RE: RHS Design Theory

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: RHS Design Theory

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Design Theory

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RHS Design Theory - 4/20/2012 7:48:59 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

size 10 fort?

This is file corruption with the typical case: a 0 is added. The value should be 1
vice 10. I call it an "editor induced error" and it is fairly rare, but it does happen.
From time to time one will find records with an extra 0 in a field - and one must clean
them up when discovered. This will make the next microupdate.

Note there is a difference between the fortification level of a hex and "forts" as part of a
land combat unit. I use a convention for UNITS - one fort for every major hard point.
Thus typically big CD units have several or many forts. The biggest of these are at
places like Hawaii, Singapore, the entrances to Puget Sound and Columbia River,
San Francisco, San Diego - the Islands of Tsushima and Iki and the port of Fusan in
Korea - etc. These (slightly) help these units survive - but unfortunately nothing works
to model Fort Drum as it should. Once a unit runs out of supplies, and you cannot segregate
supplies to a fortification unit, its devices will die off on a random basis. Still - forts help
"harden" a unit - so you will see them in the UNITS. The fort level of a hex is different -
and generally the same as in stock - which is the case here. That is, it should be a 1,
just like inherited. Padang didn't have extensive fortifications, but did have minimal ones.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/20/2012 7:55:14 PM >

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 31

RE: RHS Design Theory - 4/21/2012 7:53:30 AM

inqistor

Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline

What is your theory behing bombers bombload modification?

I see in your test AARs, that bombers carry lots of small bombs on ground missions (and they seem to be named after their bombload configuration), and it seems to be sometimes overkill. That clearly indicates, that land devices are easily destroyed by smaller bombs, and it shows a good way, to modify 1E Attack Bombers, and FB to be better in close support role, than 4Es.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 32

RE: RHS Design Theory - 4/22/2012 12:33:12 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

What is your theory behing bombers bombload modification?

I see in your test AARs, that bombers carry lots of small bombs on ground missions (and they seem to be named after their bombload configuration), and it seems to be sometimes overkill. That clearly indicates, that land devices are easily destroyed by smaller bombs, and it shows a good way, to modify 1E Attack Bombers, and FB to be better in close support role, than 4Es.

You are on target, to borrow a bomber metaphor (both my parents served in B-17s - my mother using cameras to train bombradiers and gunners),
my father being a tail gunner (don't ask me why that is a different job from some other kind of gunner - I don't know?).

But, first of all, understand my "changes" are in the direction of history. That is, I went over to smaller bombs WHEN AND IF that was the TYPICAL load of the plane, not for some game effect per se. So the Japanese get a lot more of this than the Allies do - although to be sure - the Allies do have bombers with small bombs - and eventually big bombers with lots of big bombs. Because of other technical problems, stock and most mods grossly understate typical Allied bomb loads - whereas I use the "normal bombload" and the "extended range bombload" (but usually not the maximum load bombload which is not modeled in code at all - except for the case of a plane where normal load = maximum load - rare for the Allies - but it does happen]. So my design intent was to get the data "right" - not to have a particular effect on targets.

Second, you are also right that my planes come in variants NAMED for the KIND of bomb they carry. AS = ASW load; HE = HE bombs; AP = AP or SAP bombs; TP = torpedo load vs ships or heavy bombs otherwise; ICB = cluster bombs - BW = biological bombs (Japan only) and so on. This is implemented to help players know without needing to look at the aircraft - just from the aircraft name. Some planes have four or more different loads.

Third, I noticed that light bombers OFTEN (not always) become better vs soft targets when you arm them as was. Thus - a Japanese light bomber with 15 kg bombs is superb in this, its intended role. But a fighter bomber with two 1000 pound bombs is not as effective, per ton of bombs, because it cannot carry a larger number of smaller bombs. At the same time, a Japanese bomber with 50 kg (110 pound) or an Allied bomber with 100 pound bombs (or even 25 kg and 50 pounders in a few cases) is better vs land units than against battleships. As should be the case - a direct hit will take out almost any normal device like a machine gun, mortar, artillery piece or vehicle. But battleships are armored and only big AP bombs will penetrate, although big HE bombs that detonate nearby are probably even worse, bursting seams under hydrostatic pressure - it still needs a big bomb to matter. The ship should slough off small hits - except if they score on a radar or deck AA gun (etc).

Fourth, this change - toward more and often smaller bombs - is in the context of yet another change: I do NOT use the design system in re effect of the bomb. Long ago, I went over to using square root of bomb weight instead of bomb weight - because for soft targets - the effect of a bomb is a function of the distance you are from it, by the inverse square law. While this did cure "nuclear bombardments" by BB and bombers with big bombs, it was too much. So I changed the constant (which is one if not defined) in front of the square root and now multiply by 2 or 4 (typically) for AP and HE - still well below effect = weight but big enough to matter. In COMBINATION this means the effect of more, smaller bombs is much greater than the same weight of fewer, larger bombs - re say LCU or unarmored ships. Again as it should be. But let me note once again - these changes were made to move in the direction of better modeling - not to achieve those effects for their own sake. Only if you believe this load is approprate to that plane should you use it. The game is a simplification of reality - so typical loads should be the thing we use IMHO.

Bottom line, light bombers with lots of little bombs are better for ground support than any bombers with a comparable weight of big bombers is.
On the other hand, a fighter bomber putting thousand pounders into an armored warship is going to work better than dropping 15, 25 or 50 kg bombs will.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/22/2012 12:46:14 AM >

(in reply to inqistor)

Post #: 33

RE: RHS Design Theory - 4/23/2012 5:51:28 AM

el cid again

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

In RHS we have the Unit 731 Air Unit - unique in that it isn't really JAAF - it is a private affair since JAAF refused to deal with Dr Ichii (Col, later General).
It is equipped with Ki-36 aircraft - similar to the light planes of the real Unit 731 - and they are armed with 25kg Uji BW bombs - ceramic bombs!
These are loaded with fleas - Japan had 16 tons of anthrax and used fleas to "vector" them into human and animal populations. This was the first case of "overkill" in history - IF you could deliver the stuff it was enough anthrax to wipe out the world's human population. These bombs have zero armor penetration value - they break on hitting literally anything. But a high "soft effect" - and each plane can carry eight of them to normal range (four to
extended range).

It is my personal SOP to nationalize the unit, fit it with light bombers (even Ki-36 of the non BW kind), and forget the whole thing. But I have the OPTION to fit it with Uji bomb laden planes if I want to. Either Ki-36 - or if I care to buy them new - Ki-30s - which are more survivable. Aside from being faser and
fitted with a defensive gunner, Ki-30s carry twice as many bombs, and have 33% more extended range. This offers players the option to accept BW as a strategy, which IRL IJA resisted. Aside from general reservations before the fact, it got very hostile after the wind changed during one op in China:
"this is worse than the enemy" the officers complained. Indeed, it probably was! One reason we do not allow for a massive use of BW is that we have no mechanism to represent such things. Another is, the band of tolerance was fairly low - one may allow more ops than Gen Ichii got to do - but probably never is his grand intent of intercontinental delivery targeting all of North America going to have been adopted.

