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: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types

 
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: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/8/2007 11:45:06 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Sounds good !

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 991
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/8/2007 11:46:49 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Why just not have individual leader for every sink instead of generic ? I don't think that'd be too much work and it'd get rid of "infamous leader bug" since I don't even want to think possible effects on other leaders if "staff officers" start to appear... Even though that's supposed to be fixed.



I regard the use of this bug for supply sinks as something good, not bad. And there seem to be no ill effects - or rather all the ill effects are welcome and we wish they were even greater than they are - which is even better. It also helps prevent running out of officers - a problem when you fill slots like RHS does. Gives the game more cushion in that regard.

In other cases - there are generic officers who are DIFFERENT for each unit. See Axis (Korean) construction engineers. These officers are terrible - but they are unique - one per unit - and don't get replaced by staff officers. IRL these guys (construction engineers) were often the only ones to surrender when we overran a Japanese base. Not to be confused with Engineer Regiments or engineers organic to military units or even Road Construction engineers - who were Japanese.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/8/2007 12:03:26 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 992
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/9/2007 10:09:03 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		For supply issue, i make my expeditionary units in DEI/Brunei with no update/no replacements. When a ship arrives with supplies i change that for 1-2 turns turning it back to NO after that. Still not found a good way to measure the supply arrived and the supply that is used by units in that time frame. But it's way better than  Kendari with 70000 idle troops.
Putting a supply sink just one hex at side of target would not achieve same propose?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 993
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/10/2007 7:13:32 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Where are the British Withdrawl points for Scenario 60. Is it Aden and Melbourne or Aden and Tristan de Cunha (South Atlantic Entry)? Thanks

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 3/14/2007 4:50:14 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 994
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/10/2007 8:30:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I do not understand your suggestion in a technical sense - and I would like to.

No - a different hex has undesireable effects.

a) It requires a location be defined - wasting a whole location slot in addition to the sink slot.

b) It will not cause any damage to resouces (or HI or similar things) when the hex is taken.

c) It will not make the hex harder to take. If we have too much of this - I want some of it. Read about the miners in New Guinea, the oil field hands in NEI, and such. Taking a base hex that has real industry manned by foreigners who oppose your takeover is very different from taking an empty hex - and should not be free. I don't like tiny landing parties taking over vast areas (2600 sq miles?) for free.

In this particular case, I have reduced the sink size by 33% as a first pass correction. There surely is some food, timber and gravel here - that is supply points - and probably other things. Since small sinks are no problem - people don't even notice them - and really big ones (this isn't one - it is medium) are at places people expect a big fight - this may be a good idea. It appears that a medium sink becomes a tougher problem disproportionately to its size. That is, the bigger it is the difficulty in taking the place increases greater than linearly.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 995
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 8:37:06 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Reports are uncommonly good - the only problem I have not myself detected being the one we knew would exist with a good sized supply sink.

I may have detected a problem with engine production - it may be limited to AI controlled campaigns - under analysis.
The problem is that later engines (higher device numbers) seem never to produce - so you never get any planes using them.

The Allied Tag Team leader likes to have clean scenarios - and looking at his analysis/comments I found a number of things - including

a) A missing French DL (sister already defined)
b) A missing French CL (defined in all WITP versions but not normally present - and defined on the wrong side!)
c) I finally figured out how to put a flying boat on Akitsushima (feeling a bit stupid - since we got Doolittle's bombers to work)
d) I finally figured out how to rate the Japanese command ships (also feeling dumb - AGC of course - since code will give you boosts for a commander on one of these - but only in RHS - not only because of a lack of AGCs elcewhere but also a lack of appropriately defined HQ to put on them)
e) Late war major AP production for Japan should have been AK production (in EOS) - duh again. Same steel, same engines, almost no brainer.
f) Waiting for feedback I converted all Japanese PC to two vessel elements - which is the right way to go. ASW in that era was generally ineffective if you did not have two vessels - since you lose track when DC go off.
g) Some of the suggestions did permit better slot usage or freeing up slots. The rest will create better efficiency (faster execution) - but will take time to implement.

There is enough here to warrant an update. I am waiting only to figure out the engine issue - and I have asked for help too.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/10/2007 8:55:11 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 996
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 4:49:03 PM   
Accipiter

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I may have detected a problem with engine production - it may be limited to AI controlled campaigns - under analysis.
The problem is that later engines (higher device numbers) seem never to produce - so you never get any planes using them.

