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: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class)

 
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: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/20/2006 11:55:33 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

Beijing Latitude: 39.92889

Tientsin Latitude: 38.95 

So indeed Beijing is North of Tientsin



I know that. It is only its appearance on the map that makes it appear north. We call "up" north - and it really is not always so. FYI I was married in China - and I study PLA and other Chinese things - and even have three credits in Chinese Geography. I can draw a map of China from memory fairly well. I just attempted to ID the location as a playing aide more precisely than "China" - a vast area - for players unfamiliar with geography - according to how it looks on our map display.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/21/2006 12:06:50 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 511
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 12:23:07 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Well that dont changes that in RHS Beijing/Peking is considered central China when Tientsin that is at South of it is considered North. This is not important since that is only a classification and from what i know it has no impact in the game.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 512
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 12:36:13 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I see - you mean in our map it should also be Central China. The light dawns.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 513
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 12:38:31 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

IJN Jaluit Naval Stn Bn is Southeast Fleet Unit in a 4 Fleet Base

Truk is a 4th Fleet Base with a collection of Southeast Fleet Units including a static unit.

REPLY: This is correct. Southeast Fleet bases here - because it is areas SOUTH of Truk not yet Japanese!


No both are 4 Fleet Bases. For Jaluit that is ok. But the IJN Jaluit Naval Stn Bn should be put also under 4th Fleet Command.

In case of Truk another 4 Fleet Base it should be changed for Southeast Fleet since most Units and the static Base units all belong to Southeast Flt. If that is not your choice at least the base units like the Fortress and the Truk AA should be put under 4 Fleet HQ.
I think the aim here should be consistency between the Base ownership and the units that cannot not move and or belong to it.
Likewise the Palaus. They could be considered Southern Fleet or 4th Fleet depending how we look for it but their static and base units should belong to the command they are under. Now the Base belongs to one command but the static and base units belong to another.

quote:

10th Sentai a Ki-32 Army Unit in Home Command upgrades to a Navy D3A2 Val
REPLY: This is only in EOS - because the Army decided to go that way. Other units upgrade to Kates - or two engine bombers. Ki-32/30 is going to go away ASAP. But not always to Army type bombers.


No my posts are only related to RHSCVO. That´s the only RHS i opened and i intend to play for now. Maybe i am wrong but i am not aware of any Army unit converted to use D3A2 Vals.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 514
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 12:45:34 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I see - you mean in our map it should also be Central China. The light dawns.


Yes or better both and other cities near and North of it to be considered North. Right now Tientsin is the only Chinese city considered in North of China.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 515
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 6:32:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Actually - far up on the map - there are several cities in "North" China. They really are in West China - but it seems to be North. But it is FAR up the map.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 516
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 2:09:50 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

IJN Jaluit Naval Stn Bn is Southeast Fleet Unit in a 4 Fleet Base

Truk is a 4th Fleet Base with a collection of Southeast Fleet Units including a static unit.

REPLY: This is correct. Southeast Fleet bases here - because it is areas SOUTH of Truk not yet Japanese!


No both are 4 Fleet Bases. For Jaluit that is ok. But the IJN Jaluit Naval Stn Bn should be put also under 4th Fleet Command.

In case of Truk another 4 Fleet Base it should be changed for Southeast Fleet since most Units and the static Base units all belong to Southeast Flt. If that is not your choice at least the base units like the Fortress and the Truk AA should be put under 4 Fleet HQ.
I think the aim here should be consistency between the Base ownership and the units that cannot not move and or belong to it.
Likewise the Palaus. They could be considered Southern Fleet or 4th Fleet depending how we look for it but their static and base units should belong to the command they are under. Now the Base belongs to one command but the static and base units belong to another.

REPLY: This is approximately correct - but slightly confused. Pulau pretty much be Southern Area Command for AI to function right - although really it was Nanyo (i.e. 4th Fleet). But Truk is different. It - and its units - remain 4th Fleet.
ONLY units moving out to base at Rabaul and points SE of there are SE Fleet. SE Fleet is HQ at Rabaul - and it is not yet Japanese.

quote:

10th Sentai a Ki-32 Army Unit in Home Command upgrades to a Navy D3A2 Val
REPLY: This is only in EOS - because the Army decided to go that way. Other units upgrade to Kates - or two engine bombers. Ki-32/30 is going to go away ASAP. But not always to Army type bombers.