What is absent from RHS is a modeling of the baloon bombing campaign. The campaign you may know about was only proof of concept testing - using incendaries. The REAL payload was to be Uji BW bombs! When Russia invaded Manchukuo, Gen Ichii called the commander Kwangtung Army,
and they decided "it would do no good" to use the bombs on the USA - they had the means to deliver them and knew what fraction of the balloons would arrive. So they destroyed the evidence at Peng Fan - including killing the survivors from Bataan which had been used to insure the weapons worked on Caucasians! Curiously, this decision is consistent with FOUR OTHER decisions NOT to use CW on invasion forces if Japan was attacked. Gen Sugiama, one of the three powers behind the throne when war began, and considered widely responsible for the war with the USA, ordered Army CW stocks destroyed to INSURE they could not be used by anyone. The navy made similar choices. For the very same invasion the US Army intended to use CW. History is nothing if you have no sense of irony.

FYI CW, RW (radioactive bombs), and BW are not very effective vs a modern society with high quality medical care. Japan was subject to YEARS of BW attacks by a radical cult and NEVER NOTICED! Only after they bombed a subway with nerve gas - killing only 6 people - did they find out - during the investigation of the cult - which had extensive scientific laboratories and had gone to Africa to get nasty germs. BW is much more effective in a remote place - like Nomanhan was - and in that case even worse because there was no evidence of an attack - no planes dropping bombs for example. So no one took precautions. And in those days ONLY JAPAN had the "high tech" water filter of Gen Ichii - we use it to day in NASA. No one else could filter water to get rid of the germs - they had to distill it and it still might not work. So the Russians, with no clue, got hit hard - the doctors getting sick along with everyone else all at the same time. The more sinister doomsday planning (by Russia and Israel) involves using BW AFTER a nuclear war wreaks infrastructures - to insure the enemy population does not recover - or if it does - does so on a tiny scale.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/23/2012 3:39:02 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 34

RE: RHS Scenario 102 - 4/23/2012 5:52:22 AM

el cid again

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

At one point I split the file set into two species:

Scenario 101 called Strategic

and

Scenario 102 called Operational

Scenario 102 was most used during automated (computer vs computer)
testing. It "got lost" when I accidentally overwrote the location file unique to
it - but I have kept it up to date in all other respects. I decided to update
this scenario. I have also thought of some additional features which are
now worked into it.

The design intent is to simplify economic management for players who
find that a daunting task. This in particular is focused on aircraft
production, which is more like stock. Strategic features "production
ramp up" wherever possible. Operational features "block startup" instead
at the price of starting a month later in time. One aspect of this, the
automatic production of minor planes, has been back-fitted in part to
101: types I did not trust players to allow to produce, and did not want
converted to exotic combat planes, are now automatic in both scenarios.
But in 102, there are more examples, and less industry needing management.

An original feature of 102 is that the Russians are inactive. This means the
Allies do not get to manage the Russians, unless invaded. But it does
simplify the game as long as that is the case. I don't entirely like the fact
the Russians are "stuck" in terms of deployment, where fortifications are
built, or where supplies build up - but that is the flip side of the coin -
and the RHS philosophy is "power to the players - let the players decide"
whenever possible - by creating options. And active Russians who are
not at war is wholly incomprehensible to AI. This reactivates the Manchukuo
garrison requirement, unfortunately not including aircraft - which I think
it should (but AI at least respects the need for planes up North).

Another feature is that training units have been removed. In RHS, training
units are "real" - something AE code made possible - but which stock does not.
In stock, a "training unit" appears only at the end of the war, its "trainers" fitted
for kamakaze attacks. In RHS, the training units TRAIN PILOTS from the start
of the game. Code tells the player when pilots are trained and can be released
into the pools, at what level? This works great - but it is time consuming. In 102,
these units are removed altogether. In neither scenario are kamakazes active.
[Manned missiles and Kaiten are, however. In theory a Kaiten pilot can "bail out"
and, in fact, the midgets operationally were not much better than Kaiten in terms
of crew survival. There are few Kaiten, and it does not require pilot training to
operate one, and the concept is retained for arming late war naval vessels. The MXY7
missile also might be guided by radio, the 'pilot" isn't concumed by code, so it is
somewhat in limbo if there are pilots or not. Aside from morality and psychology,
the way Matrix code works, Kamakazes are a formula to wipe out your air force and
deprive it of the ability to perform most missions. I find it more reasonable to turn
Kamakaze's off and not to provide the aircraft as such. If the Japanese are going to win,
they need more efficient use of airplanes and pilots than Kamakazes permit anyway.
Anyway - 102 lacks the training units of 101 - which appear from the start (instead of late)
and which actually work as training units (not as Kamakazes).

Over time other ideas have occurred to me. Anything that would not be
understood by AI is removed: thus trains are either gone, or immobile.
[The idea of an immobile train comes from Hawaii, where the CD train
cannot move anyway: in 101 you can pack it up on a ship and send it
another place - always a theoretical option IRL. But in 102, it is "stuck"
by the means of making its rail guns static. This also applies to the CD
train intended to defend Aberdeen & Hoquiam (Washington). In 101 it
is mobile, at Fort Lewis (that is, at Tacoma). In 102 it starts at its
assigned duty point, and is not mobile - because its heavy weapons are
static.] AI won't know to "stay on the tracks" - so something had to be done.
In a similar way, the Uji BW bomb is gone, and so is the Unit 731 Aviation
Unit - because the nuances of biological warfare do not belong under AI
management. There are also no "ghost submarines" in 102. In general,
there is slightly less to manage, and what is left often is more important
to operations that what is absent. Hence the title "operational."

I also removed some tiny river gunboats armed only with machine guns,
river booms (sort of transportable barriers to block river movement),
and all Axis junks - which contribute very little to the ability to move troops
or cargo and have nowhere a vital role as they do in several places for the
Allies. I also removed some yachts that were not in service as military craft
but which were fairly cool chrome. Certain other truly minor craft may
be added to this list - or already are gone but I forgot.

The design intent is for 102 to be slightly less time consuming for players,
and slightly more compatible with AI control, both for computer vs computer
tests, and for humans vs AI. As always, the AI will be better at managing the
Japanese than the Allies, and unless I can create a better AI, it will be nowhere
as competent as a human opponent. But some players write they cannot promise
things to human players, and still want to play - so would I create an AI variant.
Finally, it is for human vs human games where players want to PLAY, make operational choices without so much management of the economics, or any
need to worry about the North.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/26/2012 9:43:08 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 35

RE: RHS Air Transport Theory - 4/25/2012 8:35:40 AM

el cid again

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

In AE, transport code is similar to WITP. That is, the extended range of an air transport is
(usually) half the transfer range. [More on that in a bit]. But the normal range depends
on the value in the normal range field, giving this to the control of the modder. Just as in
WITP RHS, we let the actual operational range control, so we make transfer range be twice
that value (never mind IRL it is generally greater than that. [Sometimes that isn't quite enough:
the algorithm that converts range to hexes differs between extended range and transfer range,
so that SOMETIMES the number of hexes is one too small. In this case we increase the transfer
range slightly, until an even number of hexes is reached, and divide by two works for extended
range]

Working on transport data, I discovered that stock, and RHS, and several other mods, understate
the number of L2D2 at the start. Also production is too low - it should be at least 7 and possibly 8
by December 1941. There are at least 66 L2D2 (not counting 2 L2D1 or 20 DC-3) in service at the
start. FYI. There are likely missing units from the OB with this aircraft, as it is unlikely so many
were merely in a pool unused.

