Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Editor-Distributed data injection capability?

 
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 >> Editor-Distributed data injection capability? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 3:37:37 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		I am not sure how things works in RHS but one of most useful things for an editor would be to diferent people working in same file at same time.

Since i think that would be dificult to achieve that technically what about an option for the editor to determine the changes made and inject the only the changed/added data to the scenario files?

Advantages:

For RHS/CHS: infinite number of people can work in diferent aspects of a scenario at same time . Modder X in US planes; Modder Y in Japanese planes others in other aspects then in the end all will inject the changed/added data into scenario files.


For Individual player it permits them to inject the changes of their liking to updated versions of Mods without having to painful reediting again.


P.S:Since i dont know much about coding and the game files this could be totaly wrong.
Post #: 1
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 4:31:03 PM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline 		Been thinking about this and other types of import ideas.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 2
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 4:49:48 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Well, now Sid and me are operating in the same scenarios (RHS) but I`m editing the leader, ship class and ship files, and he is in charge of everything else. You only have to be sure of the files that you working on.

wpsxxx.dat are the ships
wphxxx.dat are the leaders
wpgxxx.dat are the air groups
wpaxxx.dat are the aircraft
wpdxxx.dat are the devices
wplxxx.dat are the locations
wppxxx.dat are the pilots




_____________________________


(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 3
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 5:09:39 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is about the most dangerous topic in software. Sophisticated version tracking software is used professionally.
Project managers really have to be careful about this. It is possible to make people mad (see Nemo and I for an RHS example) when you review their work and find something does not fit in. And it is possible to waste tons of money if you are paying them!

The CHS system is to have one "owner" and no one else - the safe and conservative way. We have evolved a system with individual file owners. That is working. But two people in the same file at the same time can NEVER work IMHO.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 4
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 6:13:34 PM   
Dili

 

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

Been thinking about this and other types of import ideas.


That would be wonderful  BigJ62.

----------------------
quote:

But two people in the same file at the same time can NEVER work IMHO.


If management is correct and users obey i dont see why not. If one is editing Allies planes or even only Russian planes another US planes another Japanese planes and slots are distributed by management i cant see a conflict.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 8:03:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Think about it. We both start with aircraft file 1.234

YOU change the Japanese planes - but only in your copy of 1.234

I change the Russian planes - but only in my copy of 1.234

Now we have two different 1.235 files - NEITHER of which has both the new sets of data in it.

ONLY if one of us works first - and then the other puts his stuff in on top of it - will we get both data sets.

Pretty simple really - if we both work at once we have "branched" - in software terms. The files will NEVER be the same again.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 6
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 8:59:56 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		My first post:

quote:

editor to determine the changes made and inject the only the changed/added data to the scenario files?


This is the way i think it will work best:

El cid loads copy 1.234  and changes data; click in button that tags/export the changed/added data saving a .bat file with only the tagged data ; sends the file to the "RHS boss" that will inject into master 1.234 and renames to 1.235
Dili loads 1.234....
"RHS boss" injects more data into 1.235.

Now the .bat file is my imagination it can be an executable that needs to load the changed data file, one file at time and inject or loads all changed data files that arrives and even has a check (to verify if there is no repeated field changed between them, but that is luxury) or any other solution, imagination is the limit.

The essential issue is that both start from same data file.




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 7
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/18/2007 9:16:24 PM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline 		Another idea I have is to convert scenarios from one type to another such as stock to CHS or whatever. Mostly because of the superior maps I've seen and used.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 8
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/19/2007 11:22:16 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It is a whole lot easier - and safer - to do one set at a time - and then test - and then do the next set - with a file "gatekeeper" - who does both the technical stuff and the verification process. I am a computer guy - sans about 40 years - so I don't trust software unsupervised - line by line - field by field - by humans! And I don't trust any human - especially myself - to get it right untested and unreviewed. Violates information theory to think otherwise.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 9
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/19/2007 11:23:31 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Another idea I have is to convert scenarios from one type to another such as stock to CHS or whatever. Mostly because of the superior maps I've seen and used.


Deliberately - we have made a set of RHS maps and pwhex files compatable with CHS. There is no reason you cannot use them with ANY CHS compatable file set.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 10
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/19/2007 12:53:06 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		Info for the new guys (I'm sure the RHS team are already using somthing like this...)

