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 files on RHS website?

 
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 files on RHS website? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHS files on RHS website? - 11/1/2007 8:39:19 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
Hello El Cid,

am I correct in assuming all the most recent updates to RHS are available on the RHS website?

Regards

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

Post #: 1
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/1/2007 8:54:06 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
He told me, that Cobra seems to be inactive.
As soon as he has sent me the files, I'll upload them to my webspace.


_____________________________

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 Pascal_slith)
Post #: 2
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/1/2007 9:01:13 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
Thanks, Historiker.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 3
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/1/2007 9:01:30 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
Thanks, Historiker.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 4
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/1/2007 11:13:22 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I don't know Cobra's situation, but last I heard his system was down hard, and presumably that is part of the situation.

Generally, Cobra posted file links to Sendspace in the RHS Download Thread - and that is not happening at this time. The RHS site gets files later in time - it cannot update very often. When we finally freeze everything, I will ask Mifune to post to the site.

Meanwhile our German compatriot says he can post the files - so I will send them to him after work - and presumably he will advise where to find them.

Also, meanwhile, I have been sending directly - except when the ISP won't let me - to anyone who asks.

Having got a set of eratta reports - I will work in one more update - so we freeze at a clean point. I also have just updated CVO/BBO Mizuho and Nisshin to upgrade differently: both will gain light AAA and radar - neither will go to CVL - although I am not sure that is "realistic" I cannot proove they would have done.

I am running long game tests - and so far it is looking pretty good.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 5
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 1:20:04 AM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline
The latest RHS files are currently being posted on the RHS site. Level 7 is already done. With a bit of paitence all versions wil be soon.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 1:22:08 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
El Cid:

You know that the Japanese would have made them into CVLs like Chiyoda and Chitose but they were sunk by 1/43.  We talked about this in my thread a day or two ago.  PLEASE give us Japanese fans the opportunity of doing this!

John


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Mifune)
Post #: 7
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 3:25:14 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Sid?
I created you an own ftp account, so you can upload new files yourself from now on.


_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 8
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 6:54:30 AM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

El Cid:

You know that the Japanese would have made them into CVLs like Chiyoda and Chitose but they were sunk by 1/43.  We talked about this in my thread a day or two ago.  PLEASE give us Japanese fans the opportunity of doing this!

John



Well - one of them starts as a CVL in EOS and AIO - and both in EEO (not yet released).

Will think about this for CVO and BBO - I just made em update light AAA and radar.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
CS---CVL - 11/2/2007 7:06:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Let them become Chitose Class.  Nisshin was planned for that exact conversion but couldn't due to getting sunk.  The Mizuho could of the same class since she was laid out pretty close to the other three.  Only problem is her speed but that could still work if she was hooked up with the CVEs.

I haven't given this any thought....



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
CS is the wrong classification - 11/2/2007 10:41:13 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Just for accuracy, CS is not the correct classification for the Chitose, Nisshin, Mizuho class ships.   Under the US type designation in effect during World War II, these ships should be classed as CVS.   Who's for changing it??

Most of the classifications match the US standard system - a very complete system by the way.    Other types at odds with the system are:

AG - Used for Japanese Barges.  AG is Miscellaneous Auxiliary in the US system.  Ocean going barges of the various types know as Daihatsu would be either LCsomething, or perhaps the British LB (Landing Barge).
MSW - An apparent abbreviation.   Should be AM
ML - Another abbreviation.   Should be CM, or CMc for the small ones.
MLE - A made up type to facilitate and control mine usage - lest WITP become MITP (Mines in the Pacific)




(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 11
RE: CS---CVL - 11/2/2007 12:38:08 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Let them become Chitose Class.  Nisshin was planned for that exact conversion but couldn't due to getting sunk.  The Mizuho could of the same class since she was laid out pretty close to the other three.  Only problem is her speed but that could still work if she was hooked up with the CVEs.

I haven't given this any thought....