No my posts are only related to RHSCVO. That´s the only RHS i opened and i intend to play for now. Maybe i am wrong but i am not aware of any Army unit converted to use D3A2 Vals.




You are right. So I will check it out.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 517
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 7:48:19 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

REPLY: This is approximately correct - but slightly confused. Pulau pretty much be Southern Area Command for AI to function right - although really it was Nanyo (i.e. 4th Fleet). But Truk is different. It - and its units - remain 4th Fleet.
ONLY units moving out to base at Rabaul and points SE of there are SE Fleet. SE Fleet is HQ at Rabaul - and it is not yet Japanese.


No problem with that. I also think it is the best option, but then the Palaus base units that  not move should be part of Southern Flt and they are not.
Likewise in Truk the fixed (Truk fortress and Truk AA) Units should be then 4th Fleet but they are Southeast Fleet while the base is in 4th Fleet.


quote:

Actually - far up on the map - there are several cities in "North" China. They really are in West China - but it seems to be North. But it is FAR up the map.


In RHSCVO 5.41 i am not aware of any in Japanese hands except Tientsin. For example Tatung and Kalgan those most up North are in central China. But like i said this not an important issue since it is only a description.





(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 518
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/21/2006 9:20:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		North China includes Urumchi (287), Sining (416), and should include Hami (285) - but it seems to have migrated into Central Asia. Perhaps NW China would be more correct - since they really are in NW China!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/21/2006 9:34:26 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 519
RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) - 12/22/2006 2:48:52 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Yes i noticed them now

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 520
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/22/2006 12:59:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS Level 6 Files were returned to me. Error correction was done at 6.411 level - and a few things from 412 were added by hand during the process. I will complete this process and issue Level 6 as 6.42 in a day or so. That release will start the clock running for the Tag Team game - and Mifune and I will issue Turn 1 a week later. This is tentatively the last version of Level 6 for some time (but see below).

Five of the files in each senario are identical in Level 5. I will issue 6.413 INCLUDING debugged aircraft, class, device, leader and pilot files - and surrender control of it for debugging of the other files. When it is returned, I will modify it to match 6.42 and it will be 5.42. This is tentatively the last version of Level 5 for some time (but see below).

Changes in x.413/42 you have not seen include:

1) Revision of Lexington class to maximum air group size of 81 - combining its VB/VS groups into a single squadron - and definition of 2 USMC squadrons as carrier qualified to permit use of these ships to transfer air units as was done historically

2) Addition of 2 CW commando units (1 and 2 Fiji)

3) Addition of 2 JAAF squadrons (44 and 45 Ind Chutai on Ki-36)

4) Redefinition of support squads according to the new weapons team theory

5) Improvement of EOS start files to help AI do an attack on Hawaii with some chance of success - even against a human player (although not for long - probably - since AI is too dumb to send enough supplies)

Just before this we did a major rework of the ROCAF, some revision of British and Commonwealth land units,
both in OB and date of appearance - or even adding them - such as a whole British Division.

We plan to keep Level 7 development open and will release files for comment in unplayable form - unplayable due to pwhex issues. Levels 5 and 6 are ALREADY compatable with 7 OB wise - and the units are defined for 7 even if you cannot yet see them. [Releasing the files allows you to look at them - on right map - but it is not yet "pretty" because of pwhex issues] Level 7 MIGHT complete in January - maybe even Jan 2.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/22/2006 1:32:00 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 521
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/22/2006 3:28:04 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Cid I have a game going with Nemo based on his mod of RHS in it all radars appear reversed RN Radars  (Type 279 and 271 and I think CXAM) are appearing in Jap Devices and neither side is recieving Sound Detetectors.

Implication is that allies will never fill out their base forces and that no RN RAN or RNZN (and possible USN) ship will ever upgrade as radar devices will be missing.

Can you check your latest build for this issue as I would hate for it to affect other games as well.

Andy

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 522
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/22/2006 3:29:17 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		ps hex 20/11 appears to be invadable on the latest map from the sea crossign over the intervening mountain range is this deliberate ?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 523
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/22/2006 5:40:56 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		CL Kitakami/Oi starts with 5" Type 89 DP gun . That is wrong. There wasnt even enough 5" Type 89 DP gun to replace the 4.7" in Takao/Chokai at start of the War.
Also all 3"/88 DP in 5500t CL had at start of war already been replaced by 25mm .