There are literally a million revision control systems you can use for stuff like this. The one I use is CS-RCS, a freeware tool which is quick and easy to use and has an interface into Word for control of documents. It has rudimentory support of binary files as well. I found it very handy for a lot of tasks.

There is a useful tutorial on the website which I have used to show newbies what RCS can do for you.

I just had a quick look at their website and it looks like they have released the pro version as a free download. This version appears to have workgroup merge capabilities (can't comment as I have only used the basic version).

As I said, a million tools out there, this is just an example.

Edit: highlight links...

< Message edited by Reg -- 1/19/2007 1:15:49 PM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 11
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/20/2007 2:17:38 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

My first post:

quote:

editor to determine the changes made and inject the only the changed/added data to the scenario files?


This is the way i think it will work best:

El cid loads copy 1.234  and changes data; click in button that tags/export the changed/added data saving a .bat file with only the tagged data ; sends the file to the "RHS boss" that will inject into master 1.234 and renames to 1.235
Dili loads 1.234....
"RHS boss" injects more data into 1.235.

Now the .bat file is my imagination it can be an executable that needs to load the changed data file, one file at time and inject or loads all changed data files that arrives and even has a check (to verify if there is no repeated field changed between them, but that is luxury) or any other solution, imagination is the limit.

The essential issue is that both start from same data file.


Dili,

RCS already does all this. Using the merge function, changes from two developers can be rolled into a single baseline file easily. If two changes overlap, then it is usually flagged for human intervention.

Unfortunately as El Sid alluded, RCS does not think about what it is doing (it is after all only a machine) and sometimes a human touch is required to ensure the changes make sense. Most RCS packages contain a tool (diff) to highlight differences between files (before and after) for verification purposes.

Check out the Change Synchronisation slide in the tutorial from the post above. Once again this is just an example of what RCS is capable of. Everything that RCS does can be done by hand, it just gets tedious.


Edit: Spelling...

< Message edited by Reg -- 1/20/2007 2:53:51 AM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 12
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/20/2007 4:58:42 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks Reg will check it. For me the problem is this: i choosed RHS because from what i know is the best regarding land units combat: Example the "Divisions" Brigades where in others have plain Divisions - i am a little uneasy regarding all errors i found like Tonys, and of course the fact that Russian chrome is choosed over Japanese ship correction. That last part: corrections, more ship updates, etc.    is what i want to inject everytime a new RHS is released.

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 13
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/20/2007 7:24:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We are now in almost purely a data correction mode - prepratory to abandoning development of Level 5 and 6.

We will then go into a human testing phase to find errors editors cannot - and address that.

We MIGHT add some Allied planes to EOS - but otherwise have no development plans. Instead we will move on to expanding the map at Level 7 - if possible.

I must take exception about the term "Russian chrome." I regard it as a significant (if not gigantic) failure of WITP in general not to make the Soviets active at all times - or able to function if passive - and to fail to give them a Navy, a naval air force, a long range air force, airborne troops, etc. IRL Russia was the BIGGEST problem Japan faced - at least according to Foreign Minister Togo - and this view is almost certainly correct: Russia is hostile, gigantic, and close by. It also is a place that resources and even oil and industry can be had if invaded successfully - and bombers based there are much more a threat than almost anywhere else the Allies can get to. Minimalizing the Soviet force/options wholly and ahistorically and grossly distorts the geopolitics and the strategic choices the Japanese (and Allies) must (or should) make. The historical choices were made in the CONTEXT of the position, forces and politics of the USSR - not ignoring them. Why should Japan be free to send major air forces and land forces South with no risk? Guaranteed no risk? Why should the Allies not be able to propose - as they really did propose - to use Soviet territory as a basis for the primary axis of attack on the Japanese Empire? IF it could be worked out - it would shorten the war significantly. The ALCAN highway was supposed to be the first stage in a project to build a RAILROAD to Nome, Alaska - from which ships were to carry supplies to bases built along the coast of Siberia and offshore Soviet and US islands. From these bases (as indeed really happened from the Aleutians) even medium bombers can reach Japan.
And it places Japan in a horrible strategic connundrum: its focus is (and pretty much must be) operations in China and the SRA - so anything sent NE is either taken from those operations or no longer available for them. It is never clear that IJA can defeat the Red Army either? It MIGHT be possible in 1942. But this isn't clear with the imatiated forces present in WITP.