They actually changed the engines for the Chitose's - destroyer sets I think - and certainly that is a possibility. But in game conversion (other than hard code) is way too fast - and I am loth to include an engine change to do it. What is more logical I think is to change over with the slow speed - and call it a CVE. Still thinking.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 12
RE: CS is the wrong classification - 11/2/2007 12:46:41 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Just for accuracy, CS is not the correct classification for the Chitose, Nisshin, Mizuho class ships.   Under the US type designation in effect during World War II, these ships should be classed as CVS.   Who's for changing it??

REPLY: IF this is a query re changing it officially - at Matrix - in code: I am. I used the term because in WITP it is being used that way. WITP seems pretty much to use USN ship nomenclature - and that is a widely understood nomenclature system and certainly much of the Matrix market knows it - so being consistent with it is good form IMHO.




Most of the classifications match the US standard system - a very complete system by the way.    Other types at odds with the system are:

AG - Used for Japanese Barges.  AG is Miscellaneous Auxiliary in the US system.  Ocean going barges of the various types know as Daihatsu would be either LCsomething, or perhaps the British LB (Landing Barge).

REPLY: Yes indeedy - and I dives a USN oriented person slightly nuts to see AG used in this way. Not sure who thought AG was a good idea - or why?

MSW - An apparent abbreviation.   Should be AM

REPLY: I think you have this one right: MSW is often used as an abbreviation, particularly in British English usage. But it isn't consistent with USN nomenclature - why mix systems?

ML - Another abbreviation.   Should be CM, or CMc for the small ones.

REPLY: I think this is also correct - the same abbreviation system as used for MSW. Perhaps whoever did this was used to reading some British reference materials?

MLE - A made up type to facilitate and control mine usage - lest WITP become MITP (Mines in the Pacific)


REPLY: I don't think you are correct here: An MLE is a type, and in particular a IJN type. It just was not a USN type, so we might need to add it to the list. And - I confess - I am guilty of the charge of WANTING MITP - if wanting realistic mine warfare is to be guilty. I see no reason whatever to have a system permitting high speed minesweeping (still impossible) - forbidding air minelaying by any bomber - making sub minelaying way too easy - permitting paravanes on a few ships but not most (my 10,000 ton APA had paravanes) - or a long list of others. Whatever reasons we use to change this or that - let no fear of MITP be one of them: more correct ought to be our only standard.



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 13
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 12:48:30 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Sid?
I created you an own ftp account, so you can upload new files yourself from now on.



I don't understand this yet - I am too tired to learn - and I have a long list of those wanting an upload. I will

1) sleep

2) do a few more identified eratta

3) do a general upload to a now doubled list

4) investigate this offer - and either master it - or let Historiker do it this time - and master it in a day or two.


(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 14
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 1:53:25 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
MLE is a made-up classification in WitP. No such thing in real life.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: CS is the wrong classification - 11/2/2007 5:43:33 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Just for accuracy, CS is not the correct classification for the Chitose, Nisshin, Mizuho class ships.   Under the US type designation in effect during World War II, these ships should be classed as CVS.   Who's for changing it??


REPLY: IF this is a query re changing it officially - at Matrix - in code: I am. I used the term because in WITP it is being used that way. WITP seems pretty much to use USN ship nomenclature - and that is a widely understood nomenclature system and certainly much of the Matrix market knows it - so being consistent with it is good form IMHO.



No Sid, nothing official. Just a query to see how the forum folks thought about it.

For those that are interested, Volume IV of Dictionary of Naval Fighting Ships has an appendix with a complete list of all US designations. That's the printed one, not any of the on-line versions (that I can find).

Anyone know what a CF is?? How about DA?? Or APC (not APc, capital C)??



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 16
RE: CS is the wrong classification - 11/2/2007 6:00:16 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
CF - Flying Deck Cruiser
DA - Destroyer (1933)
APC - Cavalry transport and/or Small Coastal Transport


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 17
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 7:23:00 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

MLE is a made-up classification in WitP. No such thing in real life.