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 524
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/22/2006 11:16:36 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		IJN Amami Naval Stn is in Northern Area Command despite the the Amami Base and the Fortress being in Home Def Command same for Sakashima Naval Stn.

< Message edited by Dili -- 12/22/2006 11:28:43 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 525
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 12:23:36 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Presumably you mean Aomori. And it is in the wrong command - as are two other adjacent towns - and some reserve units appearing in them. All should be Northern Command. Thanks.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 526
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 12:32:13 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

CL Kitakami/Oi starts with 5" Type 89 DP gun . That is wrong. There wasnt even enough 5" Type 89 DP gun to replace the 4.7" in Takao/Chokai at start of the War.
Also all 3"/88 DP in 5500t CL had at start of war already been replaced by 25mm .



The original planning was different than what actually happened in some cases. The intention was to rearm three "torpedo cruisers" in the first round - but the number of mountings for torpedos available prevented this and reduced the number to two. There may have been issues with 5 inch mountings as well - I dimly remember they went through a couple of stages of weapons - both in theory and practice - all depending on the date. And this confuses many references - which often get the right stuff but not when it was that way precisely. Most of these ships are inherited from CHS cross checked with Conways - but in specific cases they were revised from more authoratative materials - such as the Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War we all love so much. It is also not always clear what was done when: Japanese authorities ordered destruction of documents in 1945 - and most were so destroyed; US firebombing destroyed many in late 1944 and 1945; and some records are contradictory. For example, ten Kaidai type subs were built to the same hull number in each of three different shipyards - and the existance of this particular confusion is noted in Conways without giving the details. It may be as many as 20 "shadow" subs were built! Or something else done with the funds not recorded in shipyard records? We don't always know. I have about 30,000 pages of materials not in books - and I don't remember the details of why this was done in this case.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 527
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 12:36:11 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ps hex 20/11 appears to be invadable on the latest map from the sea crossign over the intervening mountain range is this deliberate ?


It was never even thought about! I never reviewed it. It does, however, appear to be correct - there must be a coast somewhere - and that hex seems better than the alternative one. This happened due to changes in map art - and sometimes I change the hex sides in response to that. In all sets one must make compromises of this sort - and it would be true even if we changed the scale. This art is from photographs - hand modified by Cobra - and so it the hex scale is an approximation of the real locations - to the nearest hex as it were.

Note that we can change pwhex at any time - and it affects nothing else. We can review any pwhex any time anyone wants to - and change it without affecting version numbers - backfitting in fact. Pwhex can mix and match with different map art as well - at least between RHS Level 5 and CHS Extended maps. Deliberately so.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/23/2006 12:46:26 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 528
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 12:44:41 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Cid I have a game going with Nemo based on his mod of RHS in it all radars appear reversed RN Radars  (Type 279 and 271 and I think CXAM) are appearing in Jap Devices and neither side is recieving Sound Detetectors.

Implication is that allies will never fill out their base forces and that no RN RAN or RNZN (and possible USN) ship will ever upgrade as radar devices will be missing.

Can you check your latest build for this issue as I would hate for it to affect other games as well.

Andy


Well - at one time CHS had radars reversed. And so we redefined them according to what code requires. It is possible there are implications of this in the data set never addressed. Another issue is where they appear. CHS and RHS changed locations of many devices - but in the end we went back to stock locations. There are lots of theories in the Forum - and even in the official manual - which may or may not once have been germane. Hopefully we have got it right - I have carefully reviewed radars three times - once for CHS and twice for RHS. But every time I found significant problems - and I don't remember testing them either. You may be correct. But there are enough ramifications of this to justify considerable work if anything is wrong - and work = time. It appears people played CHS for well over a year and never even noticed their radars were backwards! Others made utilities to change the function of certain radars, etc. I was originally a radar ET and I collect materials on historical radar - so I revised the radars to give them correct ranges - which were in many cases quite wrong even in stock. One issue is confusion between range in thousands of yards vs range in miles. Data entry people appear not to have been told the right thing - as they are wrong exactly by a factor of 2 in many cases (and a radar mile = 2000 yards). I will review that we are using the right slots.