Just as the Soviets always (and grossly) minimize the contributions of its Allies to the defeat of the Axis, so we (almost as badly) minimize the role the Soviets played - and not just in ETO. It isn't fashionable in the US in particular to write or believe the Soviets had any important role in WWII - never mind a majority of Axis troops always faced them - and that very specifically is true because Japanese armies are part of the package - not just a function of the European situation with other Axis nations. To the extent we are attempting to move toward a simulation in which players need to make choices in their full context - we need to add the Soveit factor as much as we need to add logistics. IMHO.

Ships have been the main focus of WITP. Further, ships were the main thing I wanted to correct - and when CHS was unable to address ship corrections in the same year - I began RHS. We continue to upgrade ships. But EVERY major ship has been reviewed - most more than once - and the errors that remain are not nearly as important as completely missing units/capabilities. We now have data washed class files - and I am forcing the individual ships to line up with these class definitions at this moment. There are no less than 60 pages (that is, 3000 lines) of ship errors that will be corrected just for x.61 release.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/20/2007 7:52:50 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 14
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/21/2007 3:53:58 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks Reg will check it. For me the problem is this: i choosed RHS because from what i know is the best regarding land units combat: Example the "Divisions" Brigades where in others have plain Divisions - i am a little uneasy regarding all errors i found like Tonys, and of course the fact that Russian chrome is choosed over Japanese ship correction. That last part: corrections, more ship updates, etc.    is what i want to inject everytime a new RHS is released.


I see what you are after. What you want to do is create a "private" branch (version) of the RHS baseline every time time a new one is released. RCS probably isn't the tool for you as you aren't involved in baseline management. Checking in the latest RHS baseline will wipeout your changes as RCS will see the absence of your data in RHS as a change to incorporated along with any new data added by the RHS team. As you said, you need a tool to reapply your changes over each official version as it is released.

If you aren't comfortable in writing a batch file, try something like PatchWise Free

I've never used it but it may be what you are after. Try it and see.



< Message edited by Reg -- 1/21/2007 4:53:55 AM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 15
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/21/2007 4:24:32 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

... IRL Russia was the BIGGEST problem Japan faced - at least according to Foreign Minister Togo - and this view is almost certainly correct: Russia is hostile, gigantic, and close by. It also is a place that resources and even oil and industry can be had if invaded successfully - and bombers based there are much more a threat than almost anywhere else the Allies can get to. ...



I gotta agree with you on this. It's interesting that the widespread perception is that WWII really started on 7Dec41 when Europe had been ablaze since 1939 and China/Manchuria had been in turmoil since the mid thirties. How many people are even aware of the scale of the Manchuria Incident and its consequences. (love the term 'Incident', couldn't have been anything important). WITP just reflects those narrow perceptions.

Great work keep it up.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/21/2007 6:30:47 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There is a basic set of RHS files which should be stable from now on. For all RHS variations the leader and pilot files NEVER change (once debugged - which they probably are now and will be if not by the end of the weekend). For any given scenario, the cam file is going to be stable as well. So will the device file, and most of the time the aircraft file and ship class files won't change: if they DO change I will tell you what the changes are. But you could ignore them and use the older files.

The big changes usually occur in the device file (WRONG - LOCATION file), the ship file and the air group file. If you want, we can work out a system to incorporate those changes for any particular scenario you are working on. I usually apply any change to ALL files that need it at the same time - at all levels - in all scenarios. Makes for fewer errors.

There may not be a lot of changes to Level 5 or 6 RHS scenarios after the current data washing session ends. So this may not be too hard to do. But I would need copies of the files that you want kept up to date.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/22/2007 2:11:56 AM >

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 17
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/21/2007 10:32:08 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks again Reg i will try it.