There is enough here to warrant an update. I am waiting only to figure out the engine issue - and I have asked for help too.



I've been playing RHSEOS v5.14 for the last several months and have gotten up to 10/42 so far (I'm the EOS). So far there have been absolutely no later year engines produced (I'm especially concerned about the lack of Nissan engine since they are needed starting in 10/43). My opponent looked up the scenario information and it looks like engine production isn't set to become active until 1/1944. I wasn't aware that engine factories would have a date in which they would start producing. I do not know but I think that this may be the source of this bug. I won't know for sure until 1944 rolls around. If they won't produce after 1944, our campaign is going to be fubar. I'm sure its not a question of HI as I turned off almost all other drains on HI (shipyards and non-Nissan engine production) for a turn to see if that was the problem, but the Nissan engine factory still just would not produce anything.

Aside from the engine issue almost everything else in the scenario has been running well with the exception of supply flow in China. I can not figure out why when I manually ship in 50k supply to a base 3 hexes away from Changsha, none of that supply will flow to my troops sieging that hex (even with multiple HQ and sitting there for weeks with a open road between the hexes). Supply issues there are so bad that I've just given up on any sort of offensive in China, it simply does not appear to be possible. In Burma/India Theater, I have absolutely no problem with supply flow, I have had guys sitting in Benares (I controlled everything between east of there) who'd routinely have 2x supply while on the offensive. I don't know if this something that's been fixed in subsequent versions or if it's an unintentional effect of having so many supply sinks in China (with relatively few in India).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 997
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 7:03:15 PM   
Dili

 

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

I do not understand your suggestion in a technical sense

The suggestion is that it will consume the supply of the place but will not be a part of resistance to it's takeover 

quote:

It will not cause any damage to resouces (or HI or similar things) when the hex is taken.

Will not small enginnering party achieve that? or insert engineers in the major infantry unit?
Btw in many places in DEI assets were not sabotaged. Some were some not.


quote:

c) It will not make the hex harder to take. If we have too much of this - I want some of it. Read about the miners in New Guinea, the oil field hands in NEI, and such. Taking a base hex that has real industry manned by foreigners who oppose your takeover is very different from taking an empty hex - and should not be free. I don't like tiny landing parties taking over vast areas (2600 sq miles?) for free


Well that is what happened in many places historically. Like i said if Kendari needs to be taken by more than a reinforced battalion it isnt a War in Pacific, it's another what if.
Btw where i said that real combat units shouldnt be there for you to say "for free"?

(in reply to Accipiter)
Post #: 998
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 7:45:47 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Accipiter is correct.  The date into service of the engines is the date before which NONE can be produced. Obviously they should all be set to December 41 to allow for the slow production of stockpiles etc etc but in RHS ( and Empires Abaze) a couple of the later ones are set to only begin production in 1944 - Nissan engines are among these, resulting in the hobbling of Ki-44 III production throughout 1943

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 999
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 10:52:25 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Accipiter


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I may have detected a problem with engine production - it may be limited to AI controlled campaigns - under analysis.
The problem is that later engines (higher device numbers) seem never to produce - so you never get any planes using them.

There is enough here to warrant an update. I am waiting only to figure out the engine issue - and I have asked for help too.



I've been playing RHSEOS v5.14 for the last several months and have gotten up to 10/42 so far (I'm the EOS). So far there have been absolutely no later year engines produced (I'm especially concerned about the lack of Nissan engine since they are needed starting in 10/43). My opponent looked up the scenario information and it looks like engine production isn't set to become active until 1/1944. I wasn't aware that engine factories would have a date in which they would start producing. I do not know but I think that this may be the source of this bug. I won't know for sure until 1944 rolls around. If they won't produce after 1944, our campaign is going to be fubar. I'm sure its not a question of HI as I turned off almost all other drains on HI (shipyards and non-Nissan engine production) for a turn to see if that was the problem, but the Nissan engine factory still just would not produce anything.

