Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RHS 5, 6 & 7.7862 uploaded

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS 5, 6 & 7.7862 uploaded Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHS 5, 6 & 7.7862 uploaded - 10/18/2007 6:09:51 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Seems the code does not honor the upgrade path for replacement aircraft production. [The Japanese never get replacement aircraft - so this is an Allied issue only] When an aircraft is listed as upgrading to another type, on the date the other type starts production - the old plane stays in production - forever! So we may want to create a special "on map - but out of play" box for off map aircraft production for the Allies - and put those planes that matter in it (not all planes are a problem).

Meanwhile, we have learned two Soviet aircraft plants should be on the map - but are not. So they will be added - at Komsomolsk and Irkutsk.

A few enhancements and eratta discovered working on EEO can be folded in.

The object here is to prevent build up of gigantic quantities of Allied planes of obsolete types - sometimes useful planes that would not have been made one assumes. And also to get those Soviet factories in range of Japanese attacks - if they really were.

Then there is the matter of Australia: seems even more types of planes were made there than we have already added - and we should get them in - either by scheduling them to upgrade or by new plant. And that means we need to create a new plane type too - the P-51D will be made in one of the two recon slots used by P-51 variants. Aside from creating the potential for proper Aussie art for the D model, we can prevent them from upgrading long before they got them if we commit a slot, and sunset production of by then almost useless Boomerangs.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/4/2007 11:53:51 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 11:12:22 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		One of my favourite sites for Australian planes of the war:

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/ww2-allied/aircraft-raaf.htm

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 1:50:19 PM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Seems the code does not honor the upgrade path for replacement aircraft production. [The Japanese never get replacement aircraft - so this is an Allied issue only] When an aircraft is listed as upgrading to another type, on the date the other type starts production - the old plane stays in production - forever! So we may want to create a special "on map - but out of play" box for off map aircraft production for the Allies - and put those planes that matter in it (not all planes are a problem).

A few enhancements and eratta discovered working on EEO can be folded in.

The object here is to prevent build up of gigantic quantities of Allied planes of obsolete types - sometimes useful planes that would not have been made one assumes.



This is not entirely correct. Read 13.0 of the manual: "If a pool is over 6 months of the pool's replacement/build rate, the rate is reduced to 0 (this is for the monthly rate only, not actual production by factories on board) until the pool value drops below the 6 months level."


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 1:56:27 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/19/2007 2:00:50 PM >

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 4
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 1:58:33 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Japanese DDs in their early forms are messed up re DCs. Some astonishing values are in the set - inherited values of course. Like you get 2 shots of 2 DC??? Wonder if that was a deliberate attempt to limit Japanese ASW? Naturally this needs to be reworked. Typical Japanese Destroyers at the start of the war had 14, 16, 18 or 36 DC.

RHS uses "patterns" for "mount size" - and it assumes that a DC rack drops two times per pattern (for small patterns - one at the beginning and one at the end) - or for massive patterns - a rack drops three times (also one time in the center of the pattern). It assumes every K gun fires one DC per pattern, and every Y gun fires two DC per pattern. An early Japanese DD typically has two K guns and one rack (for a pattern of 4) - thus a ship with 16 DC has four WITP "shots" of 4 DC. The other most common pattern is six shots of 3 DC. The best case here - 36 total DC - is nine shots of four DC. The only problem case is 14 - there is no good solution here except seven shots of 2 DC - which is too small a pattern - so we use five shots of 3 DC. Later Japanese ASW ships fire patterns as large as 10 - and such patterns are common among later Allied ships as well. When you see a ship with 120-140 DC, it probably is getting something like ten shots of 10 DC. Also, later ships may have ahead throwing weapons - which get one shot per pass per weapon. The multi-barroled weapons are given much greater hit probability, but it is asumed that all the rounds never hit (instead, the square root of the number of rounds, rounded down to the greatest intiger in that square root, is assumed to hit). Another difference with ahead throwing weapons is they have range - while DC have "zero" range - meaning the ship must close to the position of the target to attack it. The chance of a hit by ahead throwing weapons is greater than for DC. Similarly, the chance of a hit is greater for a larger DC pattern. All DC patterns should be set as R direction - and all DC that fire per pass should be combined into a single "mount" value. ASW specialist units should have two vessels in them - and they get the attack values of ONE ship - but twice the shots of one ship (they alternate, one attacking while the other tracks the target and steers so as to be able to make the next attack). Thus two PC with rounds for six DC attacks are - when a single unit - given 12 shots.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/19/2007 2:13:52 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 2:15:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Another problem is that the Mutsuki class - the last destroyers before the "super destroyers" with five or six five inch guns - converted to APDs - and then to Kaiten carriers - but this is not the case in the game. Some units also more or less converted to DEs or PCs - and it is not entirely clear this happens either. So we need to make these options formal. In the strictly historical scenarios, we will upgrade the original DD to APD and then back to DD as kaiten carrier. In the EOS family we will upgrade the original DD to DE status. For simplicity we will keep all ships in one class instead of splitting it up. Players do not have to upgrade, of course. The original DD have torpedoes - but the APD do not - and the later DE do not. The later DD with Kaiten treats the Kaiten as if they were torpedoes - which they are - just manned. And the Kaiten device was reformed to comply with the new torpedo range rule - which has worked superbly well for regular torpedoes.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 2:25:38 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.

