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 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases

 
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 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/24/2006 12:21:26 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

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.


I think it may be we assigned units - but didn't realize locations were wrong. Seems strange that all this time stock and CHS had no northern command area to speak of! I think I probably assumed the locations were right and didn't look.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/24/2006 12:30:56 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 541
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/24/2006 1:04:19 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.


I think that then they had some Tankbuks M.38 or 20mm Solothurn AT Gun

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 542
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/24/2006 3:50:37 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I may be able to track that down today. But the radar issue is my first priority. Good news: I have awakened with a theory about how to address that one.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 543
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/24/2006 6:13:03 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Good news. And Merry Christmas all.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 544
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/24/2006 9:44:18 PM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline 		I have been testing CVO 5.40 against AI for a while. At one point when was released, it was indicated x.41 needed new art work, then just allied air, then something about EOS art and version 7.0 art. So, I held off starting 5.41.

Then yesterday, I had a senior moment, installed and ran the 1st turn of scen 50. Then I remembered about the art. It did not crash - yet.

In another directory, I have installed 6.40, with 6.41 and 7.0 art not installed.

What is the status with the art? Do I need to install 7.0 art with 5.41, with 6.41, 6.41 EOS?





_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 545
RE: RHS x.413 update - 12/27/2006 12:53:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We have been working on three different things:

1) Figuring out radar for surface ships and land units; this is now in test;

2) Figuring out how to get AI to work better with the revised EOS scenario (implementing the plan to
invade Hawaii);

3) Responding to some OB matters raised by the forum, including:

a) Adding some outer island defenses in Hawaii
b) Researching reported duplicated units

Regarding the latter, seems there have always been two 23rd Engineer Regiments - since stock!
I was told there was a duplicate 28th - and never found it - but plotted ALL engineers - and discovered this one.


I also think we need to write a paper on EOS - so players won't be too surprised by some of the changes.
While EOS is more or less the same as CVO, there are important differences (services can often share planes)
and chrome differences. Some of these may be surprising. IRL they drew up plans to convert all the battleships and cruisers (except ancient CLs) to carriers - and some of these got implemented (Shinano, Ibuki, the semi carriers).
But ALL the ships had plans - and all the battleships had three different conversions each! RHS has permitted some of these conversions to occur later in the war: players who want Yamato to stay a BB better not be sending it in for an upgrade late in the war - same for many CAs - or they will be shocked to have them emerge as CV (or CVL) - without air groups! It is meant to offer flexability - but it should not be done by surprise. I don't know if AI will do this or not? But I will know soon: I have a 6.41 scenario into 1944 now. Some of the air units will change their loadouts if upgraded - and players might not want to upgrade them to the "wrong" planes - or they might. [For example, a unit with prefix or suffix K has ASW armament. It is scheduled to upgrade to a true ASW plane. Upgrading to a different plane will convert it from its ASW function to normal.] This sort of thing probably needs all to be gathered into one document.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 546
RE: RHS x.413 update - 12/27/2006 8:23:55 AM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline 		"I also think we need to write a paper on EOS" I have been thinking of the same, even when I am thinking of updating the RHS handbook I can not articulate all that is needed to be said. On so many levels of each scenario, even the forums have spiraled out of easy connectiveness.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 547
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/27/2006 11:09:14 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


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

In Devices are some errors.

1. The 2in Mortar(427) upgrades to 3in Mortar(426). Must this not be that the 2in does not upgrade?

2. There are 2 times 18pdr Howitzers (439 + 447). (439) Does upgrade. (447) upgrades to (439. Must this not be (440) 25 pdr Howitzer?

3. (467) M3 Halftrack has a replacement of 7. Is this not to low?

4. RAO has also 32cm Type 98 Mortar(549) in slot (548) in place of Alvis Armored Car.

Here some comments about the locations.
The British 7th Tank Brigade(2854). it use the TOE of the Indian Tank Brigade (2058). And weapons slots 1 and 2 have both 484 Stuart I Light Tank?

The IA 111th(2376), IA 14th(2825), IA 16th(2826), IA 77th(2943) Chindit Brigade are only in name Indian. They where allmost British and some Gurka´s Rgts.


The BA 3rd SP Svc had a platoon of Dutch Commando´s from 2nd Dutch Troop attached by arrival. And there where additional Dutch Commando´s underway after the end of war in Europe (Aug-Sep 1945) to increase it to a Company.