REPLY: The date in RHS is set by the earliest date that type of engine could be produced - indicated by the planes that need it - and when they got engines going. I will however set it ahead in EOS - because better planning might have done some more investment in research. Also note that code will advance the date itself - but the cost is high - you have to produce engines that are not in production (that is, set them to produce) and get lucky (Gary loves die rolls).
You can get engines to produce after the right date - but you must conserve other HI users to do so. I will set it so this is easier than it was - but for an ongoing game - minimize aircraft, armaments, shipyards, vehicles, etc at or near your engine plant hexes. Just got it to work. Buy what you need - not what you want.

Aside from the engine issue almost everything else in the scenario has been running well with the exception of supply flow in China. I can not figure out why when I manually ship in 50k supply to a base 3 hexes away from Changsha, none of that supply will flow to my troops sieging that hex (even with multiple HQ and sitting there for weeks with a open road between the hexes). Supply issues there are so bad that I've just given up on any sort of offensive in China, it simply does not appear to be possible. In Burma/India Theater, I have absolutely no problem with supply flow, I have had guys sitting in Benares (I controlled everything between east of there) who'd routinely have 2x supply while on the offensive. I don't know if this something that's been fixed in subsequent versions or if it's an unintentional effect of having so many supply sinks in China (with relatively few in India).


REPLY: I note that in India AI loves the river - and uses it properly - at last - at least when the Allies start moving to Ledo area. It moves troops faster by boat than by land. I am not having problems - but I will issue a pwhex that will make supply in India even more efficient - having detected some "road" codes where there should be railroads. This will work on existing games - just install the new pwhex file when it comes out.

(in reply to Accipiter)
Post #: 1000
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 10:58:30 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

I do not understand your suggestion in a technical sense

The suggestion is that it will consume the supply of the place but will not be a part of resistance to it's takeover 

quote:

It will not cause any damage to resouces (or HI or similar things) when the hex is taken.

Will not small enginnering party achieve that? or insert engineers in the major infantry unit?
Btw in many places in DEI assets were not sabotaged. Some were some not.


quote:

c) It will not make the hex harder to take. If we have too much of this - I want some of it. Read about the miners in New Guinea, the oil field hands in NEI, and such. Taking a base hex that has real industry manned by foreigners who oppose your takeover is very different from taking an empty hex - and should not be free. I don't like tiny landing parties taking over vast areas (2600 sq miles?) for free


Well that is what happened in many places historically. Like i said if Kendari needs to be taken by more than a reinforced battalion it isnt a War in Pacific, it's another what if.
Btw where i said that real combat units shouldnt be there for you to say "for free"?


To start at the end, you did not say that. I am thinking ahead: I am covering the case where there was no unit there - or where a player moves the unit that was there. I still want defense in the no unit case.

My design philosophy is that it is not for us (modders and commentators) to say who resists or not? Let Gary's die rolls say you get lucky sometimes. What I want (intend) is to make sabotage possible. Nothing there makes it impossible - surely wrong. Even if Matrix gives us total control over supply production at resource centers (takes it out or makes it something reasonable or gives us soft control) I will STILL want "supply sinks" for their impacts on defense. WITHOUT a military unit in the formal sense (you still have the local defense forces, police forces and industrial security forces) you should not get guaranteed free control IMHO. I think a resource hex wholly undefended is wrong design. So I am not looking for a solution that incorporates that concept. I will accept too much defense as more realistic than none at all.
I am willing to modify the way things work in the direction of better simulation - but IMHO that isn't going to take us toward zero defense - ever. For one thing - takeover MUST "damage" production even if there is no actual damage to facilities - in game terms this simulates disrupted work schedules.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/10/2007 11:15:04 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1001
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 11:07:58 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Accipiter is correct.  The date into service of the engines is the date before which NONE can be produced. Obviously they should all be set to December 41 to allow for the slow production of stockpiles etc etc but in RHS ( and Empires Abaze) a couple of the later ones are set to only begin production in 1944 - Nissan engines are among these, resulting in the hobbling of Ki-44 III production throughout 1943


I suspect you and Acceptor are technically incorrect - but only in the most technical sense. IF engines are like aircraft, you should get 1/100 the production rate - if you are lucky - and IF you do - it might advance the date of production by a certain small amount (a week I think). However, for practical purposes, you are quite right: and that is my intent.