I disagree El Cid Again . I dont care if the Russians have DB-3, some obsure recon plane, armored trains if that it is at expense of fundamental errors in Cruisers and other Japanese OOB like Tonys in Guinea. Before i came here CLs had 9000nm range so it is obvious no one cared about it, i am sure there are many other things i overlooked. The Manchuria level limit have been working pretty well against me. Note that i agree that Russians are important but that eastern inospit region has not so many resources, industry... even the Oil industry in 30's and 40's were not like we think they are now. I disagree also that a full time big army in combat mode (spending oil/gas, supplies, amno) can work in Eastern region without major industries and a Soviet Army without lendlease logistics(railways, trucks) . If that eastern war started earlier i bet the Murmansk convoys would be instead to Vladivostok.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 2:17:27 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks again Reg i will try it.


I disagree El Cid Again . I dont care if the Russians have DB-3, some obsure recon plane, armored trains if that it is at expense of fundamental errors in Cruisers and other Japanese OOB like Tonys in Guinea. Before i came here CLs had 9000nm range so it is obvious no one cared about it, i am sure there are many other things i overlooked. The Manchuria level limit have been working pretty well against me. Note that i agree that Russians are important but that eastern inospit region has not so many resources, industry... even the Oil industry in 30's and 40's were not like we think they are now. I disagree also that a full time big army in combat mode (spending oil/gas, supplies, amno) can work in Eastern region without major industries and a Soviet Army without lendlease logistics(railways, trucks) . If that eastern war started earlier i bet the Murmansk convoys would be instead to Vladivostok.


You should attempt management of 133,000 fields. I have "cared about it" for over a year - and I just found I had every W type minesweeper wrong in some detail only today. And RHS is the first mod to get them to convert from minesweepers to sub chasers. But I failed to note there were small numbers of DC on them as MS - and somehow the guns got all mixed up. File management is difficult - more so when you suffer data corruption - and still more so when you manage a number of scenarios instead of only one. The 9000 mile range was corrected for some sub classes - and it was an inherited value from the base CHS set - which in turn inherited it from stock. [I also bet NO ONE actually ever believed the range was 9000 miles. WITP works by copying a record and modifying it - so someone took a different cruiser - and not knowing the range - never modified it - when they changed the guns etc. Probably. Surely it is hard to justify a 9000 mile range for ships designed for only 5000 - and which in practice achieved only 6000. Worse - the WITP standards changed the speed upward - from 14 to 15 knots - which would actually reduce the range more.]

You also should study information theory. There are - will always be - must be - errors in data when this size of data is managed. It is - must be - will always be - much worse when there is no standard single source for data - when the data is entered by many people - and the time to review the data set is severely constrained. There are sources of error you are not considering - sources which occur IN SPITE of people "caring" and actually correcting it. I have had to fix some things more than once (ask Monter: "it was fixed in 3.4 but it isn't fixed any more"). There are ways that tools and other things (in this age even hostile "malware") mess with us. And humans make mistakes too - not everything is the fault of the editor. It is plain wrong to assume that an error is present because no one cares.
I have fixed as many errors as anyone has - so many I am probably not going to be able to type well for the rest of my life - and it is wholly false to allege or believe I don't want things to be correct.

IF you look at ANY part of the data set - you are going to find errors. Gross errors. Quoting one Matrix insider "it is amazing anything works." It is. I have set out to systematically make things better. But it is bad management to assume that we must spend a hundred years before we can test or play. At some point the number of changes is big enough that it becomes more important to run the program than to get rid of more errors. We are probably well past that point. I am not going to focus on error correction until there are zero errors. We will NEVER have zero errors.
And we DO need to test. So we will. We will take note of possible errors - and work in corrections when time and information permits. But we WILL give priority to things that are WHOLLY wrong. A cruiser given 9000 miles range is closer to right than an entirely missing Soviet navy!

I am not at all following your comments about Lend Lease. But you seem to think it is what made the Soviet forces work: lend lease was less than 10% of DOMESTIC Soviet production - maybe a lot less than 10%. Germany never was competative in things like tank production or aircraft production - and the extent to which that was the case was not understood at the time by the Germans. The Japanese - whose diplomats and soldiers road the Trans Siberian RR - had a better sense of it - and believed the Germans would probably lose - even in 1941 - when many people on both sides were not so sure. But what your point may be I have no clue?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/22/2007 2:33:16 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 19
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 4:37:23 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		 I think it is essential that OOBs and US and Japanese ships/airplanes/etc are right, the update when they got radars etc. We have to agree to disagree.


quote:

lend lease was less than 10% of DOMESTIC Soviet production - maybe a lot less than 10%.