In RHS we added many air transports and air transport units, including civil ones which served in
military roles. There are also additional airborne assets. But the real utility of air transport, IMHO,
is its impact on logistics - and on rapid build up of advanced bases. IJN used this technique in
the Eastern NEI, where tiny packets of airborne (is isn't gamey as some have alleged) would
capture a location with an airfield, then other units would fly in to put it into useful service. Also,
if you see an ! indicating low supply, you can "feed" that location (or one near it) if there is an
airfield - and this keeps units there better fit for operations than if you don't.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/25/2012 8:42:42 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 36

RE: RHS Air Transport Theory - 4/27/2012 3:49:34 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

It may just be me but I am missing something...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 37

RE: RHS Design Theory: Scenario Options 101-105 - 4/27/2012 6:29:35 AM

el cid again

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

I was thinking about RHS Scenario names with a view to naming Scenario 103.
I looked at the WITP version of RHS - and realized we can use those legacy names -
and create more scenarios instantly.

Scenario 101 can be called RHSCVO = Carrier Oriented = a close approximation of the war as it actually developed.

Scenario 103 can be called RHSRPO = Russian Passive Option = Scenario 101 with the Russians set to passive.

Scenario 102 can be called RHSAIO = Artificial Intelligence Option = a simplified variation of 101 more suitable to use vs AI - and also easier for humans not interested in total economic management to play.

Scenario 104 can be called RHSRAO = Russian Active Option = Scenario 102 with the Russians set to active.

Scenario 105 can be called RHSEOS = Empire of the Sun - lifting the description from WITP RHSEOS:

RHSEOS: This is the Empire of the Sun - or Japan Enhanced Scenario. Japan forms a joint planning committee on mobilization in July 1941. This committee is modeled on the real one that planned the invasion of Malaya. It is allowed that JAAF and JNAF share aircraft on a more rational basis, and that service cooperation in general is more rational, following the example of Yamashita's campaign in Malaya where this was done. The IJA does not build aircraft carriers or submarines for example. The steel, engines (and slots) for them are used for Navy ships (the carriers tend to appear as tankers). More ships are built in CVL form vice CVS form. Some German aircraft which were licensed are produced (notably a version of the Me-109 - the Ju-88 - both of which had Allied code names - but neither of which served in units in Japan IRL). Both sides get lots of political points - and many units start assigned to home commands. [In effect, the political points expended IRL are not expended, but given to players: having not been expended, the units are still assigned to home commands]. The Russians are active. The Allies DO respond to this greater threat in several ways: more planes go to PTO - more CL appear as CVL - big ships like Midways appear sooner as smaller ships (Essex) - or Alaska's appear as CAs - etc.

All these scenarios, except 105, at Revision Level 4.0, will be released in the next 24 hours. 105 will follow this weekend, and lessons learned (there are always lessons learned during data entry examination of records) folded back may result in the rest being re-released as 4.01 by Sunday or so.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 38

RE: RHS Design Theory: The Return of Mifune and Scenar... - 4/28/2012 9:27:59 PM

el cid again

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

Mifune has returned - well not quite from the dead - but from an auto accident!
And he is wrapping up his personal scenario, which technically was the first
RHS scenario in AE - fully two years before I began working on one. He created
it mainly because of technical problems with aircraft durability, and then with
AAA ratings, in AE. Remembering our WITP version of RHS, he applied our algorithms to the AE data set - a massive undertaking I did not attempt to duplicate. ALL RHS scenarios use his work - which I copied directly into stock Scenario 1
when I began to work on scenario 101. As always, in WITP, and in his tests, and in my tests,
and in Big Red's tests, the RHS air model produces remarkable results, and somewhat higher
attrition (still not enough). One reason is durability is not high, which prevents the routines
from yielding enough casualties. Another is that we worked for years to represent durability
properly in a relative sense, comparing different types of planes - so relative casualty rates
are better modeled.

We will be releasing Mifune's scenario next, probably alongside RHS 105 - assuming I actually get to it. I have been reviewing 101 to 104 in light of his comments and suggestions, and have begun the release process for them as most files are done.
These will wrap up and release today or tomorrow. In a few days 100 (which is not yet named) and 105 (which is RHSEOS Empire of the Sun) will be released - and we will proceed to a final testing regime - and packaging with an installer.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/28/2012 9:30:50 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 39

RE: RHS Design Theory: Scenario 100 name and description - 4/29/2012 3:11:50 PM

el cid again

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

This is preliminary taken from email from Mifune relative to his scenario 100 which is being completed and integrated with other RHS scenarios.
It is more of a variation than my 105 concept - which is a minimalist enhancement only involving things that could happen after the decision for
war in July, 1941. No time to build battlecruisers, etc. So I may still do that - but I am in the process of releasing 101 to 104 at this moment -
integrating some technical suggestions from Mifune about various issues. For the record, ANY mod based on RHS concepts can be included in the RHS family. It appears we can release all scenarios with a single installer. Note that the number of scenarios is intended to create options for players: 101 and 103 are IDENTICAL except for active/passive Russians; same for 102 and 104 with passive/active Russians - you get to choose - it isn't forced on you by the mod design. Scenario 100 will be called RHSGAP:

GAP = Greater Asian Prosperity. Which is a slight misnomer as both sides get toys and chrome. The Axis are a bit more united this time around. Allies receive few additional Dutch naval ships including a couple of BC's. The story there was put up by their Allies to have them built at the German facilities. Of course the French would be dubious of this expecting the German the keep those ships for themselves. But of course they did not and indeed pass those ships back to the Dutch. American get 3 BC's (I put one with each CV group. I have to sit down and list other items, all this came from an old Allied alternative web site. In fact the same one used by Ironstorm. The Axis receive a differently built fleet with which a couple of carriers instead of large BB's and some other ships. All that came from the old Alternative IJN website which is no longer online. But I have a copy of that website. In addition their is additional emphasis to have a greater respect for ASW. This is accomplished of approximately havhaving each upgrade moved a upgrade is bumped up. A simple solution I liked Nemo's U.S. Subs with the planes idea (3 subs I think). The type of chrome that fits well in the GAP scenario. The Thai armed forces are at the start as Axis, of course they are restricted so they do not wander too far. Even the Italians have their small contingent. And of course the Germans are represented. I almost forgot about the Vichy French. After the Brits raided the French fleet there is plenty of animosity. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 40

RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS Plane Slot / Bitmap Cross R... - 4/30/2012 4:22:30 AM

el cid again

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

Better Presentation of CAF (China Air Force) four posts below by Big Red

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/3/2012 11:51:57 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 41

RE: RHS Design Theory: Air Art List 2: Bitmap Order (U... - 4/30/2012 4:23:28 AM

el cid again

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

See Page 10

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/15/2013 3:00:50 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 42

RE: RHS Design Theory: Scenario 105 CV Logic - 4/30/2012 6:06:29 PM

el cid again

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

The Doro Nawa Unit was an ad hoc, military staff assigned (under the energetic and creative and brilliant Col Masanobu Tsuji) by Gen Yamishita to plan for the invasion of Malaya. As Col Tsuji notes in his book (Japan's Greatest Victory, Britain's Worst Defeat) - there had been no prewar military (vice naval) planning for war with the USA or British Commonwealth. There was simply no staff work to draw upon, not even intelligence. Tsuji was part of that staff, as was a full captain of the Navy. Its formal name was Taiwan Army No 82 Unit and it sometimes also was called the Taiwan Army Research Unit. The commander was Gen Itagaki. Its size was 30 en toto, including "servants and typists" - an ideal size for a planning staff (not so big people waste time writing memos, they just talk to each other).