As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 7
Japanese 5 inch 50 Gun Devices (plural) - 10/19/2007 6:22:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Reworking Japanese DDs, I decided to tackel the problem of the 5 inch 50 destroyer gun. The problem is that there are two of these weapons - or actually four divided into two performance groups: an SP and a DP. I decided to designate the SP as the A and C models (which elevate 45 and 55 degrees respectively) and the DP as the B and D models (which elevate to 75 degrees - not quite the ideal 90 degrees of an AA gun - but definitely in the DP range. The problems is - what to use for a slot? To get there I followed John Campbell, combining the 4.7 inch Type 3 and Type 11 - he only lists one set of data for them both in fact in Naval Weapons of World War Two. Both are 45 caliber SP guns. I had also combined in the Elswick gun - of only 40 calibers - but if we ever identify it on a vessel - we can use it in its British form (there being no production of ship devices anyway) - and I don't know of a single case where we actually need it. Presumably it has a shorter range.

Working through this, I found that we should increase the range of the SP to 20 (up from 18) because, while its range is indeed 18,000 meters - that is 20,100 yards, and the game thinks in yards, even if I think metric. At the same time, I found the 4.7 inch should be 17 (down from 18) - because its range is only 17,500 yards - and because probably it includes an even shorter range 3 YT gun - which has a lower mv. Now there is a problem with the DP gun - insofar as it cannot really be an AA gun and an SP gun at the same time data wise. RHS practice is to give the gun an "effective ceiling" out to a range = to that ceiling - and no more. In this case, I compared it to the 5 inch 40 DP - with a ceiling of just over 30,000 feet so range = 10 (10,000 yards) - and assigned a value of 32,000 feet - so range will be 11 (11,000 yards) - giving token recognition to the greater range of the 50 - and also that the same shell out of a longer tube should have a higher mv. This is a bit of a compromise - for one thing these guns don't really elevate fully - and for another ALL AA and DP guns have too much altitude performance at longer ranges - but it prevents planes from overflying with impunits not to rate altitude for a great range - and it prevents surface action from being at horribly short ranges not to restrict range too much.

EDIT: I regretfully have concluded that we should change the rating system for guns. First, an SP gun should use the anti-soft value of its HE shells rather than its fragmentation shells (that is, square root of 1.5 times the effect, which is 2/3 of its shell weight). Exception: in a strictly historical scenario (CVO and BBO families) keep it as is: the British did not have HE shells for the Singapore 15 inch CD guns. But in the EOS family, the shells arrive - because they really were en route - and just a little more concern a little sooner would have given them time to arrive. Second, since DP guns are given the effect value of their AP shells, they also should get this boost. This applies to many (most) naval and CD guns - a lot of work - but better simulation.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/19/2007 11:18:21 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 8
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/19/2007 6:23:56 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.

As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?


Well - unless we want to rationalize it somehow - yes. I suppose that with a nominal 25% sent to PTO there should be plenty of no longer needed planes in the rest of the world to transfer. Its not like the Allied economy is running on a shoestring and wholly devoted to PTO after all.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/19/2007 6:27:49 PM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 9
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/20/2007 12:51:01 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Since we are doing gun devices, we will work in Very Heavy DP guns (6 inch guns designed for DP use) and Ultra Heavy DP guns (SP weapons with AA shells).


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/21/2007 9:49:53 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		A new concept has dawned: some lighter DP guns have NO AP or semi-armor piercing rounds. THESE guns - entirely outfitted with HE, AA fragmentation, illumination or (in the case of IJN) ASW rounds - do NOT get the penetration of firing AP shells - but they DO get to use the full shell weight as effect.