The entire point of the RHS reform of engines is that they are NOT all available early. Many times an airframe was ready but the engines were not. While I have set that by setting airframe date (which can be modified, but only slightly, by producing the type before its date - as outlined above) - I don't like the gamey behavior of producing some engine in 1941 that you need in 1944 - long before even the prototype could be built. I specifically attacked that in my engine reform - along with you can produce engines for different planes based on their size (power) requirements - but not substitute a tiny 150 hp thing for a 3000 hp thing. [If it was up to me, the cost in HI points would vary by power]
Anyway - I have decided that better industrial planning might advance the engine dates in EOS only - so I am setting the first ahead a year, the last ahead by six months, and leaving the 5 strictly historical scenarios with historical dates.
In some places you can see the engine designation (rather than the manufacturer - which is just a code because it is hard coded I cannot make it right) - and in that case an Ha-5 or whatever is the most common engine in that range - using the (eventual) common service designation system for engines. I have solved the engine production problem - and it is controllable in all games by controlling HI expendature. I will however make it easier to manage in the next release.

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 1002
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/10/2007 11:53:34 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		What are size requeriments of a unit to accomplish "production disruption"?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1003
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 6:32:51 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Using latest version of RHS, playing human Allied vs AI, CVO, Brit BB Anson has no main guns, only 40mm AA guns..

_____________________________




(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1004
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 1:24:56 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

What are size requeriments of a unit to accomplish "production disruption"?



Not very great. The main requirement is that you need some true engineers - pioneers in RHS terminology. What happens is not clearly defined anywhere - and greatly variable depending on several considerations - the most significant of which is die rolls. But if you have any pioneers - and then possibly if you have other engineers - you will disrupt the HI and resource centers in a hex by various degrees. Not as much as I would like - but significantly - typically on the order of 40%. If you have lots of them, it might be much more.

For combat values there are several more considerations. Squad counts, firepower values, the morale and planning of the unit, and the support value of the unit (IF there is a genuine military unit in the hex that is not optimized support wise - THEN a supply sink gives it the missing support - and THAT unit becomes fully effective - in terms of support requirements anyway). The big supply sinks have awful leaders - the most awful of all in most cases - are misplanned for the wrong location - and the vast majority of their squads have a firepower value of 1 - as low as we go. We use the cube root of the number of squads as engineers - to get a core of them - and three times that of labor squads: otherwise everything is motorized support - which is not worth a whole lot in terms of combat value (and only half as much as regular support firepower wise). Smaller supply sinks are organic to fixed military units - and often difficult or even impossible to spot - or notice in combat - but in theory they contribute a little. The difficult cases are the larger cases - and these are generally located at cities - where heavy resistence is at least a possibility. At the moment they also have a cap size wise - none is bigger than 16,000 squads - although in some cases I need more. [Up in Manchukuo I split one into three adjacent cities near harbin so we didn't have to go over that value - and the resources are also split - so they are all at risk too]. We are always looking for better ways to do this. We have come a long way from the days when Guam or towns in Malaya held up major forces. But the issue is by no means wholly addressed - at least with respect to the larger cases. We might have to go over to putting them in really big cities - to be plausable - eating supplies from a vast area - and indeed this is done in Malaya and on Luzon - as a test.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1005
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 1:28:28 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Using latest version of RHS, playing human Allied vs AI, CVO, Brit BB Anson has no main guns, only 40mm AA guns..



Aha!!!

You have been decieved! That isn't the Anson at all - it just reports as such to fool enemy intel. It is HMS Centurion. [If you bring up her display, not the class is Centurion - not King George V]
A WWI era battleship, when war erupted in PTO she was at Bombay, playing Anson - complete with WOODEN turrets and superstructure! She has 40mm guns because - well - she had 40mm guns! Later - she went to Egypt - got a lot more AAA - and became an AAA barrage ship. Finally, she was expended as a breatwater at Normandy. This ancient ship had functional engines - and was used in several ways at different times. But she had been demilitarized by the London Treaty. The most fascinating story is that, when she lost her forward "turret" in a storm - and put in at Aden - a story was made up she had lost it in a battle with a German raider!