Scenario 105 assumes that Gen Yamashita proposed, and the Imperial General Staff implemented, a similar national staff. This staff has an executive committee of five - Gen Yamashita (theorist of armor and combined arms), Vice Adm Hosogawa (theorist of the Kiddo Butai), and a Vice Minister from the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Ministry of Finance. This body met continuously in July 1941, and monthly thereafter until November, when the military members left to take up their wartime posts - replaced by one star officers who would travel to consult with them during the war - and who acted as their personal representative on the committee. The staff itself was nominally supervised by prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda, a staff officer with the Imperial General Staff in 1940, in charge of the personal section. [He had served as chief of finance of Kwangtung Army, and as a junior officer, in cavalry in Manchukuo] This was a small joint staff, with representatives from various military, naval and government branches, including the Nakano School, the submarine arm, artillery, and the Kempeitei (intellegence section) and Tokkeitei (Naval intelligence), as well as experts in finance and industry.

The staff only forms up in July, 1941, after the decision to mobilize is made, in the context of the capture of British plans by a German raider, which were turned over with permission from Hitler IRL (a story in itself, complete with how the messages were sent but not intercepted by Ultra). The committee was unable to change anything which had happened before it formed, and it needed time to decide what other changes to implement? For this reason, Scenario 105 assumes only minor impacts by the time the war begins, and capital construction impacts cut in more and more over time. It makes no attempt to device theater strategies - except for guidance about joint policy. Like the real Doro Nawa ("robber rope" - more or less "barn door brigade" for the English idea of "it is too late to lock the barn door after the horse is stolen" - implying the planning should have been done long ago) unit, this fictional one requires joint cooperation between Army and Navy and civilian ministries - itself a rather profound concept in Imperial Japan.

Since aircraft carriers were already clearly important, and since VADM Hosogawa is a carrier vice a battleship advocate, the first strategic investment decision was made in re carrier construction. Both the USA and Japan found steel to be the second most critical strategic material, after oil. The amount of steel produced is approximately constant, and grows only slowly over time, if at all. It is vital to vastly different things (rails for trains, frames for factories or bridges, tanks, guns of all sorts, warships, vehicles, etc). Similarly, the output of engine plants for large ships is approximately constant. The number of large, high speed hulls is essentially limited - not subject to the whim of "we want more of those" alone. So the decisions were made in the context of hulls already laid down, as well as how fast new hulls might be produced, at a very limited rate?

The first decision was with respect to the four large battleships under construction (two laid down in 1940, two others much earlier nearing completion). Aside from the potential use of battleships as such, and their many advocates in the Navy, there also seemed to be, in 1941, a real requirement for such vessels, and tearing apart hulls almost ready for service to get carriers years later in time didn't make sense compared to battleships operational in 1942. So Yamato and Musashi survived the review. Shinano and Hull 111 (probably named Kii) didn't. Construction was suspended IRL, but this staff decided to keep building the hulls as designed, and to keep building the engines for them, while directing a specialist staff to design a carrier variation - very similar to what happened to Shinano in 1942 except these two ships were to be full operational carriers. Big enough to hold on the order of 120 planes, for code reasons, and because the planes will be larger by the time the ships are completed, this design is "limited" to 96 - still bigger than any others in Japan. They also get new names - to confuse the enemy in case they had detected the construction of the battleships - and not imply their huge size. They will be called Owami and Iwari. Not being delayed by suspended construction, or even waiting for plans for the carrier version to be drawn (it takes time to build the hull and the redesign would preserve that portion), these ships could complete (if industry remains productive) as early as 430219 and 430822. These ships get four squadrons - the classical fighter, dive bomber and torpedo bomber mix - all at 27 planes - with a smaller squadron of carrier recon planes (which could be replaced by carrier night fighters later on).

The second decision was related to plans to lay down another large carrier in July, 1941 - the improved Shokaku armored carrier Taiho. It would require three years to complete, and in spite of a decision to order a sister, as well as plans to order an early version of Unryu, the second Taiho never laid down and the Unryu needed a year more staff work before the first three began in August and later in 1942. The staff decided that losses in war were likely, that expanding the carrier force if there were no losses was useful and a good counter to likely enemy construction, and that the best compromise was to immediately order a pair of repeat Soryu class ships - to complete in two years. Not waiting until 1942 to begin construction, and using material assembled for Taiho to begin the first in July, 1941, these could complete (if industry remains productive) as early as 430706 and 430710 (never mind the second unit starts building more than a month later in time, based on historical construction performance of the first two Unryus). These ships get similar air groups to the real Unryus - three squadrons with 18 fighters, 18 dive bombers and 18 torpedo bombers - supported by a section of 9 carrier recon planes. These ships will use the first two Unryu class names, Unryu and Amagi.

The shadow program producing the Hiyo and Junyo was also retained, so both ships will appear in 1942 as IRL. These retain the historical air groups.

Later construction was of the Unryu class - slightly enlarged Soryu's - with two in 1942 able to complete in 1944, again as IRL as early as 440806 & 440810. These will use the second pair of historical Unryu class names, Katsurigi and Kasagi. These retain the historical air groups, the same as described above. Another pair laid down at the end of 1942 and start of 1943 can complete early in 1945. These will use the third pair of historical Unryu class names, Aso and Ikoma. If no construction delays, unlike real life, earliest completion is possible 450106 and 450110. The staff decided to order two more units to lay down later in 1943, as a replacement unit for assumed war losses. Named Kurama and Azuma, they could complete as early as 450613 and 450617. While these numbers are insufficient to compete with likely Allied construction, it is the most Japan can reasonably afford. Japanese strategy assumes the war must be won early, and that it cannot compete in a long term building contest with the USA, so later construction will focus on defensive ships and ships with the potential to convert to peacetime use.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/30/2012 6:08:31 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 43

RE: RHS Design Theory: Scenario 105 CV Logic - 5/1/2012 12:46:58 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Scenario 105 assumes that Gen Yamashita proposed, and the Imperial General Staff implemented, a similar national staff. This staff has an executive committee of five - Gen Yamashita (theorist of armor and combined arms), Vice Adm Hosogawa (theorist of the Kiddo Butai), and a Vice Minister from the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Ministry of Finance. This body met continuously in July 1941, and monthly thereafter until November, when the military members left to take up their wartime posts - replaced by one star officers who would travel to consult with them during the war - and who acted as their personal representative on the committee. The staff itself was nominally supervised by prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda, a staff officer with the Imperial General Staff in 1940, in charge of the personal section. [He had served as chief of finance of Kwangtung Army, and as a junior officer, in cavalry in Manchukuo] This was a small joint staff, with representatives from various military, naval and government branches, including the Nakano School, the submarine arm, artillery, and the Kempeitei (intellegence section) and Tokkeitei (Naval intelligence), as well as experts in finance and industry.