There are 2x the CW 81 WAfrican(3189 + 3195). Mus not one of them be the CW 82 WAfrican?

Also do I miss the BA 5th Parachute Brigade. Arrives July 1945 in India.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 548
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/28/2006 12:12:05 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Hi El Cid

In Devices are some errors.

1. The 2in Mortar(427) upgrades to 3in Mortar(426). Must this not be that the 2in does not upgrade?

REPLY: You are correct. This is an editor related problem - high devices are forced to point at the next lower slot by stock editors - and I have been slowly correcting those issues by using other editors. I failed to note this one.

2. There do not appear to be 2x18 pounders - and there is indeed a 25 pounder in the slot you indicate - so you have a corrupted device file. This in all scenarios. [I checked] RHS uses only two device files: standard and EOS -
so you can rename a different file. For example, EOS level 5 (5.41) can be renamed 6.41 to get a Level 6 file.
Similarly, any level 5 device file other than scenario 55 can be renamed as any other, and same for 6.

3. M3 may be too low. This is the value in ALL versions of WITP - stock - CHS - RHS - and anything using their device files. Not sure where it came from? There are 133,000 fields, and I don't check em all! Got any data? How many were sent to PTO? Starting when?

4. Peculiar - but you are right. The base files (now Level 7) have it right - but both issued sets (Level 5 and 6) have it wrong. Fixed for x.413 (Level 5) or x.42 (Level 6).

5. Apparently the British 7th was copied from the Indian unit. It should upgrade to itself, and have Grant tanks in device slot number 1.

6. Do you think the squads should not be Indian in the Chindit brigades?

7. I cannot resist - although it cannot matter much: a platoon of Dutch Marine squads is added to 3 SSB.

8. 3189 is 3 West African

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/28/2006 1:05:54 AM >

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 549
RE: RHS x.413 update - 12/28/2006 1:01:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We have come to a partial understanding of radar -

sound detectors remain an issue - do they replace?

And we have some more eratta folded in (from the Forum).

I will issue 6.42 soon - and 5.413 - 5 will then be error corrected (to the extent it is not already - 5 or 8 files from 6.42 are in the package) - and reissue as 5.42.

Then I will proceed to do 7 - and issue a NON working 7.413 for feedback.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 550
RE: RHS x.413 update - 12/28/2006 1:08:47 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		The 7th Armoured Bde is hard to recreate.

In Burma it had 2 x Stuart Rgts and a Mot Inf Rgt.

After Burma it returned to the Mid East and ended up in Italy.

It would be nice to be able to withdraw LCU's

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 551
RE: RHS x.413 update - 12/28/2006 1:15:01 AM   
el cid again

 

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

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 552
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/28/2006 11:13:01 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

3. M3 may be too low. This is the value in ALL versions of WITP - stock - CHS - RHS - and anything using their device files. Not sure where it came from? There are 133,000 fields, and I don't check em all! Got any data? How many were sent to PTO? Starting when?


There are about 40.000 halftracks/Variants build in WWII. About 800 are shipped to the USSR (Tank/Mech Corps). The first variant of the halftrack (M2) is build in 1940/41 (about 12000). Mayby is't better to rename M3 halftrack to halftrack. I don't know how much to the PTO. But 49x7=343 is to low. (A Armored Division has 360) I think that the halftrack production must be 49x27=1323.
Mayby higher.


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 553
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/28/2006 11:19:49 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again
6. Do you think the squads should not be Indian in the Chindit brigades?


Here is the ORDER OF BATTLE - 2nd Chindit Expedition 1944

Special Force, 3rd Indian Infantry Division

Headquarters
Rear HQ at Gwalior, Central India
Main HQ first at Imphal and then at Sylhet, Assam
Launching HQ at Lalaghat
Tactical/Forward HQ, Shaduzup, Burma


Support Units

Air Force
United States Army Air Force

Royal Artillery
160th Field Regiment, R,S,and U troops
69th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, W, X, Y and Z troops

3rd West African Brigade
HQ
7th West African Field Company
6th Battalion Nigeria Regiment
7th Battalion Nigeria Regiment
12th Battalion Nigeria Regiment
3rd West African Field Ambulance