You are forgetting that Lend Lease make it's impact in 42 and 43, essential years of fighting, that in some essential equipment was a big majority from land lease in that period and even in 1945 and much more impact if we count the design/tech/manufacturing that Soviets learned for logistic equipment that was direct or improved copies of american equipment.  We can go from railways, to rubber , to trucks, to radios, to explosives to high octane gas.  Tanks or planes are chrome in this context.

The point is that Soviet Union would need ship supply convoys from US for example.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 20
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 10:09:18 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am not sure we disagree about anything really? The Soviets tend to understate the value of Lend Lease - and to deny losses en route like PQ13 - while we tend to overstate it almost as much as they understate it. Point of view mostly. Yes - some technology transfer mattered. But in the main we send second string stuff to MINIMIZE that - and many of our planes and vehicles were inferior to Soviet gear. When a unit could pick its fighter - even a volunteer unit of Frenchmen or whatever - they never picked US planes! And if you think I don't want Japanese and US ships and planes to be right - you don't grasp why I was unwilling to go with CHS. CHS itself was dedicated to doing that - but the process was far too slow and most subjects were 100% off limits indefinitely: "we are doing this and that, some day maybe we will look at your problem" - and always "if the plank holders agree." Well - I use feed back virtually every day to improve things. Too much - so it delays development and testing. I won't be drawn into debates about it: if you think RHS is not trying to get the ships and planes right you are simply wrong. And if you don't think missing Russian planes and ships are as important as Japanese or US ones you are equally wrong. A Russian ship or plane probably matters more than a US one - due to its location. Certainly not less.

Yes - supply convoys to Russia probably matter some. It is not all about economics - it is about psychology. I don't think the Axis can cut all the supply lines. But it should probably try. If it can it would not beat the Russians - but it might discourage them and some of their allies. I have been looking for ways to address this - see the appropriate thread - so i do not see any real disagreement in principle. As to how to do it - I have few clues - except it turns out we already have the PTO supply about right - at least according to one critic. "Perfect" was his term of choice.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/22/2007 10:24:56 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 21
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 4:37:00 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		In some areas Lend-Lease was very important, even vital to Soviet Union. For example, 90 % of rail locomotives Soviets had in use during WW II came via Lend-Lease. Also, 60% of aluminium used for aircrafts came via Lend-Lease. And most trucks too.

Soviets would not have accomplished what they did (at least not easily) if they had to concentrate lot of capacity to produce those critical materials.


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 1/22/2007 5:07:51 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 7:36:29 PM   
Dili

 

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

I am not sure we disagree about anything really? (...)if you think RHS is not trying to get the ships and planes right you are simply wrong. And if you don't think missing Russian planes and ships are as important as Japanese or US ones you are equally wrong. A Russian ship or plane probably matters more than a US one - due to its location. Certainly not less.


Of course we disagree...

quote:

and many of our planes and vehicles were inferior to Soviet gear. When a unit could pick its fighter - even a volunteer unit of Frenchmen or whatever - they never picked US planes!


That is not true. First depends on year. For example a plane like Aircobra despised by US pilots was put to good use in Soviet Union, compared to Soviet examples US aircrafts were much more confortable, had much better sights and better safety. Of course in end 43-45 new beter performance Soviet Aircraft came in and surpassed them. In tanks 1st Mechanized Guards ditched T-34/76 and /85 for M4 Shermans in earlier 1945 and entered Vienna in them.

T-34 Vs Sherman
http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=19

But like i said aircrafts and tanks are chrome when 2/3 of your army move  in Studebakers and Dodges in 1945, when radios start to get more widespread  only because US supplies and when even lend lease simple powder for cartridges is essential in dificult years of 42/43.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 23
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 8:00:41 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

I am not sure we disagree about anything really? (...)if you think RHS is not trying to get the ships and planes right you are simply wrong. And if you don't think missing Russian planes and ships are as important as Japanese or US ones you are equally wrong. A Russian ship or plane probably matters more than a US one - due to its location. Certainly not less.


Of course we disagree...

quote:

and many of our planes and vehicles were inferior to Soviet gear. When a unit could pick its fighter - even a volunteer unit of Frenchmen or whatever - they never picked US planes!


