - same for B-26s. These different loadouts (and others) should make a major difference when applied to certain targets. While it is true the same unit could use different loadouts IRL, it isn't really true they would be equally effective. A non-ASW specialized group would not be very effective at ASW - even with the right weapons - so assigning a non-ASW group to ASW is crudely correct here using the wrong weapons. I am somewhat uncertain about the value of the clusters? [We may have to simulate clusters to get them right using larger numbers of small bombs. But we should test the stock devices.]

Some air units had upgrade issues - that is the slots would not retain the proper upgrade setting. And the new Japanese Uji bomb is available for the very first time. I am surprised to be able to do it - I was pretty sure we could not simulate this sort of weapon. [This is a 25kg ceramic bomb charged with anthrax, live fleas, pure oxygen, sand and a tiny bursting charge]. It is only delivered by the lightest of planes - and only some of them. [These are not good candidates to fighte their way to a target - and they lack armor - and are rated as dive bombers - so they will take maximum hits from AAA]. The bombs have a zero anti armor effect and a one general effect - so their main impact is with anti-soft effect (vs soft units) and also bomb count (vs strategic targets). It is not yet certain these weapons will be effective in any sense? But probably they will be nasty for strategic targets (which, being civil, have no gas masks or organized organic medical support with people equipped to deal with BW defenses) and for whatever kinds of units are considered targets for soft effect. They will probably be wholly ineffective vs ships or armor. This is the first opportunity to find out.



When these are done, .34 will issue - so players can see these changes - and comment. Probably Tuesday (tomorrow).


< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/21/2006 11:40:20 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 381
RE: RHS 5 AND 6.34 update plan - 11/22/2006 12:33:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Added a fourth type of B-29: Recon.

Added a few US bombardment units with indications of loadout: this will change to GP if the unit upgrades.

USAAF 1st Bomb (AP) means using 1,000 pound AP bombs
USAAF 2nd Bomb (GP) means using 500 pound GP bombs
USAAF 3rd B0mb (CB) means using 400 pound Cluster bombs
USAAF 4th Bomb (T) means using torpedo

I was able to make the cluster bombs work. I don't think the stock or CHS cluster bombs work. IF they work, they do not work with nearly the number of hits they should. [Each cluster is multiple bombs - but the hit rates are not going up] Cluster devices were classified as type 4 (blank) and probably are hooks for code not written yet. I defined them as smart bombs with low hit probabilities. This works pretty well. There are two Allied clusters - nicely balancing the two Axis smart weapons we have added. There is also OKHA - but it is code constrained. [Only a few planes will ever fly with it].

I found some US formations with the wrong HQ. Units that appear in Australia in historical scenarios (other than PPO) appear at Salt Lake City a month before in PPO and EOS - assigned to US Western Command.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 382
RE: RHS 6.34 comprehensive update uploaded - 11/22/2006 6:53:47 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This mod includes a correction to Aussie AMCs (which converted cargo capacity to aircraft capacity - 1000!)
and other errors. It adds some redefined cluster bombs and puts them on some B-29s from July 1944 (to be used in firebombing and other raids on soft targets). It adds the Uji bomb - wholly untested - on some Ki-36 observation planes (there are 3 different weapons loads for the Ki-36: tactical, anti-ship and biological; in addition players may regard those in recon units as wholly devoted to recon missions without bombs - which is how several Allied recon planes work - they just lose their bombs).

The biggest change is with respect to air unit loadings. Thus as Kate assigned to a land based ASW air unit does not carry torpedoes, but does carry depth charges. Same for a Swordfish assigned to an ASW oriented CVE. [RN has different flavors of CVEs - some even pretend to be CVs] One IL-4 unit carries torpedoes. Some B-26As do not carry torpedoes. Stuff like that.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 383
RE: RHS 5.34 comprehensive update uploaded - 11/22/2006 6:15:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Level 5 scenarios at x.34 level uploaded.


Error checking is being run on x.34.