Sid, what is the possibility the Japs get a better deal w/ the WNT.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 44

RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS Plane Slot / Bitmap Cross R... - 5/1/2012 1:20:13 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS Plane List 1 Slot Order [CAF Section]

Slot # Game Name Notes Bitmap Scenarios
1 CAF Chinese Air Force Header None All
2 CAF A-29A Hudson Medium Bomber 1 All
3 CAF B-24M Liberator Heavy Bomber 2 All
4 CAF B-25D Mitchell Medium Bomber 3 All
5 CAF IL-4 [DB-3B] Medium Bomber 4 All
6 CNAC DC-2 XPT Civil Light Transport 5 All
7 CNAC DC-3 XPT Civil Medium Transport 6 All
8 CAF C-46A XPT Medium Transport 7 All
9 CAF F-5E RC Unarmed Recon Fighter 8 All
10 CAF I-16 Type 24 Fighter 9 All
11 CAF I-153 Chaika Biplane Fighter ["Seagull"] 10 All
12 CAF P-40A3 Tomahawk Fighter 11 All
13 CAF Hawk 75 Fighter 12 All
14 CAF P-40E Kittyhawk Fighter 13 All
15 CAF P-40N Warhawk Fighter 14 All
16 CAF P-43A-1 Lancer Fighter 15 All
17 CAF P-66 Vanguard Fighter 16 All
18 CAF Mustang VI Fighter 17 All
19 CAF SB-2 Medium Bomber 18 All

499 CAF Chinese Air Force Header None All
500 CAF CW-21 Demon Fighter [Needs new bitmap] 145 All
501 CAF SBC-4 Helldiver Dive Bmr [Needs new bitmap] 482 All
502 CAF V-935 (O3U) Light Bmr [Needs new bitmap] 494 All
503 CAF Hawk II Fighter [Shared bitmap] 12 All
504 CAF Hawk III Fighter [Shared bitmap] 12 All
505 CNAC Lockheed Mod18 Light Xpt [Needs new bitmap] 254 All

Attachment (1)

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 45

RE: RHS Design Theory: RHS Plane Slot / Bitmap Cross R... - 5/1/2012 1:20:50 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS Plane List 2 Bitmap Order

Map # Game Name Notes Slot # Scenarios
1 CAF A-29A Hudson Medium Bomber 2 All
2 CAF B-24M Liberator Heavy Bomber 3 All
3 CAF B-25D Mitchell Medium Bomber 4 All
4 CAF IL-4 [DB-3B] Medium Bomber 5 All
5 CNAC DC-2 XPT Medium Transport 6 All
6 CNAC DC-3 XPT Civil Medium Transport 7 All
7 CAF C-46A XPT Medium Transport 8 All
8 CAF F-5E RC Unarmed Recon Fighter 9 All
9 CAF I-16 Type 24 Fighter 10 All
10 CAF I-153 Chaika Biplane Fighter ["Seagull"] 11 All
11 CAF P-40A3 Tomahawk Fighter [Flying Tigers] 12 All
12 CAF Hawks Fighter also slots 503 & 504 13 All
13 CAF P-40E Kittyhawk Fighter 14 All
14 CAF P-40N Warhawk Fighter 13 All
15 CAF P-43A-1 Lancer Fighter 14 All
16 CAF P-66 Vanguard Fighter 15 All
17 CAF Mustang VI Fighter 16 All
18 CAF SB-2 Medium Bomber 17 All

Attachment (1)

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 46

RE: RHS Design Theory: Scenario 105 CV Logic - 5/1/2012 3:20:33 AM

el cid again

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

Regarding CVLs and CVSs, and AVs, the joint staff, with the perspective
available to it (and lacking the lesson's not yet learned of the war that hasn't happened
yet) decided in its first two weeks (the second half of July 1941):

1) To retain the shadow CVL program ships Shoho, Zuiho and Ryuho;

2) To retain the shadow CVE program ships Taiho, Unyo and Chuyo;

3) To modify the shadow program CVS ships already built or building into CVL form, for which plans were already extant (as well as plans to serve as fast oilers or tenders, depending on requirements). This had the impact of allowing the Mizuho to complete on 430604 first. Chitose and Chiyoda can complete earlier than history in CVL form, at the expense of not being available for start of war operations in CVS form, on 430431 and 430503, with the odd impact that Chiyoda completes before her historical sister in spite of being a later unit (just as IRL). All three of these units being in Chitose form (the rather different Mizuho had an almost identical hull and plans to convert to identical form). But the Nisshin, which can complete sooner than the others (as it does not need to be deconstructed first) can appear in 1942, on 420427, is a larger ship - although in all other respects almost a Chitose - on whose design she was also based. That is, four new build or converted CVLs to add to the three above as well as the already serving Ryujo. [Hosho, uniformly classified as a CVL in references, remains a CVE in RHS as it is in stock]

4) The old seaplane tenders Kamoi and Notoro, being slow and not assigned air groups anyway, were ordered to revert to their AO form, a fast and inexpensive process.

5) The true auxiliary CVS ships - all former AV turned into de facto carriers by the addition of Hein Mat technology (permitting landing while underway, adding to catapult takeoff while underway) - and all faster than Kamoi or Notoro - were upgraded with full air groups - or in one case, the creation of an air group (from one of the former Chitose seaplane squadrons). The other Chitose squadron was assigned to fly off the Akitsushima, with reduced numbers - something that does not require converting the ship (but does require modifying how the class is defined in game data terms). Akitsushima now has 6 E13s. It is one knot faster than the auxiliary CVS ships and a nice early war addition to the seaplane force.

6) The decision was taken to place into conversion for CVE purposes as soon as spaces can be made available (in the fall of 1941) Argentina Maru and Brazil Maru, removing them from use as APs in early war operations. Renamed, they will appear as Kaiyo and Kaijo on 430724 and 430827. Similarly the Scharnhorst will be taken in hand a year sooner than IRL (never mind she was taken over for that purpose in 1939, conversion did not begin until fall 1942), resulting in yet another CVE - named as IRL Shinyo on 430615. This adds 3 more CVE to the extant Hosho and the 3 Taihos.

7) Similar to the Scharnhorst, but not yet taken over, the decision was made to acquire by force the Italian Conte Verde at Shanghai, converting her into a similar CVE named Toyo. This will get the standard 2 squadron air group for a CVE.

8) Plans will be drawn to convert the three Aikoku Maru AMC to CVE form, named Zenyo, Wayo and Yoko. These will merely be aviation platforms, to transport aircraft or to which other carrier capable squadrons can be assigned (see for example items 9 and 10 below).

9) Later in the war, when consideration of converting tankers to Army CVEs was done IRL, the joint committee will decline the option, instead taking them sooner as tankers. This applies to Shimane Maru, Otakisan Maru, and Nippo Maru (Type 1-TL) as well as to Yamashiro Maru, Ominisan Maru and Chugasa Maru (Type 2-TL). This is a total of six tankers, 1 in 1943, 2 in 1944 and 3 in 1945. Their former air groups - if such they can be called - will form up as land based, carrier capable assets of the Grand Escort Command - available to use on land or carriers as required - able to be outfitted with Army type carrier capable (also float capable) Ki-76s or Navy type ASW armed Kates (manned by JAAF crews).