Not sure where this idea comes from - and possibly people at Matrix even believe it - but it is real enough.
An MLE is a minelayer fitted with sensors and weapons to serve as an escort ship. Several classes of these were designed and built BEFORE WWII by IJN. Some were not fitted for their wartime role as escorts until 1942 or so, others always had dual fitting - but they were all so intended - and so designated. MLE is certainly a classification you will find in my data bases and writing going back at least 30 years.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 18
RE: CS is the wrong classification - 11/2/2007 7:34:33 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

CF - Flying Deck Cruiser
DA - Destroyer (1933)
APC - Cavalry transport and/or Small Coastal Transport



Real good!

DA actually meant heavy destroyer, in the same way CA meant heavy cruiser. It was created for the large destoyers of the Porter class, but never used.

APC was cavalry transport thru World War II. Again, never used but intended to be a special purpose transport with a mixture of people and horse accomadations. The existance of APC forced coastal transport to use a small "c" until after WWII (APc). Then Cavalry Transport was retired and APC became Coastal Transport. The lower case third-letter "c" was common during the 1930-1940 time frame as a size designation. APc, PYc, AMc, probably others but there's that old memory problem...

(edit) and apparently a developing problem with speelling.




< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 11/2/2007 7:56:55 PM >

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 19
RE: CS is the wrong classification - 11/2/2007 7:49:40 PM   
el cid again

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

CF - Flying Deck Cruiser
DA - Destroyer (1933)
APC - Cavalry transport and/or Small Coastal Transport



Real good!

DA actually meant heavy destroyer, in the same way CA meant heavy cruiser. It was created for the large destoyers of the Porter class, but never used.

REPLY: I like it - because it is consistent with CA. I always thought we should call Porters DL or something special.





(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 20
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/2/2007 8:04:34 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

MLE is a made-up classification in WitP. No such thing in real life.


Not sure where this idea comes from - and possibly people at Matrix even believe it - but it is real enough.
An MLE is a minelayer fitted with sensors and weapons to serve as an escort ship. Several classes of these were designed and built BEFORE WWII by IJN. Some were not fitted for their wartime role as escorts until 1942 or so, others always had dual fitting - but they were all so intended - and so designated. MLE is certainly a classification you will find in my data bases and writing going back at least 30 years.


Could be, as an abbreviation of Mine Layer - Escort. But certainly not the mine replenishment/ammo ship concept of WITP.

ML does not mean minelayer in any designation system of which I am aware. The Royal Navy, which likes to use full word descriptions in most cases (Cruier-Minelayer for example) uses ML as Motor Launch (in hull numbers, as in ML-301). The closest thing to a WITP-style MLE would be the British controlled minelayer depot ships (like Atreus, at Ceylon in 1942 along with controlled minelayer Alsey). These, and the smaller Australian mine tenders Gippsland and Uralba were primarily tenders - providing support for controlled minelayers that were too small for facilities. It is possible that the larger minelayer depot ships (Atreus was 6546 tons gross) may have had the ability to store and transfer mines. More likely, in my opinion, would be carriage of mines as cargo, for unload to shore mine depots. Transfer of mines ship-to-ship in a port seems overly risky when dock transfer is available.

Any documentation on the subject would be very welcom.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 21
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/3/2007 7:12:09 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I had never seen the designation of CVS.  THAT makes a lot sense.  This would be Chitose, Chiyoda, and Nisshin.  Perhaps they should be their own class of CVL for code, slots, and convenience.

Mizuho is different.  With her slow speed, she could be a CVE and be set.  SEEMS fairly straight-forward to me. 

In doing this, the Japanese player would have more flexiblity and the opportunity to bring an additional pair of light carriers to the table.  Sixty planes won't make much of a difference but it would be more historically accurate.

IMO...



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 22
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/3/2007 12:14:26 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
sorry with delay guys and the problems that may have been created but real life tookme out of loop for over a week (packing and moveing daughter to new home) so I missed the update that has now been corrected and avail onweb site and send space- - see my uploads thread


Cobra Aus

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 23
RE: RHS files on RHS website? - 11/3/2007 1:19:20 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Welcome back Cobra. Use heat on your back.

_____________________________




(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHS files on RHS website? Page: [1]
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

1.719