14th British Infantry Brigade
HQ
2nd Battalion The Black Watch
1st Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment
2nd Battalion York and Lancaster Regiment
7th Battalion Royal Leicestershire Regiment
54th Field Company Royal Engineers
Medical Detachment

16th British Infantry Brigade
HQ
2nd Battalion Queens Royal Regiment (West Surrey)
2nd Battalion Royal Leicestershire Regiment
51/69 Field Regiments, Royal Artillery (fighting as infantry)
45th Reconnaissance Regiment (fighting as infantry)
2nd Field Company Royal Engineers
Medical Detachment

23rd Indian Infantry Brigade
HQ
1st Battalion Essex Regiment
2nd Battalion Duke of Wellington's Regiment
4th Battalion Border Regiment
60th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery (fighting as infantry)
12th Field Company Royal Engineers
Medical Detachment

77th Indian Infantry Brigade
HQ
Mixed Field Company Royal Engineers/Royal Indian Engineers
3rd Battalion 6th Gurkha Rifles
1st Battalion King's (Liverpool) Regiment, to 111 Brigade in May 1944
1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers
1st Battalion South Staffordshire Regiment
3rd Battalion 9th Gurkha Rifles, to 111 Brigade in May 1944
142 Company Hong Kong Volunteers
Medical and veterinary detachments

111th Indian Infantry Brigade
HQ
1st Battalion Cameronians
2nd Battalion Kings Own Royal Regiment (Lancaster)
3rd Battalion 4th Gurkha Rifles
Mixed Field Company Royal Engineers/Royal Indian Engineers
Medical and veterinary detachments

Morris Force
4th Battalion 9th Gurkha Rifles
3rd/4th Gurkha Rifles

Dah Force
Kachin Levies

Bladet (Blain's Detachment)
Gliderborne commando engineers.

Other Units
2nd Battalion Burma Rifles
Four troops 160th Field Regiment Royal Artillery (in artillery role)
Four troops 69th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment Royal Artillery (in artillery role)

Divisional Troops

219th Field Park Company, Royal Engineers
Detachment 2nd Burma Rifles
145th Brigade Company, R.A.S.C.
61st Air Supply Company, R.A.S.C.
2nd Indian Air Supply Company, R.I.A.S.C.



< Message edited by Jo van der Pluym -- 12/28/2006 11:38:46 AM >

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 554
RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases - 12/28/2006 3:33:18 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

3. M3 may be too low. This is the value in ALL versions of WITP - stock - CHS - RHS - and anything using their device files. Not sure where it came from? There are 133,000 fields, and I don't check em all! Got any data? How many were sent to PTO? Starting when?


There are about 40.000 halftracks/Variants build in WWII. About 800 are shipped to the USSR (Tank/Mech Corps). The first variant of the halftrack (M2) is build in 1940/41 (about 12000). Mayby is't better to rename M3 halftrack to halftrack. I don't know how much to the PTO. But 49x7=343 is to low. (A Armored Division has 360) I think that the halftrack production must be 49x27=1323.
Mayby higher.



This isn't quite how it works. Only a % go to PTO - and nothing like half. And a % of those are not sent to the units represented in play. Armor in particular, and motor vehicles in general, were "shortchanged" for PTO - many units were stripped of them to a substantial degree - and did not ship out with their TO&E on paper. You can't use vehicles in many of the places units went - after all. And not many armored units went to PTO at all. We probably should work the problem backwards - and study how many are needed by units in the game?

Nevertheless - I must agree that 7 is too small - and we can safely increase this by an order of magnitude until we get better data.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 555
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/30/2006 12:04:37 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am very close to releasing RHS 6.42 (and 5.413 which will update to 5.42 after an independent eratta review).
Five issues remain - two of which only apply to EOS:

1) Changes to support devices require updating some supply sinks - in all scenarios;

2) Changes to radar devices require updating some non-US Allied ships - in all scenarios;

3) Possible changes to infantry type devices may require some units to change - this is not firm and may not apply;

4) EOS only is having attack sequencing issues for the opening under AI control;

5) EOS only is having difficulty loading (well unloading) air units from ships at game start - to facilitate AI doing a proper attack on Hawaii.