10) The army will put the Ki-65 Mike (Me-109T - a variation of the Me-109e for which Japan has a licence, tooling and three completed machines IRL - into production for use by Army carrier capable squadrons, normally used on land, or on Army owned (but Navy manned) aviation ships Akitsu Maru, Nigitsu Maru and Kumano Maru. This will upgrade to a carrier capable variant (historical) Ki-44III late in the war or on any of the CVEs that have no air groups or want to change their air group to have interceptors instead of long range naval fighters.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/1/2012 3:25:32 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 47

RE: RHS Design Theory: Scenario 105 CV Logic - 5/1/2012 3:26:57 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

Scenario 105 assumes that Gen Yamashita proposed, and the Imperial General Staff implemented, a similar national staff. This staff has an executive committee of five - Gen Yamashita (theorist of armor and combined arms), Vice Adm Hosogawa (theorist of the Kiddo Butai), and a Vice Minister from the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Commerce, and the Ministry of Finance. This body met continuously in July 1941, and monthly thereafter until November, when the military members left to take up their wartime posts - replaced by one star officers who would travel to consult with them during the war - and who acted as their personal representative on the committee. The staff itself was nominally supervised by prince Tsuneyoshi Takeda, a staff officer with the Imperial General Staff in 1940, in charge of the personal section. [He had served as chief of finance of Kwangtung Army, and as a junior officer, in cavalry in Manchukuo] This was a small joint staff, with representatives from various military, naval and government branches, including the Nakano School, the submarine arm, artillery, and the Kempeitei (intellegence section) and Tokkeitei (Naval intelligence), as well as experts in finance and industry.

Sid, what is the possibility the Japs get a better deal w/ the WNT.

Washington Naval Treaty???

That isn't for Scenario 105 - which only changes things after July 1941 - the decision for war. That might apply to Scenario 100 - we need to ask Mifune.

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 48

RE: RHS Design Theory: FAA Art Reference (REVISED) - 5/2/2012 6:01:45 AM

el cid again

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

This material reposted after significant updating at the end of the thread.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/18/2014 3:13:06 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 49

RE: RHS Design Theory: FAA Bitmap Reference - 5/2/2012 6:03:52 AM

el cid again

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

Plane List 1 in Slot Order is posted on Page 11 below

< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/15/2013 3:12:27 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 50

RE: RHS Design Theory: Air Art RAF/IAF (REVISED) - 5/3/2012 11:49:43 AM

el cid again

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

This material reposted after significant updating at the end of the thread.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/18/2014 3:13:20 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 51

RE: RHS Design Theory: KNIL/MLD Art (REVISED) - 5/4/2012 12:10:32 AM

el cid again

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

This material reposted after significant updating at the end of the thread.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/18/2014 3:13:33 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 52

RE: RHS Design Theory: RAAF Art (REVISED) - 5/4/2012 6:49:54 PM

el cid again

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

This material reposted after significant updating at the end of the thread.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/18/2014 3:13:47 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 53

RE: RHS Design Theory: US CV Names and Dates - 5/4/2012 9:03:05 PM

el cid again

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

RHS US Carrier Logic

Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear, THEN the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at further changes after that. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US carriers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Scen 105 Date

CV-9 Essex Essex CV-9 21 May 43 19 May 43
CV-10 Yorktown (ii) Bon H Richard CV-10 15 Apr 43 2 July 43
CV-11 Intrepid Intrepid CV-11 16 Aug 43 4 Dec 43 20 Jul 43 in 105
CV-12 Hornet (ii) Kearsarge CV-12 29 Nov 43 2 Feb 44
CV-13 Franklin Franklin CV-13 31 Jan 44 1 May 44
CV-14 Hancock Ticonderoga CV-14 8 May 44 5 Aug 44 23 Apr 44 in 105
CV-15 Randolph Randolph CV-15 9 Oct 44 7 Dec 44 2 Oct 44 in 105
CV-16 Lexington (ii) Cabot CV-16 17 Feb 43 15 Jul 43
CV-17 Bunker Hill Bunker Hill CV-17 25 May 43 9 Sep 43 28 Feb 43 in 105
CV-18 Wasp (ii) Oriskany CV-18 24 Nov 43 11 Mar 44
CV-19 Hancock Ticonderoga CV-19 15 Apr 44 16 Aug 44
CV-20 Bennington Bennington CV-20 6 Aug 44 11 Dec 44 6 Mar 44 in 105
CV-21 Boxer Boxer CV-21 16 Apr 45 13 Jul 45 4 Feb 45 in 105
CV-31 Bon H Richard Valley Forge CV-31 26 Nov 44 30 Mar 45 23 Apr 44 in 105
CV-32 Leyte Crown Point CV-32 11 Apr 46 Not in Stock
CV-33 Kearsarge Kearsarge CV-33 2 Mar 46 9 Aug 45
CV-34 Oriskany (ii) Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Completed in 1950
CV-35 Reprisal Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Scen 105 Date

CV-36 Antietam Antietam CV-36 28 Jan 45 21 May 45 7 Jun 44 in 105
CV-37 Princeton Valley Forge CV-37 18 Nov 45 Not in Stock
CV-38 Shangra La Shangra La CV-38 15 Sep 44 15 Jan 45
CV-39 Lake Champlain Lake Champlain CV-39 3 Jun 45 15 Sep 45 6 Aug 44 in 105
CV-40 Tarawa Tarawa CV-40 8 Dec 45 7 Mar 46
CVB-41 Midway Midway CVB-41 10 Sep 45 10 Sep 45
CVB-42 F D R Coral Sea CVB-42 27 Oct 45 27 Oct 45 Renamed FDR
CVB-43 Coral Sea Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Completed in 1947
CVB-44 No Name Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
CV-45 Valley Forge Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Completed in 1946
CV-46 Iwo Jima Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945
CV-47 Philippine Sea Philippine Sea CV-46 11 May 46 Not in Stock
CV Iowa Type Ship Name Oct 43+ Not in Stock IF converted only

Note 1: CV-16 & 17 both laid down on 15 Sept 41. CV-16 launched 11 days sooner than CV-17 did. In 105, it is assume higher priority kept the pair 11 days apart all the way to completion.
Note 2: CV-10 & 11 both laid down on 1 Dec 41. CV-10 launched 3 months and 5 days sooner than CV-11 did. In 105, it is assumed higher priority kept the pair 3 months and 5 days apart to completion.
Note 3: CV-14 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.
Note 4: CV-15 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.
Note 5: CV-20 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.
Note 6: CV-31 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.
Note 7: CV-36 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.
Note 8: CV-39 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.
Note 9: CV-21 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/8/2012 5:04:40 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 54

RE: RHS Design Theory: US CVL Carrier Names and Dates - 5/5/2012 5:56:59 PM

el cid again

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

RHS US Light Carrier Logic

Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear that the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at further changes after that. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US carriers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Scen 105 Date

CVL-22 Independence Independence CVL-22 1 Jan 43 16 Jun 43
CVL-23 Princeton Gettysburgh CVL-23 25 Feb 43 1 Jul 43
CVL-24 Belleau Wood Belleau Wood CVL-24 31 Mar 43 6 Jul 43
CVL-25 Cowpens Cowpens CVL-25 28 May 43 26 Aug 43
CVL-26 Monterey Monterey CVL-26 17 Jun 43 18 Sep 43
CVL-27 Langley Crown Point CVL-28 31 Aug 43 2 Dec 43
CVL-28 Cabot Cabot CVL-27 24 Jul 43 11 Nov 43
CVL-29 Bataan Bataan CVL-29 17 Nov 43 28 Feb 44
CVL-30 San Jacinto San Jacinto CVL-30 15 Dec 43 24 Mar 44
CVL-48 Saipan Arlington CVL-48 5 Jul 43 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 2
CVL-49 Wright Wright CVL-49 31 Dec 43 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 3