That is not true. First depends on year. For example a plane like Aircobra despised by US pilots was put to good use in Soviet Union, compared to Soviet examples US aircrafts were much more confortable, had much better sights and better safety. Of course in end 43-45 new beter performance Soviet Aircraft came in and surpassed them. In tanks 1st Mechanized Guards ditched T-34/76 and /85 for M4 Shermans in earlier 1945 and entered Vienna in them.

T-34 Vs Sherman
http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=19

But like i said aircrafts and tanks are chrome when 2/3 of your army move in Studebakers and Dodges in 1945, when radios start to get more widespread only because US supplies and when even lend lease simple powder for cartridges is essential in dificult years of 42/43.


3rd Guards Mechanized Corps was completely equipped with Sherman tanks (assault guns were Soviet models, of course) during Autumn Storm (invasion of Manchuria) in 1945...

The Soviets used Airacobras mainly as ground-attack aircraft, not as air superiority fighters.

And yes, the Soviets competely depended on lend-and-lease trucks (but you forgot Bedford and other British supplied trucks...). If I rememember correctly, all Soviet truck factories were converted to tank production in 1941.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 24
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/22/2007 10:25:14 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		A Sherman is just fine against a Japanese tank of pre war design (that is a Chi Ha - the main tank when Russia invaded - or its slightly upgunned derivitive Chi He). But who would prefer a Sherman if fighting Panthers and Tigers and such? The T-34 was superior in design - in several senses - and its turret shape became a standard because it didn't have the shell traps of traditional tanks. T-34s also would run in conditions German or US tanks would not - and probably would have been preferred if the offensive came in winter. As early as the 1941-42 offensive - at the time German armor was unable to move - the T-34 was operational and leading a counteroffensive.
[Granted the winter was the worst in a century - Russian winters are never a picnic - and they call it "general winter" for its effect on invaders and their equipment].

If Russia had not obtained British and American made trucks in quantity - it could have still outproduced Germany in Tanks AND in trucks. It would have mattered - but the scale of the economic situation was awful from an Axis point of view. The Germans never had less than 2/3 of their forces facing East - and most of their allies were helping them on that front. The Japanese always kept their strongest forces to face the Russians - and it is not at all clear they were ever strong enough. Granted the scale of manpower and equipment had been lowered by August Storm - it is still not clear that Japan had the forces to handle the Red Army in ANY year. The strategic reality is that Japan had to try - and IJA wanted more than that - it wanted to raise a force sufficient to attack (it estimated 14 divisions would be sufficient: do you think it was? Even granting a Japanese army had half its strength in non-divisional units - regiments, brigades and independent battalions - do you think 28 division equivelants is enough to defeat the Red Army in 1941 or 1942 or any other year?) A war game that is not just a staged parlor trick - intended to more or less recreate historical choices and events - is supposed to allow players to make the CHOICES of the real leaders - in the context of the potential CONSEQUENCES of those choices. A grossly too weak USSR prevents that from being possible. A USSR wholly lacking in task capabilities is not going to scare Japan into keeping Kwangtung Army, Korea Army, Northern District Army and Kurofuto Brigade at strength - or to back them with 3/4 of the armor and a major air force with some of the newest equipment. The Chinese in WWII era said of the armies they had contact with "the Russians had the best soldiers; the Americans had the best generals." [Now RUSSIAN and AMERICAN generals said the IJA had the best soldiers - but they referred to a willingness to do what they were told that is without peer in the modern era: Zhukov was impressed by Japanese troops in 1938 - dead on their posts - manning their weapons.] The Japanese problem is not so much bad soldiers as one of scale: Russia is a BIG problem. To the extent the game does not make this so it is not recreating the strategic situation historically.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/22/2007 10:38:17 PM >

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 25
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/23/2007 5:21:49 AM   
Dili

 

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

But who would prefer a Sherman if fighting Panthers and Tigers and such? The T-34 was superior in design - in several senses - and its turret shape became a standard because it didn't have the shell traps of traditional tanks


T-34 was not superior to Sherman. It's turret was no example actually was a bad example because didnt had Gunner; Loader and  Commander in it. Only the late /85 changed for 3 crew turret, the gun was also inferior except the /85.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 26
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/23/2007 3:31:10 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Sherman was very much liked for it's reliability and good finishing. Also, many elite fighter formations used P-39 Airacobra-models excusively..one reason was that it had radio (!) and other that it suited very well for low-level Soviet tactics.


< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 1/23/2007 3:43:30 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 27
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/23/2007 5:42:51 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

But who would prefer a Sherman if fighting Panthers and Tigers and such? The T-34 was superior in design - in several senses - and its turret shape became a standard because it didn't have the shell traps of traditional tanks


T-34 was not superior to Sherman. It's turret was no example actually was a bad example because didnt had Gunner; Loader and  Commander in it. Only the late /85 changed for 3 crew turret, the gun was also inferior except the /85.


If you formally study tank design, you will learn of the inherant superiority of the T-34 tank turret shape. Granted that there is a continuous evolution in tank design - and that it may be argued that a 3 crew turret is better (a view I don't happen to share by the way). But when an idea is widely imitated, it is a better idea - and credit belongs to the FIRST tank to use it. Similarly - this is a rare argument - one can claim that JAPANESE tanks had superior propulsion. They invested heavily in diesel engine research for tank propulsion in the 1930s - and by WWII had converted over to using it 100%. But Russian, German, British and American tanks were substantially still gasoline powered. Yet post war this innovation became almost universally used.

Now if you want to criticize Japanese tankets with 1 crew turrets for having too few men - I would agree it was a significant tactical problem. Yet you could not possibly fit 2 men in a such a small turret - and these vehicles were probably better than comparable Western ones: properly speaking they were modeled on - and were - weapons carriers - they just LOOK like tanks! There are reasons that is a good idea - and for their cost - they paid dividends.

Again if you want to criticize Japanese tanks for being light and lightly protected - I would agree it was a significant tactical problem. But it was also appropriate to the horrible communications of the area - and for much of the war the presence of light tanks in tiny numbers (1 or 2) was often decisive - and for both sides. When the main road "heavy" bridges are rated for 10 tons - it is difficult to put over a 30 or 40 ton vehicle and not destroy the bridge. But a 10 ton one is just fine.

Everything is relative. But the T-34 was a better idea. Early ones generally lacked radios - and it might have been very combat efficient simply to ship radios for them to the USSR (but we didn't do that). This meant their potential was not fully realized. So did the horrible (and self inflicted) officer problem: Stalin had killed much of his talent - in particular in the armor branch - and this combined with expansion to spread officers way too thin: an officer served two grades above his competence - and was given a command one level higher than approprate for that inflated rank!
Down low you had greenhorns - never mind the rank they wore.

Now I am not particularly anti-Sherman. It was a significant improvement over what passed for tanks before it in the US Army (they were either light or lacked a main turret for the heavy gun). Like Japanese tanks - it was very appropriate to use when the opposition was not particularly impressive. But I doubt you would have wanted to be in one facing Tigers and Panthers. You could not hurt them at all from the front, nor a Tiger from the side, and they could kill you from any direction. On the other hand, facing obsolete tanks in Central Luzon in the only proper tank battle we had in PTO - Shermans never let the enemy get in range to try to shoot. It was more or less a massacre - because of the range advantage it had over short 57mm guns. I have no quarrel with Zhukov's choice to use it vs even the better 47mm armed tanks in Manchuria.

The relative value of a weapon in various situations does not change the validity of saying the T-34 was inherantly a superior concept of tank design - way ahead of the Germans or us - one you study in the tank design field. [It was my privilage in the 1970s to work at the GM Prooving Grounds in Milford Michigan for Chevrolet Engineering. I always volunteered to test vehicles on the Military and Off Road Test Track. We always had tanks of our own - contingency designs - and we would test any minor company's vehicles for one dollar plus cost - so GM could not be accused of violating anti-trust laws and making competition impossible. We also sometimes got to evaluate purchased or captured vehicles under contract. I assure you - we studied the technical history of vehicle design - seeking ideas which were better.] I am not of the school "not invented here isn't as good" nor "American made is always the best." It is the best if and only if it is the best.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 28
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/23/2007 7:25:21 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		If you want to go with the Authority Argument Way I think it's better that you talk to real tankers instead: "and that it may be argued that a 3 crew turret is better (a view I don't happen to share by the way".