We seem to be using CHS radar slots - and in many cases these are the same as stock. Others have been added. IF they are wrong - CHS (or CHS and stock) are wrong. I hope that is unlikely.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/23/2006 12:55:06 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 529
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 2:08:03 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Sid,

You definitely need to review the radars.
Type 11/12/13 show up in the Japanese pools as do Type 271 an 279 ( British)

No suitable radars show up in the Allied pools...

It does seem that even though sound detectors don't show in the pool they do arrive with new units BUT this, obviously, has serious ramifications for extant units.


One other thing: Can you clarify whether or not ships will upgrade even if the radars involved in those upgrades aren't in the pool. I always thought ship upgrades were independent of the pool but I can't be sure...

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 530
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 2:09:32 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		ps. I no longer have stock installed but if someone can send me the stock scenario files I will look through it, move the radars to ALL STOCK slots and re-test... If it works we will have a cheap and quick fix for all mods and we will know that there are hard-coded issues with those slots that prevent us moving them.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 531
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 2:54:40 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Presumably you mean Aomori. And it is in the wrong command - as are two other adjacent towns - and some reserve units appearing in them. All should be Northern Command. Thanks.
 

No i mean Amami in the islands between Japan and Taiwan. But the Aamori is another issue. Shouldnt all Hokkaido and Shakalin be Northern Area? And Northern District Command currently in Home Def Command be part of Northern Area? Karafuto Bde belonged to it and the North District Command HQ was in Sapporo. I think the game cant make a supply system for the Navy and another for the Army.


quote:

The original planning was different than what actually happened in some cases. The intention was to rearm three "torpedo cruisers" in the first round - but the number of mountings for torpedos available prevented this and reduced the number to two. 


You are right cruiser bible states that the Torpedo cruiser should have had 5" Type89 DP but that never materalised due to lack of Guns. Takao and Atago only got them in Mar42 for example. Maya only when converted to CLAA and Chokai never.

The 3"/88 Dp were not there already in most of 30's .  The 5500t even before of getting the 25mm replaced the 3" DP for  7mm MG and 13.2mm. Only in late 30's begin of 40's they changed to the more heavy 25mm.
This is said by cruise bible other sources seem to stick the initial configuration.

< Message edited by Dili -- 12/23/2006 3:06:52 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 532
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 3:54:55 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		There are anther duplicate. 31st Mixed AA Rgt one is in Sapporo another is in Hiroshima.

There are also a triplicate. In Saigon ; Fukuoka and Konan there are a 23rd Mixed AA Rgt


More Duplicates:

6th MC AA Bn

4th Curved Gun Rgt

25th Ind Eng Rgt

3rd Ind Const Bn





< Message edited by Dili -- 12/23/2006 4:21:23 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 533
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 6:43:37 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

ps. I no longer have stock installed but if someone can send me the stock scenario files I will look through it, move the radars to ALL STOCK slots and re-test... If it works we will have a cheap and quick fix for all mods and we will know that there are hard-coded issues with those slots that prevent us moving them.



You cannot get any more stock than RHS - or CHS. I checked. There is perfect 100% slot compatability for ship and land type radars. Slots 131 to 143 inclusive are used for radars (the last 2 sound detectors). There is NO difference in nation assigned per slot. There is only one slot with a name change that matters: RHS uses SK vice SG. But RHS 11/12/13 = everyone else Type 13 - and indeed it is just a name change - it is the same radar with the same range in all 3 cases.

One difference is this: upgrades should NOT occur early - and RHS has carefully made radar NOT all appear on 7/41 as was the case before. UNLESS you test AFTER the upgrade dates - it should not be true that the device upgrades - and that is right.

I cannot explain the pools - but that is hard code - and it is the same for sound detectors and radars.

It does appear that ships upgrade only if the ship changes class - but land units upgrade if the upgrade is available in both date and quantity.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 534
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 6:53:32 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Presumably you mean Aomori. And it is in the wrong command - as are two other adjacent towns - and some reserve units appearing in them. All should be Northern Command. Thanks.
 

No i mean Amami in the islands between Japan and Taiwan. But the Aamori is another issue. Shouldnt all Hokkaido and Shakalin be Northern Area? And Northern District Command currently in Home Def Command be part of Northern Area? Karafuto Bde belonged to it and the North District Command HQ was in Sapporo. I think the game cant make a supply system for the Navy and another for the Army.