See the Designers Notes for EOS thread - or the EOS Second Edition Memorandum - or the RHS Manual for all the gory details of this sort of thing. In this case, the ship has the great virtue of being strictly historical in this role when PTO erupted, so it is in ALL RHS scenarios. It will report to enemy recon as a BB - and it will always fool the enemy tactically - and draw fire or air strikes like a BB - even if the enemy player is not fooled.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/11/2007 1:47:39 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1006
RE: RHS 5 & 6.655 AI Enhansed Edition - 3/11/2007 1:41:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		While RHS x.654 can be made to work manually (re Japanese aircraft and engine production) - by shutting down HI eaters like shipyards at certain locations where engines are made - I have tweeked it so that ALL engines and aircraft ALWAYS produce even under wholly unaided AI control. Since a primary user group is human as Allies vs AI as Japan, this is a bit of a priority. [Since AI cannot control the Allies successfully in any case, we don't try to make that work]
Until about September 1944 you can play AI as such. From then on you need to lie to the computer, tell it you are playing head to head, and then either

a) Click on Yes for the Japanese turn (so AI won't set aircraft squadrons to kamakaze)

or

b) Set a squadron to kamakaze and then click on Yes for Japan

[Otherwise ALL squadrons will be kamakaze by about November - and Japan will have no air defense, no bombers,
no recon, no air transport - and it will die faster than ever was really possible - in a wholly ahistorical way]

Otherwise we have converted Axis PCs to two ship units - tweeked some devices and ships - and fixed some eratta or made enhancements - as indicated above and in other threads.

This package will upload as x.655 comprehensive update.

If Blitzk has finished the other enhancements (pointers for example) he is doing - they will be included. If not, they will be in the next round. Some day we are going to get new AOS plane art from Cobra - and that will trigger some major changes to EOS air units - making them easier to upgrade - and adding more types of planes (because duplicates are eliminated - similar to Japan in EOS). That is still "many weeks" off.

Otherwise look for a new pwhex package tomorrow - and a summer map and pwhex "soon" both of which will backfit into running games.

Two validation tests of 6.655 indicate the new production system works better than I had dreamed possible - EVERYTHING produces WITHOUT ANY human optimization to help AI get it right. [Not that AI produces the right stuff - it produces a lot of historical stuff that should not have been produced - but that is a different matter. Humans will do much better than AI]






< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/11/2007 1:58:35 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1007
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 2:40:50 PM   
m10bob


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Using latest version of RHS, playing human Allied vs AI, CVO, Brit BB Anson has no main guns, only 40mm AA guns..



Aha!!!

You have been decieved! That isn't the Anson at all - it just reports as such to fool enemy intel. It is HMS Centurion. [If you bring up her display, not the class is Centurion - not King George V]
A WWI era battleship, when war erupted in PTO she was at Bombay, playing Anson - complete with WOODEN turrets and superstructure! She has 40mm guns because - well - she had 40mm guns! Later - she went to Egypt - got a lot more AAA - and became an AAA barrage ship. Finally, she was expended as a breatwater at Normandy. This ancient ship had functional engines - and was used in several ways at different times. But she had been demilitarized by the London Treaty. The most fascinating story is that, when she lost her forward "turret" in a storm - and put in at Aden - a story was made up she had lost it in a battle with a German raider!

See the Designers Notes for EOS thread - or the EOS Second Edition Memorandum - or the RHS Manual for all the gory details of this sort of thing. In this case, the ship has the great virtue of being strictly historical in this role when PTO erupted, so it is in ALL RHS scenarios. It will report to enemy recon as a BB - and it will always fool the enemy tactically - and draw fire or air strikes like a BB - even if the enemy player is not fooled.


This is absolutely awesome and............BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1008
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 3:37:21 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		I am running a few RHSCVO 6.654 turns to get a feel for the game again.  A couple of questions or observations:  I can't seem to Disband River Boat TFs. The option is grayed out.  Also from the Preference menu there is the question "Add 1.60 Database changes to this user designed campaign?"  Should I click this option. Lastly a question I have asked before. Should I use the 4.31 plane side file for my game that has a date later that the other RHS Critical files?  It appears to only have some of the plane side files.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1009
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 3:39:57 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1010
RE: RHS 5 & 6.655 AI Enhansed Edition - 3/11/2007 5:20:58 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Until about September 1944 you can play AI as such. From then on you need to lie to the computer, tell it you are playing head to head, and then either

a) Click on Yes for the Japanese turn (so AI won't set aircraft squadrons to kamakaze)

or

b) Set a squadron to kamakaze and then click on Yes for Japan

[Otherwise ALL squadrons will be kamakaze by about November - and Japan will have no air defense, no bombers,
no recon, no air transport - and it will die faster than ever was really possible - in a wholly ahistorical way]



Mayby is this a idea for a next update. A new option at the start of the game Kamikaze Yes or No


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1011
RE: RHS 5 & 6.655 AI Enhansed Edition - 3/11/2007 6:20:05 PM   
DrewBlack


Posts: 828
Joined: 7/3/2004
From: North Wales, UK
Status: offline 		Hi Cid
have found another problem in the OOB, occured in EOS newest version.