In statistical terms, using the effect for full shell weight for AP guns when listing soft effect is a nice technical concept: you only use soft effect on soft targets, so the crew is "smart enough" to pick the shell for the target - ashore. This increases the soft effect about 20% for lighter shells, and the increase declines to about 10% for bigger shells (because we use square root of effect - or what would be effect in the case of AP - which is reduced because of the greater weight of the shell casing). These values may impact bombardments, and should, but they are not doing so in a dramatic way - no nuclear bombardments. The basic square root function is still working as intended.

Along the way some ship eratta showed up: Aquitania had unusual 4.7 inch guns (besides her 6 inch) - guns originally designed by UK for Japan!!! Some old ships (e.g. Soerabaja) had no turret armor - and other armor errors.

Testing of the revised Very Heavy AA and Ultra Heavy AA does not show much impact. There are not enough guns to matter much: either they get one plane - or none. About right.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 11
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/21/2007 10:09:29 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.

As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?


Well - unless we want to rationalize it somehow - yes. I suppose that with a nominal 25% sent to PTO there should be plenty of no longer needed planes in the rest of the world to transfer. Its not like the Allied economy is running on a shoestring and wholly devoted to PTO after all.

So you will not change the production to total on-map-production?
Does it take so much time to add this? I would really love to have this change in my next PBEM...

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 12
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/22/2007 2:12:24 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		Moreover, I think you've written somewhere, that the range of the G8N is reduced because of game mechanics. Why isn't is possible to give the G8N it's real range?

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 13
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/22/2007 6:10:49 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.

As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?


Well - unless we want to rationalize it somehow - yes. I suppose that with a nominal 25% sent to PTO there should be plenty of no longer needed planes in the rest of the world to transfer. Its not like the Allied economy is running on a shoestring and wholly devoted to PTO after all.

So you will not change the production to total on-map-production?
Does it take so much time to add this? I would really love to have this change in my next PBEM...


1) We don't need to change all production to total on map production. Many cases are not a problem. They are already produced on map, or they produce forever once introduced, or they are never produced at all (just a few start).

2) In order to do more than add production to Soviet (and Aussie) cities - I need slots - and I have none. What do we give up?

3) It takes time to implement this - worse a lot more time for me than anyone else - as I have 22 scenarios under management. I keep trying to drop 12 of them - but people keep finding things that should be made right in all.

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 14
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/22/2007 6:13:46 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Moreover, I think you've written somewhere, that the range of the G8N is reduced because of game mechanics. Why isn't is possible to give the G8N it's real range?



Actually - there are a number of aircraft with this problem - most of them Allied. The original comment was probably about the Me-264 - which is no longer in the game anyway.

The basic problem is that no aircraft can fly longer than 1440 minutes (= 24 hours) - period. Design limit. But some planes fly for 2 or 3 days! [PBB - just added for EEO - theoretically could fly for 72 hours).

Now I HAVE given almost every plane its full range anyway! I "cheated" - by increasing cruising speed until it gets its full range in 24 hours time. [Even PBB will have its full range. The worst case is the B-29 - probably - and it has even more range than the PBB in terms of hexes.] But a few remain that are not quite there. I don't think they matter much - most of the map is in range as it is!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/22/2007 6:18:27 AM >

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 15
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/22/2007 7:19:27 AM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		el cid again,

2) In order to do more than add production to Soviet (and Aussie) cities - I need slots - and I have none. What do we give up?


I think you are talking about base slots. If you are, you could get rid of some beaches in the Society Islands area such as slots 848 Mangareva, 845 Nuku Hiva, 327 Rarotonga or 814 Penhryn. If the war ever gets to them the game is over anyway.

(I'm looking at the ver7 map for these)

< Message edited by drw61 -- 10/22/2007 7:32:17 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/22/2007 4:41:22 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline 		Thanks sid.
What does happen, when a plane starts from Tokyo to SF with 200 Cruise speed?
And yes, there are enough bases to give up, no? Moreover, I can just repeat myself: I wouldn't see any disadvantege to the Japanese Player, if the extra Supply and fuel added by the HI for the new factories would be at the coast to be shipped away.
I've never faced the situation as allied player, that my supplies or fuel storage at the West Coast ran short. It doesn't matter if the supply reaches 9999999 in mid January or at the end of February, no?
So why not just add the HI and the factories to "United States"?

But despite all the things I lembaste - thx for your work!