Note 1: While generally the names of WWII battles are avoided in RHS, it is safe to assume the long planned battle for Bataan would occur. Bataan's forts prevented enemy use of strategic Manila Bay.
Note 2: This is not the historical Saipan class using a modified Baltimore hull. It is a repeat Independence on a war emergency basis which can be built in less time in Scenario 105 ONLY. It is assumed that the hull of CL-89 Miami is taken over for conversion in mid 1942.
Note 3: This is not the historical Saipan class using a modified Baltimore hull. It is a repeat Independence on a war emergency basis which can be built in less time in Scenario 105 ONLY. It is assumed that the hull of CL-90 Wilksbarra is taken over for conversion in mid 1942.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/5/2012 5:57:10 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 55

RE: RHS Design Theory: US CVL Carrier Names and Dates - 5/6/2012 12:30:26 AM

kevin_hx

Posts: 156
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: China
Status: offline

btw,When does the RHS mod formally issue?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 56

RE: RHS Design Theory: RN/CW Carriers - 5/8/2012 5:34:55 PM

el cid again

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

RHS RN & CW Carrier Logic

Revised and expanded to include CVEs - see Page 6 of this thread.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 11/11/2012 8:52:22 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 57

RE: RHS Design Theory: IJ Carrier Logic - 5/9/2012 5:34:45 PM

el cid again

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

RHS Japanese Carrier Logic

This is a presentation of the Japanese carrier program to reinforce the ships that start the war on active duty: the "big six" CVs, the CVLs Ryujo and Zuiho, the Hosho (always listed as a CVL but treated as a CVE by AE, and properly so), and the CVE Taiho. It is about the date of appearance, the form the ship appears as, and any variations between Scenarios 101 to 104 vs Scenario 105. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

CV Junyo Junyo 420503 420503
CV Hiyo Hiyo 420731 420731
CV Taiho Taiho 440307 440307
CV Shinano Shinano 440704 441119 Not in 105 Note 3
CV Shinano Iwami 430219 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 2
BB 111 (Kii??) Iwari 430822 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 2
CV Unryu Unryu 441219 440806 430806 in 105 Note 1
CV Amagi Amagi 450724 440811 430906 in 105 Note 1
CV Katsurigi Katsurigi 441015 441015 440806 in 105
CV Kasagi Kasagi 450515 450515 440810 in 105
CV Aso Aso 450615 450615 450106 in 105
CV Ikoma Ikoma 450615 Not in Stock 450110 in 105
CV Kurama Kurama 450915 Not in Stock 450613 in 105
CV Azuma Azuma 450617 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 5
CVL Shoho Shoho 420126 420126 Sister of Zuiho
CVL Rhuho Ryuho 421128 421128
CVL Ibuki Ibuki 430901 450515 Note 4
CVL Isama Isama 430911 Not in Stock Note 4
CVL Shinyo Shinyo 431215 431215 430615 in 105 Note 6
CVL Kaiyo Kaiyo 450724 431123 430823 in 105 Note 7

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes

CVL Kaijo Kaijo 430827 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 7
CVL Mizuho Mizuho 430604 Not in Stock Note 10
CVL Nisshin Nisshin 420427 Not in Stock Note 11
CVL Chitose Chitose 430503 CVS in Stock Note 12
CVL Chiyoda Chiyoda 430431 CVS in Stock Note 12
CVE Unyo Unyo 420531 420531
CVE Chuyo Chuyo 421125 421125
CVE Shinyo Shinyo 4301215 431215 430615 in 105 Note 14
CVE Kamakura Maru Kamakura Maru from 4306 AP in Stock 411106 in 105 Note 13
CVE Shimane Maru Shimane Maru 450215 450215 440317 in 105 as 1TL
CVE Otakisan Maru Otakisan Maru 450515 450515 450214 in 105 as 1TL
CVE Yamashiro Maru Yamashiro Maru 450127 450127 450119 in 105 as 2TL
CVE Chugasa Maru Chugasa Maru 450615 450615 450215 in 105 as 2TL
CVE Ominisan Maru Ominisan Maru 430929 Not in Stock 430929 in 105 as 2TL
CVE Nippo Maru Nippo Maru 450615 Not in Stock 441215 in 105 as 1TL
CV Kongo Type Kongo etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42 (1/42 in 105)
CV Nagato Type Nagato etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42
CV Ise Type Ise etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42
CV Fuso Type Fuso etc. Note 16 Not in Stock From 8/42

Note 1: In Scenario 105, Unryu and Amagi are repeat Soryus rather than Unryu class design, so it may lay down sooner.

Note 2: In Scenario 105, Yamato Class hulls Shinano and No 111 are not suspended on mobilization - but keep building while a conversion design is drawn up - and then completed to a full hanger deck CV rather than as a support carrier as IRL: air group = 96. In addition, after 7/44 in all scenarios it is possible to convert any Yamato class Battleship to a Shinano CV. 105 features a full air group.

Note 3: In Scenarios 101 to 104, support aircraft carrier: air group = 43. May convert to a Yamato class battleship. This represents a decision to build the ship as a gunship vice as a carrier.

Note 4: May upgrade to CA form. This represents a decision to build a gunship vice a carrier. This second hull was laid down ten days after Ibuki, but was cancelled a month later. In RHS, the player decides if it is to build or not? In 105 only, these ships lay down as repeat Suzuya class and may complete to a CVL form identical with Ibuki. Since carriers take less time to build, the CVL form appears first - and if a player wants the gunship - simply converts it to one after it appears.

Note 5: Historically eight Unryu's were authorized (the original plus 7 follow ons) not counting eight slightly larger follow on designs. This is the seventh hull of the series.

Note 6: In Scenario 105, Scharnhorst is converted early.

Note 7: In Scenarios 101 to 104, APs Argentina Maru and Brazil Maru may convert to CVLs Kaiyo and Kaijo. Stock has Argentina Maru represented by two hulls, and does not allow Brazil Maru to convert.

Note 8: In Scenario 105 Nippo Maru, Shimane Maru and Otakasan Maru appear as Type 1TL Tankers.

Note 9: In Scenario 105 Yamashiro Maru, Chugasa Maru & Ominisan Maru appear as Type 2TL Tankers.

Note 10: Mizuho starts the game as a CVS in stock and Scenarios 101 to 104. In 101 to 104 she may convert to this CVL form. In 105, it appears in CVL form. Plans existed for this conversion. She is almost identical in hull form with Chitose and the CVL form is identical.

Note 11: Nisshin starts the game as a CVS in stock and Scenarios 101 to 104. In 101 to 104 she may convert to this CVL form. In 105, it appears in CVL form. It did not require deconstructing as much as Mizuho when the decision was made to convert her in July, 1941, so it completes sooner.

Note 12: Chitose and Chiyoda start the game in CVS form in stock and Scenarios 101 to 104. In stock and in 101 to 104 they may convert to this CVL form.

Note 13: Chichibu Maru, an AP, was renamed Kamakura Maru in 1939. She was planned for conversion to a CVE starting from 1943, but was sunk before work began. In 105 she is not used as an AP at all, but instead converted starting in the fall of 1941.

Note 14: In Scenario 104, Scharnhorst starts conversion into CVE Shinyo sooner.

Note 15: Type 1 TL may convert to Shimane Maru CVE and Type 2 TL tankers may convert to Yamashiro Maru CVEs in all scenarios. These are similar to Allied "merchant aircraft carriers" used in the Atlantic but in this case are actually Army aircraft carriers for Army fighters or ASW aircraft.