I will release the 5 historical scenarios as soon as 1 and 2 are done - unless 3 works out easily;

This may be as soon as tomorrow and in no case later than 2 January 2007


I will work on EOS until it is as good as AI can manage and then release it - target 2 January 2007. This is pretty firm - and I won't do 3 unless it turns out to not delay these time frames - or if it turns into a mess.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/30/2006 12:18:41 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 556
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/30/2006 8:43:19 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks El Cid Again.

Edit: Btw i noticed that Shinshu Maru big LSD http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/~iwashige/shinshumaru.htm is not working in RHSCVO but is in Class list, is the lack of slots that prevent it´s use?

< Message edited by Dili -- 12/30/2006 10:29:40 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 557
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/30/2006 11:45:03 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks El Cid Again.

Edit: Btw i noticed that Shinshu Maru big LSD http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/~iwashige/shinshumaru.htm is not working in RHSCVO but is in Class list, is the lack of slots that prevent it´s use?


That is because the Sunk Date is listed as 47797 which the game interprets as before the Delay Date. The actual sunk date should be 450501 according to Watts and Gordon. You can change this in the editor before you start the game.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 558
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/30/2006 2:10:25 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		The sinking dates of a lot of ships have been corrected for 6.42, for example Trigger, Wahoo and Porcupine report as sunk before scenaro starts. There are 25-30 ships for both sides that got corrected in the upcoming version.

_____________________________


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 559
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/30/2006 8:08:58 PM   
Dili

 

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

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 560
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/30/2006 11:59:31 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks El Cid Again.

Edit: Btw i noticed that Shinshu Maru big LSD http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/~iwashige/shinshumaru.htm is not working in RHSCVO but is in Class list, is the lack of slots that prevent it´s use?


Shinshu Maru is a very strange ship in lots of senses. It was paid for and operated for the IJA, but designed, built and operated by the IJN. [So much for the theory they never cooperated]. Its movements are still classified secret in Japan and a great deal of them are probably not in any references. It exists in several forms in various RHS scenarios - and it can change forms by "upgrading" (I think). The wierdest thing about her is the ability to carry planes - and for that reason she appears as an AK in EOS - at least an AK carries troops and planes! I think it upgrades to a CVE.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 561
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues: slots - 12/31/2006 12:02:23 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		To the issue list add device slots. Testing has forced one to move - and may force others to consolodate or move.
The slots are hard coded to an amazing degree - and severely constrain the modder. Just because a slot is not used does not mean you can use it for what you want, like or need.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 562
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues: slots - 12/31/2006 1:56:05 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		But you can bet (with high probability of winning) that you can use all those free slots. I still have no problems with my non respawning vesrsion (all 2999 Japanese and 7000 Allied ships slots used - most of ships are not in their original slots).

EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread. Seems that in this one you are talking about device slots - in this case you are probably right.

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 12/31/2006 2:37:13 AM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 563
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues: slots - 12/31/2006 3:02:17 AM   
Dili

 

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

Shinshu Maru is a very strange ship in lots of senses.
Yeah. Maybe result of some crazy experiment that made  possible to briefly do a time travel and have a glimpse to futur amphibious ships... Now Cue X-Files music.... :)

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 564
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues: slots - 12/31/2006 3:53:34 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		[CVO 6.41]

Sid, could you look at Airgroup slots 426 (901 EHkti/955 Kktai) and 455 (955th Kokutai (K))? Both units are using E13 - one arrive two months after the other one. One has max size 8, second one 16. Isn't it the same unit?
Hint: Maybe I missed something, but seems that 901st Kokutai with E13's is missing.

Airgroup 451 (313rd Kokutai) - i think it should be 313th

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 12/31/2006 4:12:18 AM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 565
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/31/2006 7:04:06 AM   
m10bob


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks El Cid Again.

Edit: Btw i noticed that Shinshu Maru big LSD http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/~iwashige/shinshumaru.htm is not working in RHSCVO but is in Class list, is the lack of slots that prevent it´s use?