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 17
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/23/2007 12:52:54 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Thanks sid.
What does happen, when a plane starts from Tokyo to SF with 200 Cruise speed?
And yes, there are enough bases to give up, no? Moreover, I can just repeat myself: I wouldn't see any disadvantege to the Japanese Player, if the extra Supply and fuel added by the HI for the new factories would be at the coast to be shipped away.
I've never faced the situation as allied player, that my supplies or fuel storage at the West Coast ran short. It doesn't matter if the supply reaches 9999999 in mid January or at the end of February, no?
So why not just add the HI and the factories to "United States"?

But despite all the things I lembaste - thx for your work!



Range = cruising speed times endurance divided by 60 (drop all fractions) - if cruising speed is less - range goes down to match. But endurance may not exceed 1440 - and it won't even if you set it to a greater value.

I have a list of bases to add - none to give up - so the question remains unanswered. What dots exist do so for a reason - or more than one reason.

Supply on the US West Coast in RHS can become a problem - IF you are shipping it out as you ought to be. UNLESS you learn to turn off construction, you should run short in many ports - assuming you are loading ships there every day. Until things repair up and you get greater amounts of supply made. If that is not happening - I will REDUCE supplies UNTIL it does happen - supply cannot be unlimited in a logistically oriented mod. It means players don't have to make trade off decisions as they should be doing. So far I have had to INCREASE supply because this problem was widely reported - no ability to do things in many ports. Where are you seeing 999999 (filled field) readings?




(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 18
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/23/2007 8:16:14 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This has turned into a major device review - but a far more sophisticated system for rating artillery of all types is now in place. We also can give special characteristics to special weapons. AA guns that don't have AP shot don't have the same effects as virtually (or actually) the same gun used in a CD or AT role - but issued AP or SAP shot. Mortars have less armor penetration than howitzers, which is less than guns firing HE or AA fragmentation shot, which is less than guns firing AP or SAP shot. And some special cases were worked in: the 30 cm Type 7 Short Howitzer is rated as a mortar, while its cousin the 30 cm Type 7 Long Howitzer is rated as a howitzer - and neither is rated as a field gun, AT gun or CD gun.

Device review completed (it is necessary to do other things) I am almost done with Japanese destroyers. They had as few as 1 pattern of 1 DC - with 2 patterns of 2 being quite common - and utter nonsense. When I began - over a year ago - I did not understand WITP ASW weapons theory - and I could not be sure what a "shot" meant. It is clear someone rated these ships without regard for anything IRL. A Akizuki with 72 DC was rated as far worse than ships with 14 DC was. Now we will have patterns of 3, 4 or 6 DC, and there will be 4, 5 or 6 shots per ship when the war begins. Paradoxically, the light AA was too great for early war ships. There is even a case where a modern destroyer has only 2 .30 cals (designed for .50s, they substituted 7.7 mm AAMG) - and the normal case is only 2 .50 cals! Only the newest ships get 4 or in one case 6 25mm - in twins. The pre war appreciation of AA was as bad in Japan as it was everywhere else - if not worse. So the new ships will begin with much better ASW - but generally less light AA - than previously - particularly in the CVO and BBO families. Since there is no basis to change ASW before the war begins, they don't get any better in EOS family ASW wise - and indeed since Japanese destroyers seem never to have carried more than 36 DC (other than Akizuki with 72 or those wierd so called destroyers late in the war - Tachibana with 60) - I never let it get any better. But the light AA is slightly better is EOS - because a standard was defined for all sorts of ships - too weak a standard to be sure - and a DD generally rates a triple 25mm on the centerline - and the bigger ones also get a twin .50 mount forward (which reflects offensive thinking rather than realistic defense of the rear sector of the ship - this is to challenge minor craft when you don't want to fire the big guns - not stop a serious air attack). Even so, such a standard is better than the entire fleet had when the war began - except for the latest DDs - with three twin 25 mm - one on each side - and one forward (note nothing at all aft - which is why I preserved that thinking for all start of war DDs). [Not that light AA really defends a ship: in USN we call 20mm and below "revenge weapons" - because they cannot prevent a target aircraft from delivering ordnance onto the ship: even if they score the ship will still be hit by the bomb/rocket/torpedo if ballistics were going to let it hit anyway. But the mere existence of AA fire cuts the chance of a hit by a close order of magnitude - probably by psychological effects on the pilot - even if you cannot kill the plane before release - which light guns cannot.]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/23/2007 8:31:05 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: x.7852 planning - 10/24/2007 6:33:13 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Destroyers completed.