US ship Richmond arrives at Colon, next to Panama, about the 20ish of Dec41. its clss is UNKNOWN so if you click on it you get an error as per the previous problem with ht PT's

Keep the hard work going..... im loving this scenario......

Drew

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 1012
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 8:30:35 PM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I am running a few RHSCVO 6.654 turns to get a feel for the game again.  A couple of questions or observations:  I can't seem to Disband River Boat TFs. The option is grayed out.  Also from the Preference menu there is the question "Add 1.60 Database changes to this user designed campaign?"  Should I click this option. Lastly a question I have asked before. Should I use the 4.31 plane side file for my game that has a date later that the other RHS Critical files?  It appears to only have some of the plane side files.


Don't click the "Add 1.60 Database changes".

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1013
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 9:51:51 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I am running a few RHSCVO 6.654 turns to get a feel for the game again.  A couple of questions or observations:  I can't seem to Disband River Boat TFs. The option is grayed out.  Also from the Preference menu there is the question "Add 1.60 Database changes to this user designed campaign?"  Should I click this option. Lastly a question I have asked before. Should I use the 4.31 plane side file for my game that has a date later that the other RHS Critical files?  It appears to only have some of the plane side files.


The last is a question for Cobra to answer - try direct pm or the Cobra RHS upload thread. I maintain EOS files only - but I can send them.

Don't know about river boats being greyed out. Have not seen that. What causes ANY TF not to be able to disband?
Or - maybe - which nation?

Do NOT update the database - or you will mess up a lot of stuff - mixing stock and RHS will surely not work.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1014
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 9:53:02 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: drw61

Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.


I will test.

Unable to confirm issue. Works for me. Need more data.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/11/2007 11:04:40 PM >

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 1015
RE: RHS 5 & 6.655 AI Enhansed Edition - 3/11/2007 10:09:26 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

Hi Cid
have found another problem in the OOB, occured in EOS newest version.

US ship Richmond arrives at Colon, next to Panama, about the 20ish of Dec41. its clss is UNKNOWN so if you click on it you get an error as per the previous problem with ht PT's

Keep the hard work going..... im loving this scenario......

Drew


Confirm the problem - unable to locate ship instantly. There are a LOT of US ships! Will find her.

Got it. There are two Richmonds - a CL and a tanker. This was the Omaha CL. Defined to class of wrong date.
Fixed.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/11/2007 11:04:01 PM >

(in reply to DrewBlack)
Post #: 1016
RE: RHS 5 & 6.655 AI Enhansed Edition - 3/11/2007 10:50:05 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Uploading 6.555 and 5.555.

Converted US Admirable class MS to two ship units - and added more - because I do not believe they stopped being sent to PTO in January 1945. I found one lost to enemy action not on our list!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1017
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 11:16:45 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		Thank's Brum and Sid. I think I resolved the River Boat issue. It has to do with the port size. When I send the formed River Boat TF to a larger port it will disband. Now if I could only figure out where the River Boats can go to. I like these they facilitate the movement of supply.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1018
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 11:35:52 PM   
DrewBlack


Posts: 828
Joined: 7/3/2004
From: North Wales, UK
Status: offline 		Excellant work Cid...

AI updates receiving now, boy your quick with this work.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1019
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/11/2007 11:56:51 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61

Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.


I will test.

Unable to confirm issue. Works for me. Need more data.



This happened to me one time before in ver 6.5??? and then went away.
If I try to "Set Destination Hex" of the USMC 2 Para or the USMC 2Div (actualy any land unit) to SanFran, LA, Long Beach, Sacramento or United States my computer will go into "not responding" mode. It happens in normal mode and window mode.

I may need to reload my WitP RHS games

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1020
Page:   <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   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

1.734