"But I doubt you would have wanted to be in one facing Tigers and Panthers."

So what was the T-34 advantage facing Tigers and Panther, tell me i real want to know...

was the gun/optics better: no
was the armor better: no, it was brittle and spalled even when not penetrated
was the turret better: no, Commander had to command and fire at same time (until /85 came)


"You could not hurt them at all from the front, nor a Tiger from the side, and they could kill you from any direction."

So what is the diference in that regard from T-34?

< Message edited by Dili -- 1/23/2007 7:40:51 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 29
RE: Editor-Distributed data injection capability? - 1/24/2007 11:39:46 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Turns out the T-34 - in various forms - did rather well vs German armor. By the time Tigers and Panthers were available - the T-34 had evolved to an even better form - and the numbers were such that the Germans were not really going to win the attrition fight. Off the top of my head, I know the general overall statistic for men on the Eastern Front: Germany killed 3 for every 1 it lost. And that ratio - which sounds good - was decisively bad: it meant Germany MUST lose the attrition war. What we call the Battle of Kursk was really a gigantic trap - the German armor never had a chance - although it isn't just because of the numbers of T-34s it faced. [Anti-tank guns and other weapons must get some share of the credit. The Germans were more or less tricked into attacking - to burn out their mobile power - and when that failed - the Russian mobile forces were to counterattack. A lot of what we think we know came from German sources - and we are only now sorting it out - because the Soviet data became available about 1990 - and it is now being translated and integrated.] By the time Tigers and Panthers are available - there is no happy option for German forces in the East. Pick your battle - and I will wind your clock as the Russians.

I fail to see what we are debating about or to what purpose? There has never been anything much wrong with Russian ordnance. I saw American troops in Viet Nam prefer AK-47s to M-16s - and even today - with the M16A1 (correcting serious deficiencies of the original) and a heavier bullet - my choice for a combat round is 7.62 x 39, not 5.56mm. Wether a particular weapon is better or not depends on lots of factors - and a weapon may be better in this respect but not as good in that at the same moment. Armor is a very tricky subject. Misconceptions are rampant - and intelligent differences of opinion exist even among experts. You may think "tankers" are better authorities than automotive engineers who actually design and test tanks - but if so you don't understand how we get better tanks?
It isn't the users who figure it out. Do you know that the most expensive tanks in the world - today and in the 1930s - were Japanese? Do you know that the Japanese were innovators in tank technology - all this time - and have tanks that do things ours cannot? It is rare to hear someone extoll the virtues of Japanese tanks - yet they were for a while in many ways the best in the world in the 1930s - and once again they were at the end of the 20th century. If they get replaced - it may be by a strange Chinese design - one originating in Russia about 1958 but never produced there -
and there is zero chance it will be by us - because we are not working on a competative idea any more. [We have concluded we "never" need another tank! In spite of not having the best.] Unless these are familiar topics - you are listening to people who are not comprehensively informed about tank history or design. To the typical "tanker" there never was a great Japanese tank idea - never mind the world's best tanks. Nor can the Chinese field anything impressive. [But I wonder how whoever is on the recieving end of a 140 mm is going to feel about that? I know an armor platoon commander in the US Army who lost 4 of his 5 vehicles in 2 seconds in 1991. "We were lucky" he says. "In the right circumstances Russian tanks are dangerous."]

I don't like tanks. I regard them as targets. If I must be on a modern battlefield - usually I get to be at a command center - but if I must be in the field as such - I prefer to carry a scoped bolt action rifle. That way no one notices me - and I can do damage - over and over and over again. A tank - that attracts a lot of attention - and modern weapons often can take it out. On the other hand, I believe in tanks. I am a combined arms theorist. A tank on the field changes the way infantry behaves - to the advantage of the side with the tank. The sight or sound of a tank demoralizes the enemy. And a tank can do things with its gun that are quite useful - without waiting for a call for artillery or air strikes - right now when it matters. So I don't agree with the decision to give all our M-60s to Taiwan, and not to design another generation of tanks for the US Army. Yeah - they are heavy and hard to move (strategic lift wise) - but I don't want to do everything without them.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/24/2007 12:11:27 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Editor-Distributed data injection capability? Page: [1] 2   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

1.375