Moving on to creating Allied aircraft factories. Doing this at Irkutsk, I realized I can ramp up production - just as I do for Japan. Not quite properly - but better than start at full production anyway. And also that we will sunset the older IL-2 production by having it upgrade to IL-2M - at Komsomolsk. This makes the whole thing worth doing: we can solve some significant problems with planes the produce too few per month if you must produce them all the way until the end of the war (F4U night fighters for example) - or you must produce too many if you do so at a rate that can build the squadrons in a reasonable time. Now we can sunset that into F6F night fighter production - reduce the number of months - and increase the rate per month. Lots of things like that - and we can have planes not start at hundreds per month - they will need time to ramp up. Which we can compensate for by having a higher total as the goal. This is a good concept.

The more I think about it - the more I think we can avoid using a lot of slots to do it. Putting factories at United States, Canada, Krasnyorsk will probably work acceptable well - and all these places are so far from potential enemy bomber bases they should pretty much be immune to attack. If that changes in a game, it gives players an incentive to actually defend their rear areas - albiet in a semi-abstract form. The whole point of both German and Japanese bomber raid planning for the USA was to divert resources to defend against them worth more than the bombers cost. This permits that sort of simulation in a very crude and semi-abstract form - but one that works remarkably well. Players may ignore the raids - or defend with AAA and fighters - albiet far too efficiently (because there are not many locations to defend).
Extra supply points at these distant points should not be a problem either - as they don't move very efficiently over great distances - and there was essentially unlimited supply in the rear areas. Finally - the concept of ramping production (using damaged aircraft plants) means that repair of these (and supporting HI plants) will be a kind of supply sink - early war supply will be drained by them to some degree (and players get some control over it - by selecting repair or not to repair various facilities).


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/24/2007 6:38:54 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 20
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) planning and revised ETA - 10/26/2007 7:19:04 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am shooting for tomorrow - and if lighting strikes I might make today - where as if data entry or test or other eratta bog things down it might take longer: but revised ETA = tomorrow = Saturday (Alaska time - which is 1 hour behind the US West Coast and GMT plus 9 hours).

I am heavily invested in converting Allied aircraft production to on map form - even for off map locations. This also will give the Allied player some control over production - and that control should be exercised at least to the extent of turning repair off at factories for types not yet ready to produce (i.e. they have -rd behind the aircraft name). IF this is done, the aircraft will phase in rather than instantly produce at 100% - in many cases. Related to this, I have somewhat revised the locations representing off map production assets. Of these Salt Lake City is the primary one for the USA. A secondary case is New Orleans in Level 7, South Atlantic Entry in Level 6, and a new location, Billings in Level 5. To these add Regina for Canada and Krasnyarsk for the Soviet Union. Just what to do with the UK is not yet clear?

I added on map Soviet factories at two locations, and I will add some additional Aussie production on the map as well. I have completed revising Japanese destroyer ASW - and taken that review as a chance to revise some AA: early war ships will tend to have virtually no light AAA - but much better than 1 or 2 DC ASW capability which for some reason they got saddled with (which has no relation to anything IRL).

Salt Lake City (United States) should not run into 999999 supply any more - or not for a very long time.

I completely revised guns of almost all types to an integrated set of rules. This gives guns with different functions appropriate ratings in the WITP system - and adds some new DP devices - including Japanese very heavy naval guns - British 8 inch cruiser guns - and certain French and Dutch 6 inch naval guns. Certain guns without AP or SAP ammunition used by ships - mainly Soviet and Japanese but significantly including one US weapon - will now be rated with less anti-armor value - and the effect value assigned for HE or AA fragmentation rounds. Broad categories with defining rules include

SP naval guns (and SP coast defense guns)
SP naval short guns
dual purpose (DP) guns
Very heavy DP guns
Naval AA guns
Naval AA short guns
AA guns
AA rockets
AT guns
land artillery guns
land artillery howitzers
land mortars
land bombardment rockets

Essentially the differences include rules for anti-armor (and armor penetration), effect, and soft effect. No longer are land artillery pieces without AP shot rated equal to naval guns with AP shot for penetration, for example. Mortars continue the trend toward less anti-armor value, but actually better anti-soft value than even land artillery has (caliber for caliber). Bombardment rockets are more or less a wierd form of mortars while AA rockets are a wierd form of AA guns. etc. I also defined some special weapons: the Japanese 30 cm Type 7 short howitzer is defined as a mortar (distinguishing it somewhat from the 30 cm Type 7 long howitzer which is defined as a howitzer); the US 5 inch 25 is classified as a naval AA short gun rather than a regular DP gun, etc.