Note 16: After the Battle of Midway, plans were drawn up to convert every capital ship to carrier or to semi-carrier form. There were three options for each class: a 1/3 conversion as was ultimately done for the Ise class; a 2/3 conversion which is similar but provided about twice as much aircraft capacity; and a full conversion suitable for use with carrier aircraft. RHS provides for 1/3 conversions for Ise and Fuso classes and for full conversion of all classes from 8/42. In 105 there are contingency plans for the fast Kongo class drawn up in the fall of 1941 so conversion is an option from 1/42. Except for Ise and Hyuga, there is no provision for dedicated air groups for these ships. The partial conversions actually got half seaplane air groups, and half carrier planes which could not be recovered by the ship - but there is no way to model this case in AE - so semi-carriers get seaplanes and only full conversions get carrier planes.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/16/2012 1:31:13 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 58

RE: RHS Design Theory: Have you heard of the He-119? - 5/10/2012 11:19:25 PM

el cid again

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

This was a radical recon aircraft designed in the 1930s.
It solved the problem of more power by a unique engine
- more or less two 12 cylinder inline engines built into a
single block - at the bottom - separated (for cooling reasons)
otherwise - but employing a single shaft to drive a single
tractor airscrew. The plane itself was missing the usual
bulges for the crew windows - and instead the forward
section was more or less all windows - resulting in great
visibility with the air resistance of a perfect cylindrical form.
The propeller was at the extreme front end - but the
power plant was in the center - with the crew at the very front
of an all glass section - such that only the airscrew obstructed
vision in any direction except dead aft. This glass section was
entirely in front of the wings - you could see down and to the
side as well as forward (above, below, right or left of the airscrew).

The plane was large, fast, high altitude, and long ranged - and
almost unarmed (a single 7.9 mm MG15 was all it had). It could
fit floats. Two machines were purchased by IJN along with
production rights, and the engine was a variant of one used
for the He-100 (which IJN also had rights to), the Me-109 (which
IJA had rights to), and was later used by the Ki-61. One of the
two machines was lost before the Pacific War began - but the other
still flies. Some of its technology ended up in the late war R2Y1
project. I propose to add it as a type - and allow Japan to decide
to produce it or not? As a creature of the expanded RHS filmstrip.
However, in Scenario 105, it will be in limited production and
one unit (of six) will outfit the Akitsushima - a sort of ship without
a job in game terms (and certainly a ship without an air group). It
may also serve on the Tone Class Cruisers and the Oyodo in 105.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 59

RE: RHS Design Theory: RHSEOS Tank Logic - 5/15/2012 8:44:28 PM

el cid again

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

Scenario 105 RHSEOS Tank Logic

Background: Gen Yamashita had witnessed the war in Europe. Upon return to Japan, he wrote a report recommending the creation of a tank corps. This was initially rejected, along with the concept that tanks might be a war winning weapon. Eventually a version of this plan was implemented. In Scenario 105, since Yamashita sits on the "robber rope" (too late) planning committee, the decision was taken to implement his recommendation.
IJA Tank Divisions: As really happened, the first divisions form up from other formations. Three exist by the time the scenario begins: one at Harbin (at the expense of virtually all armor in Manchukuo), one at Peking (at the expense of virtually all armor in China) and one at Cam Rahn Bay (at the expense of virtually all armor in SE Asia). These units start divided - as 4 tank "regiments" - a motorized infantry group - an engineer unit - an artillery unit and an AA unit. Players wishing to preserve the identity of the components - or to send specialized elements different places - may do that. Or players may combine the units into a single (weak) division - which in turn may sub divide into 3 combat commands (amounting to a mechanized regimental combat team each).

Later in the game, four more armored divisions appear. These too may divide, but they do not appear in their sub component form. And many independent units have been removed because they are parts of these divisions. The 4th appears at Hiroshima, and is unrestricted, in Aug, 1942. The 5th appears in the same location, but is restricted to the Home Defense Army, in Aug, 1943. The 6th and 7th appear at Mukden, and are restricted to Kwangtung Army, in Aug, 1944 and May, 1945, respectively.

IJA Tank Brigades: In addition, some initial tank regiments not part of the tank divisions may form up into Independent Tank Brigades. The First is assigned to 14th Army. The Second is assigned to 16th Army. The Third is assigned to 15th Army. These units include two tank regiments and a small artillery unit of two companies of experimental SP guns. 14th Army's First ITB starts at Bako, the Pescadores. 15th Army's Third ITB starts at Saigon. 16th Army's Second ITB starts at Karor. Three additional formations of this type appear early in 1942. Once again, the player may keep the separate component units, or combine them up into the "brigade" form. These interim tank "brigades" are typical IJA specialist units - little more than the combination of two independent tank "regiments" (battalions). They are intended, as indeed most Japanese armor was intended, to attach to infantry divisions for operations.

After mid 1942, a revised tank Brigade appears. There are four of these. As well, the first six reorganize into this form. This adds a small "infantry unit" of two mechanized infantry companies. It also adds as "support unit" which includes an engineer company and an AAA company, as well as a regimental scale regimental train. These formations are raised to provide additional attachments which do not take the great amount of time required to form a tank division. All appear at Hirshoshima in 1942 and 1943, and all are unrestricted. Hiroshima is the primary embarcation port of the IJA.

IJA Amphibious Brigades: Organic Tank Unit: After initial war experience, IJA formed a new kind of brigade specifically for amphibious assault operations. This organization had five infantry battalions as well as a battalion of 81 mm mortars and a tank unit which combined amphibious tanks with infantry trained to work with tanks. Scenario 105 simply implements this organization as soon as the amphibious tanks are available for it, and creates more of them. The half dozen South Seas Regiments formed in the mid war period instead appear as additional Amphibious Brigades.

IJA Organic Tank Units: Recon elements of infantry brigades and divisions may contain tanks or other types of AFVs. In Scenario 105, the Guards Mixed Brigade trades its cavalry recon element for Type 2 light tanks and halftracks. The Hong Kong Defense Force gains up a company of tankettes and motorized infantry. RGC tankettes in the Capital Divisions are upgraded to light tanks. [Each division also gets an artillery unit of 8 mountain guns, vice a company of 4; it gets a company of 70 mm mortars in each of its three regiments, vice a company for the whole division; and a company of 4 MMG in each of its six battalions, vice 3]. The Imperial Guards Division and the 18th Pack A Divisions have their tankettes replaced by light tanks. Several small, independent units of tankettes or tanks were folded into larger formations.

IJN Organic Tank Units: Most IJN Assault SNLFs have a platoon of armored cars. In Scenario 105, these are replaced by obsolete tankettes no longer required by IJA. No longer in production, about 25% of these remain fit for service. In 1942, these organic tank platoons are expanded to amphibious tank companies. Similarly, IJN 1941 Combined SNLFs have a company of organic light tanks. In 1942, the Combined SNLF loses its tank company at regimental level in favor of two amphibious tank companies at battalion level. Scenario 105 does not change that.
+
IJA Engineering Demolition Tanks: The smallest of AFVs are tiny demolition tanks, either wire or radio controlled. These are called Ya-I Go. Historically they were only used by one specialist "electric" engineering regiment. In Scenario 105, all engineer regiments, including divisional ones, which have assault engineers also have a company of 12 of these tiny AFVs. Assault engineer companies get a platoon of 4.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/20/2012 5:50:30 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 60