Shinshu Maru is a very strange ship in lots of senses. It was paid for and operated for the IJA, but designed, built and operated by the IJN. [So much for the theory they never cooperated]. Its movements are still classified secret in Japan and a great deal of them are probably not in any references. It exists in several forms in various RHS scenarios - and it can change forms by "upgrading" (I think). The wierdest thing about her is the ability to carry planes - and for that reason she appears as an AK in EOS - at least an AK carries troops and planes! I think it upgrades to a CVE.
According to "Japanese Warships of WW2"(Watts/Ian Allen), the Shinshu Maru was the 1st ship in the world designed to carry landing craft internally(20), and have the ability to load and launch them while underway.
The ship was sunk 1/3/1942 in shallow water by accident,(possibly by a torpedo from Fubuki), and the ship was later raised (1943) and repaired, to be used as a landing ship dock.
The ship could launch 2 landing craft at a time from doors in her stern and could load heavy weights with cranes on her deck.


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 566
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues: slots - 12/31/2006 3:42:37 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

[CVO 6.41]

Sid, could you look at Airgroup slots 426 (901 EHkti/955 Kktai) and 455 (955th Kokutai (K))? Both units are using E13 - one arrive two months after the other one. One has max size 8, second one 16. Isn't it the same unit?
Hint: Maybe I missed something, but seems that 901st Kokutai with E13's is missing.

901 EHkti should be an Escort Hikotai - or group - with fighters
955 might be a KHkti - part of 901st - or independent - don't know off the top of my head. But the two forms of nomenclature should not have been mixed: either 901 is not part of 955 - or the second 955 needs a Hikotai number added.

Once upon a time, a Kokutai might be small - a group - even a squadron - if in a minor place. Later in the war - some remained that way - but most became sort of wings - with 2 to 6 Hikotai's. There is always a Hikotai - but if the unit is small there is only one. Earlier in the war a different nomenclature was used - and you see Daitai - which themselves can be big or small. If big, they come in "units" of 9 or 12 - typically 2 or 3 or 4 units make a Daitai. In those days the units usually had elements (Shotai) of 3 planes. Later in the war you got a reorganization and reform.
The problem is - this is very confusing (IRL not just in game terms). Since our units don't rename - later on we get a mixed bad - early and later terminology present side by side. This is not popular in Japan today - and we did some changes to simplify it - in the direction of preserving the original system.


Airgroup 451 (313rd Kokutai) - i think it should be 313th

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 567
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/31/2006 3:45:51 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks El Cid Again.

Edit: Btw i noticed that Shinshu Maru big LSD http://ww6.enjoy.ne.jp/~iwashige/shinshumaru.htm is not working in RHSCVO but is in Class list, is the lack of slots that prevent it´s use?


Shinshu Maru is a very strange ship in lots of senses. It was paid for and operated for the IJA, but designed, built and operated by the IJN. [So much for the theory they never cooperated]. Its movements are still classified secret in Japan and a great deal of them are probably not in any references. It exists in several forms in various RHS scenarios - and it can change forms by "upgrading" (I think). The wierdest thing about her is the ability to carry planes - and for that reason she appears as an AK in EOS - at least an AK carries troops and planes! I think it upgrades to a CVE.
According to "Japanese Warships of WW2"(Watts/Ian Allen), the Shinshu Maru was the 1st ship in the world designed to carry landing craft internally(20), and have the ability to load and launch them while underway.
The ship was sunk 1/3/1942 in shallow water by accident,(possibly by a torpedo from Fubuki), and the ship was later raised (1943) and repaired, to be used as a landing ship dock.
The ship could launch 2 landing craft at a time from doors in her stern and could load heavy weights with cranes on her deck.



There is more to her than that. She was a HQ ship with radio facilities and command plots. She had side catapults (not always embarked) and could substitute aircraft for landing craft on the thru deck. The deck had RR tracks - and landing craft - or other craft - including midget subs - could be rolled aft - then down the ramp into the sea - while underway at full speed. That system got adapted by Mizuho and one of the Chitoses later on. Meaning those ships too could be LSDs and feed landing craft - not just midgets - into the sea. Other things as well - this ship had elaborate provisions for night landings - including many searchlights.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 568
RE: RHS x.42 remaining issues and update target - 12/31/2006 6:03:30 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah it was very advanced for the time. It's amazing - for a ship that was probably conceptualised in earlier 30's- that without any significant landing operation they reached a concept that turned to be near the present day Landing ships.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 569
RE: RHS x.42 new features - 1/2/2007 12:54:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS 4.2 includes (in addition to the planned comprehensive eratta reviews):

a) A comprehensive review and revision of ship/land radars - due to requests for review of the matter. These have had slot issues since (and still including) stock. We have a better set of data and more types of radars now - albiet not as many as we would prefer - and fewer still able to upgrade for land units. For details see the radar thread.