I found a supply sink loading on ships in a test run. Since it is defined as a static coast defense unit - this has awful implications (we have seen CD units defined as immobile forts wandering around before) and I moved the slot (the usual cause of this phenomena). I have a problem in Level 7 with one location moving to invisible hex 0,0 - after a year or two of play - and I hope to find a workaround for it. [I can fix it in an ongoing game if it really is a big deal - provided the players sent me the file - but I don't want that job - and I would like to identify the bug that moves locations to 0,0 so it can be fixed at code level].

I hope to work in a change for pack divisions. These peculiar units have less firepower (in the form of mountain guns in their artillery regiments) than even draft divisions do, but require significantly more lift. They have a significantly larger number of squads, but no additional combat squads. The idea here is to add labor squads = to the squad count of the support regiments - and then add an equal amount of support so there is zero net change in the amount of combat squads supported. This will require more ships to lift such a division (and show why they were unpopular to move by ship) - more supply to feed all those extra squads - but also give slightly better combat power (because they have thousands of extra men who can to some extent serve as "spare parts" for combat units) - somewhat abstractly modeled by the squad count mechanism in code.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/26/2007 8:10:04 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 21
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) planning and revised ETA - 10/27/2007 6:42:37 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Got those too numerous US units done - and the Soviets. Now for the Aussies and Canadians. I think we will just leave most of the British alone - except to the extent they produce in India, Australia, Canada or the USA.

Found and corrected a small number of aircraft eratta - mainly production numbers - dates - and one oversized Soviet gun turret.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 22
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) planning and revised ETA - 10/27/2007 11:33:08 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		I use Nathan Okun application for naval guns. Note that since the game only asks for 0-range/max muzzle penetration it has bias against heavier projectiles where benefits only show at longest ranges.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.htm

If you are interested

Face-hardened Armor Penetration Calculation Programs
Version 5.8 (March 2004)

you need to put below files below inside a folder
BRUN45.EXE
Facehd58.exe
Fh58main.bas
Fh58sbm1.bas
Fh58sbm2.bas

and run BRUN45.exe. Then you will have options for amno type ,cap no cap, target armor type, muzzle, range etc.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 23
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) planning and revised ETA - 10/27/2007 11:42:30 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Do you have an ETA?

_____________________________




(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 24
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) planning and revised ETA - 10/28/2007 5:23:48 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I am ready to load this up but need a new version before Michael and I start the campaign....

PLEASE say that it is ready...pretty please...




_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 25
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) To release plus 12 hours - 10/28/2007 6:27:02 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have nearly finished - but must work for 4 hours - then a few hours data entry - then packaging: ETA 12 hours.
Then I will finish EEO - not going to work for two days - so 48 hours to EEO.

I have decided to do most Commonwealth aircraft on map - this is working well - and where you do them is not important - HI points are abstract and common pooled apparently. I need to test to insure mortars still work - and rework some pack divisions - and finish the Commonwealth aircraft - and review the test of the new values.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 26
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) To release plus 12 hours - 10/28/2007 6:04:07 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Won't be long now?....................




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/28/2007 6:11:02 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 27
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) To release plus 12 hours - 10/28/2007 8:27:40 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		tick tock as the fingers slow beat on the desk.

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 28
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) To release plus 12 hours - 10/29/2007 3:14:55 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael and I plan to do an AAR commenting on all the facets of RHS compared to Stock and Big B.  Since I am a veteran Japanese player, he felt that this was a good idea.  I'll focus my AAR on the Japanese economy, units/ships/planes, as well as some strategy.

Should be useful information as well as an advertisment for RHS.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 29
RE: x.786 (former x.7852) To release plus 12 hours - 10/29/2007 7:32:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There are way too many Allied planes - and this is working far too well not to complete it fully. There are also tricky effects of what you set upgrades too - and these need checking out. But we will not sleep until this is done (and we don't have to with two days off).

Testing indicated ways to make the Allied economy run somewhat better (I ran a train a day of supplies into Vancouver - and it helps everything in the area).

In order not to false start, I am looking for loose ends. When they are all tied up - I will package and upload - in order - Level 7, Level 6, Level 5 - leaving out only RHSEEO - which is not completed.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS 5, 6 & 7.7862 uploaded Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.813