We will fold this in - along with completing any requested changes.

For example - I created Force Z out of the Repulse TF - but only by adding Prince of Wales.
I think there are DDs also present - and as I have a book "The Sinking of Force Z" I will look them
up and, if appropriate, add them. What Force Z does depends on what the Allied Player tells it to
do - just a with any other TF.

If there are any other issues - particularly errors of fact or in data - they should be reported now.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 384
RE: RHS 5.34 comprehensive update uploaded - 11/22/2006 8:36:37 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		I'm using RHSEOS 6.34,
Prince of Wales is not showing up, it has a Sunk date of 17994
CVL Langley is set to ship class 244 Bangor, should be 243 Independence
And the Float planes from slots 2043 to 2060 and 2095 to 2125 are upgrading to the wrong planes

I'm going off memory on this so.....
I believe the A-26 Invader had eight forward guns in the nose (and maybe six in the wings) only a few had the six-gun configuration. Four aircraft were sent early to the SW Pacific to be evaluated and one of the reasons General Kenney disliked them was because of the lack of forward firepower. The rest were sent with the eight-gun upgrade.


< Message edited by drw61 -- 11/22/2006 8:43:00 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 385
RE: RHS 5.34 comprehensive update uploaded - 11/23/2006 1:10:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks - this is what x.34 is for - to find what eratta remains. These matters should be addressed in x.35
probably Friday. Maybe Thursday.

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 386
RE: RHS 5.34 comprehensive update uploaded - 11/23/2006 1:42:52 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: drw61

I'm using RHSEOS 6.34,
Prince of Wales is not showing up, it has a Sunk date of 17994

REPLY: In 5 of 6 scenarios - fixed

CVL Langley is wrong

REPLY: Maybe - yes you are right. Fixed.

And the Float planes from slots 2043 to 2060 and 2095 to 2125 are upgrading to the wrong planes


Reply: In some scenarios. Fixed

I'm going off memory on this so.....
I believe the A-26 Invader had eight forward guns in the nose (and maybe six in the wings) only a few had the six-gun configuration. Four aircraft were sent early to the SW Pacific to be evaluated and one of the reasons General Kenney disliked them was because of the lack of forward firepower. The rest were sent with the eight-gun upgrade.



Kinney didn't like it at all and wanted to keep the A-20. He lost. However, I upgraded the nose to 8 guns. It was not first, but it was the main version.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/23/2006 1:48:46 AM >

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 387
RE: RHS 5.35 Plan - 11/25/2006 1:54:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS x.35 is almost ready to upload. Should upload Saturday.

This is a major rework of planes and air units - particularly Allied planes and air units -
adding loadouts and flags so players know what is loaded.

It reworks New Zealand land units to RHS standards.

It reworks blimps - correcting radar.

Some eratta folded in.

But mainly it is about airplanes and loads. Many smaller Allied planes have increased normal bombloads to comply with newer RHS standards rather than older ones inherited.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 388
RE: RHS 5.35 Plan - 11/25/2006 6:36:21 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I noticed that - with PDU = ON - the MiG-3 does not appear as an upgrade option for Soviet fighter units. I'm in EOS 6.32.

I can't see any problem in the scenario files, but I couldn't see where the nationality of the plane is defined so I couldn't check that.

You will have to start the game up to see this one (just looking at the scenario files might not show it).

EDIT: I just checked EOS 6.34 and it's the same way - MiG-3 is not available for upgrades.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 11/25/2006 6:53:18 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 389
RE: RHS 6.35 uploading in process - 11/26/2006 6:58:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		6.35 EOS and CVO uploaded.

Remainder in Plus 4 hours.

This is the semi-final form: will attempt to do Level 7 by Tuesday. Except for Madagascar related things,
no units will be added. If Level 7 does not work, we will proceed with Level 6.


Report eratta as usual:


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5&6.17 BYPASS and 5&6.18 PLAN UPLOADED Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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