REPLY: Game commands are unified - never mind they are not so IRL. IRL Northern Command is IJN - Home Command IJA - and they overlap! However, in game terms I decided the Northern cities of Honshu, all of Kyushu and Southern Sakhalin - and the Kurils - should all be Northern Command. Note you can transfer between HOme and Northern at will - same as between Alaska and US Western Command - so it is pretty academic.

quote:

The original planning was different than what actually happened in some cases. The intention was to rearm three "torpedo cruisers" in the first round - but the number of mountings for torpedos available prevented this and reduced the number to two. 


You are right cruiser bible states that the Torpedo cruiser should have had 5" Type89 DP but that never materalised due to lack of Guns. Takao and Atago only got them in Mar42 for example. Maya only when converted to CLAA and Chokai never.

The 3"/88 Dp were not there already in most of 30's .  The 5500t even before of getting the 25mm replaced the 3" DP for  7mm MG and 13.2mm. Only in late 30's begin of 40's they changed to the more heavy 25mm.
This is said by cruise bible other sources seem to stick the initial configuration.


Well - we may review ships again at some point. There are literally thousands of them - and hundreds of classes/subclasses - it is never really completed. At the moment it does not seem to be a big priority. For one thing - at the moment I am managing 18 scenarios - and there is a demand to end micro changes and play for a while.
However - I plan to revert to managing only 6 scenarios soon - and then it is easier to implement changes (by a factor of 3). You might be right. Or it may be that I got something from Japanese records not in your reference book. I don't remember - I did this over a year ago - but I did get to study historical documents with a joint JNSDF/USN team - documents not available to any historians because they had just been unsealed - and sometimes I have things in my notes which differ from things in reference books.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 535
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 6:56:07 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

There are anther duplicate. 31st Mixed AA Rgt one is in Sapporo another is in Hiroshima.

There are also a triplicate. In Saigon ; Fukuoka and Konan there are a 23rd Mixed AA Rgt


More Duplicates:

6th MC AA Bn

4th Curved Gun Rgt

25th Ind Eng Rgt

3rd Ind Const Bn






Interesting. I will take a look. Sometimes duplicates are just similar names - sometimes they are the wrong record on top of a slot - sometimes real duplicates. Error checking should have fixed this - so it may no longer be an issue - but I will check before releasing the error checked files - which I now have.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 536
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 11:36:50 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am starting a general WITP radar thread to report on - and collect data about - radar in stock/CHS/RHS and mods based on any of them. All such mods are essentially identical re ship and land based radars insofar as all use slots 121 to 143 for radar and sound detectors - and the same slots for the same functions in most cases. Whatever issues may exist therefore are probably general issues of general interest - not RHS isolated.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 537
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 6:01:34 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

However, in game terms I decided the Northern cities of Honshu, all of Kyushu and Southern Sakhalin - and the Kurils - should all be Northern Command.


But they are not! Right now the only cities in Northern Command are the Kurile Islands.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 538
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/23/2006 7:55:02 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline 		El Cid

There are some Dutch Garrison units that has the 2pdr AT-Gun. This is incorrect. The only AT Gun that the Dutch units had in the NEI is the 47mm AT-Gun

Here a list with Dutch (Garrison Bns) units that has stil the 2pdr AT-Gun

2095 DUTCH Garrison
2478 KNIL Prajoda
2481 KM 1st NS
2485 KM 2nd NS
2489 KNIL 1st WS
2494 KNIL Riouw
2497 KNIL SOSumatra
2505 KNIL SE Borneo
2529 KNIL 1st Timor

And here is a list with Dutch who has 2x 40mm Bofors AA Gun
2501 KNIL West Borneo
2515 KNIL Samarinda

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 539
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/24/2006 12:19:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well - I did create an Allied 47mm gun device - it won't produce - specifically for the Dutch - and I thought we had converted units over to using that. I think you will find a Dutch poster (in a different thread) who said the 2 pounder was used by these units - and the 47 mm by "only" a different list - and I think we adopted that listing. But possibly the conversion to the new device was "lost" - at one point we had to go back to earlier databases due to file corruption by an editor - and I don't remember when that was in relation to this issue - which was over a year ago. But if my memory is not wrong, I believe the two pounder was in use in DEI. Otherwise, I am just remembering that stock and CHS said it was.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/24/2006 12:29:00 AM >

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Experimental EOS x.412 (Lexington Class) Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   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

0.813