b) A related minor review of major Allied ships. This has substantially revised towards history battleship radars - and it introduces the Type 79B search radar for the oldest of British carriers. This radar is less reliable than the TYpe 279 which replaced it - but it had significantly more range - and after the Japanase manage to get air search radar at sea - it is the only Allied radar at sea with similar range for air targets. [In January 1943 the tables turn once again with the introduction of Type SK radar - and in 1944 the situation improves with Type SR radar]. The big surprise to me is the lack of air search radar on battleships - Nelson and Rodney excepted - in RN.

[Technical note: these changes, taken together, may have a significant negative impact on Allied air combat performance. There were too many ships with air search radar too early, and virtually all Allied radar had way too much range - grossly inflating the detection situation in favor of Allied interception of enemy air raids. On the other side, combining of US and UK types (often they were in fact the same radar with a different name) permitted addition of one more Japanese type - and we were able to put in the Army Tachikawa land based equipments. While these were similar to the Navy Type 11/12/13 in function (air search) - and also similar to the Navy the series (called Tachikawa 6/7/18) never improves in range - they do provide certain land bases with much better range than anybody's naval radar ever does - and which only a handful of late war land based Allied radars (CPS-1/Type 24) ever beat it for range. The CPS-1 was grossly overrepresented in the game - and probably still hides on Allied ships I have not found it on - but aside from NEVER being on ships - only 4 or 6 (there is some doubt) ever made PTO at all! This was a Cold War era radar - and - like the Tachikawa 11 in 1941 - it is very rare. Yet Japan brought up its first land based air radar station BEFORE war broke out at all in PTO (assuming you are conventional and ignore the war in China) - and was not present in WITP at all before RHS. Until now we simulated it by "early" issue of Type 11/12/13 - but now we can put it in as its own device. I am very pleased with this review because it recreates more of the sense of contest that really existed at the time than we had before.]

c) For EOS, a comprehensive change in unit data to help AI as Japan - this being a mod for players to use solitare. It expresses itself often in the form of "If a human player always does this, or should always do it, it now is automatic" - meaning some of the first turn things you always have to do are now done for you (but really done for the AI if you are not there to be boss).

d) First stage changes in land unit devices moving towards a comprehensive review of squads. We only changed the support squads (interpreted broadly) - and have a problem we won't address at this time with infantry squads (they have a minimum value of 11 built into code) - but we kept this first stage because it makes the relative differences between soldiers and civlians more apparent - and more importantly - it helps show the difference between true weapons teams and support teams acting as sort of low experience, emergency weapons teams. The big problem with this change is the tedious requirement to revise supply sinks (yet again).

e) We have a medium level review and revision of British and CW land units - with an eye toward history - toward integrating with the campaign in Madagascar (adding a whole division related to that - even in Level 5 and 6 - AFTER it is done in Madagascar) - and slight changes to air and naval units of a similar sort.

f) We have a comprehensive review of ROCAF - and an experimental "unit" composed of separate flights (fighter, bomber, transport) using mercinaries and provincial "air forces" not otherwise represented. This is to say, ROCAF gets tiny units of "not junk" - in addition to AVF - which does not start in China and never is sent there by many players. The unit actually represents several different units - and the name chosen is merely the most famous - but apparently it was disbanded before Dec 1941 (and apparently reformed on a different basis later). This unit is chrome: what matters is the great changes made to types - both used and upgraded to - in the direction of history - and away from fictions it is hard to understand in the stock/CHS and former RHS data set.

g) We have diligently incorporated virtually every reported error or suggested addition - however minor - for whichever side - from whatever source - either in all scenarios (usually) or only in EOS (where it was appropriate).
The latest of these was to include the commander of a famous US destroyer (USS Johnston) wholly missing from the data set - and give him ratings higher than any other such officer - including Takhishi Hara - a comparable IJN officer who is rated highly in RHS. This particular destroyer was sunk with great glory at Leyte Gulf - I think it is the ship on which the Sullivan brothers perished as well.






< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/2/2007 1:19:49 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5.413, 6.42 and 7 preliminary releases Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

0.797