el cid again
Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Level I Update 1.15
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!27151&authkey=!AE8pb0zb-yWizVY&ithint=file%2cmsi
This update involves a great deal of very minor data. It substantially involves only class, ship and location files, and slightly modifies device files, as far as I remember.
There are probably no changes to art or pwhexe or other files since 1.05.
I wanted to clear up some technical matters related to reloading mines, but only indirectly got there. Along the way I noticed that ALL Japanese minesweepers did not have properly implemented RHS type depth charge devices. While the devices were indeed RHS, they were generally duplicated (a legacy of stocks methodology) and had facings other than "all directions" - which is the RHS SOP. [That is because in RHS DC are dropped in patterns, these are area weapons going in all directions from the "datum point" and there is only one shot per pass. A datum point is the calculated position of the target in x and y terms on the surface of the ocean. A DC run involves dropping BEFORE you reach that point in the sea, dropping AT that point as well, and then dropping for a while afterward. IF you have DC Throwers, you ALSO throw to both sides in all three cases - before, at and after reaching the datum point. Most DC patterns are rectangular, rather than circular, although the most simple are pure lines (with tiny numbers and small chance of success). The French use a variation - dropping large DC in a line and throwing small DC on the sides - typically two each - a wholly inadequate pattern based on pre war assumptions which didn't get developed during the war. For most navies, pattern size increased over time. In RHS the Japanese end up using patterns of 18 on their specialized large Escorts, while the Allies end up with patterns of 28 on DE type vessels.]
Working on these minesweeper classes, I figured out for the first time that they were generally dual role vessels. Not quite always. Early post WWI vessels were dual MS or minelayers. So were some late war classes. Other classes were eventually wholly converted to pure escort vessels. And the little auxiliaries were a whole lot more complicated a matter. Among other things, I figured out that I had confused the W-101 and W-102 with Wa-101 and Wa-102, so I never added the W-101 class vessels in spite of defining it! These ships were British RN in origin, captured at Hong Kong, and completed with Japanese guns. The Wa series were Dutch in origin, captured and rearmed, and a total of seven were commissioned.
Examination of the minor vessels revealed numbers of issues. And one new idea! STOCK introduced the concept of the very same ship on both sides, and unless some mod deleted them we all have always used such! But it did so improperly - the physically identical ships (with different names) do not have the same physical data (size, speed, range, name it)! So part of this rework is to rework the NEI Government Marine Djember class - and so name it that players or modders can tell even the Japanese vessels were of that origin. And to make their size, speed and durability match! The thinking seems to have been that there were a significant number of these total, and a significant number captured. In game terms it does not matter which get captured? If a given vessel sinks or survives, it can be assumed that a different one was captured in the same game. Crude but probably better simulation than pretending none were captured. This differs from former RHS practice - we only let you have captured ships NOT in actual service when the war begins - generally on the day they were commissioned by the Japanese. This is going into the hopper for possible use in other cases, if any exist, where numbers of a class were captured, so the same statistical logic would apply.
The larger problem was that minor vessels of Japanese origin were merchant in origin, and could be converted to several forms: minelayers, minesweepers, minefield tenders, patrol boats, transports or, rarely, ammunition ships. To that add the complexity that larger ones could carry large or small naval mines. Getting all that cross connecting data sorted out was a chore! Still worse, stock data, which generally survived in RHS, was very sloppy about the form the vessel had in 1941 (often you get the vessel in its converted form at the start of the game),
when the vessel was sunk, and where the vessel was at? We have more than a few cases of "sunk" vessels (in stock and therefore in RHS) which in fact were surrendered and served Allied navies until 1948! Others sunk in 1944 that sank in 1942, or vice versa! That kind of stuff meant every vessel had to be researched and revised - not whole classes as a group. Because the vessel's at start class might well be different. At the same time I worked in 1945 data for the future Downfall scenario - which often differs from the 1941 data. The final major issue was armament. Many stock merchant vessels are grossly overarmed in 1941 terms, and many preserve that in RHS (having not been reworked). [This is an even bigger problem for the Allies - but I have not yet substantially addressed it.] Doing this part of the work, I discovered uses for new devices I had added in great numbers. These come in two forms:
(1) I added "short guns" (similar in principle to the 5 inch 25 caliber on early war US battleships, cruisers and carriers, although sometimes even shorter with even less performance); and (2) dual, triple and quad machine gun mountings. In RHS, these devices do NOT use the AE/WITP principle of "number of guns on bearing times rate of fire" - but instead "the square root of number of guns times rate of fire" - because that is a better statistical model for weapons using the same aimer. I had added the devices, but only rarely used them on classes - often not knowing what classes to use them on? This work revealed that the merchant vessel forms of these minor vessels, if small, virtually always used the '8 cm short gun' (which was misinterpreted generally as a DP or AA gun in the 75 or 76 mm range, of which there are half a dozen in Japanese service). Some of the support vessels - ACM in particular - also used these weapons. Japanese short guns are technically dual purpose, but extremely limited in range and ceiling - with very low rates of fire. [I would rather have a high performance 2800 fps AAMG - no matter the target] Here for the first time we have numbers of vessels using both classes of devices. Over time I will replace ALL dual, triple and quad MG in all navies with such devices - because it is better simulation (although it reduces the effect of large numbers of MG on a ship: a quad mount is only worth two singles, a dual mount is worth 1.4 singles, etc). At the end, I also reworked numbers of Japanese merchant vessels with respect to these devices as well - changing them in batches by class rather than reviewing every vessel individually (so any errors in sunk date or vessel form, if any, remain).
Apart from massive effort on minor naval vessels, generally minesweepers or their sisters no matter how classified, I worked on locations. This work included feedback from a European team member devoted to AI and Scenario 102 (his work will also apply to the future Downfall Scenario) - and in fact it also affects ALL scenarios to some degree. He objected to, and eventually got, me to reclassify San Bernidino as not being a map edge location, and not getting "free supplies" (a term inclusive of oil, fuel and resources) in 2000 ton "trainloads" as it used to. This mainly because the location can be isolated and the "trains would still run." [I do not consider it likely Japan will get East of San Bernidino, but he is right in theory.] Also because his testing showed the reason we added those supplies no longer exists - the Allies are not desperate for supplies in the ports of embarcation any more (if they do not try to repair every kind of industry at once in Southern California). Because we no longer need them, and technically so the place can be surrounded or captured (capture was impossible if a large force camped out with massive supply appearing daily), the location is reduced to a one victory point (for the Allies - 10 for Japan because it is a times ten area) location - no longer a three (or 30) point location. Consideration was given to doing the same thing to Ogden, but it turns out it IS map edge with a RR you cannot even see - and it WOULD keep getting those trains no matter what. Other near map edge locations were reworked - mainly to reduce starting stocks of supplies and resources to the new RHS standards.
Other locations were reworked (generally every location above 1100 is reviewed, and numbers below that also are if the location came up for any reason - particularly if the eratta hunter spotted something there).
A different change relates to the French and Chinese 'political sections.' These devices, borrowed because Mifune pointed out how well they would work for a limited RHS purpose (Treespider created them for a different reason), did prevent locations from "changing sides" without being occupied (where for any reason that is a good idea). But when "wiped out" they reappeared and were then useless (but consuming supplies) because they are static. We modified the formation they point at so they return WITHOUT the static device - and can then be used wherever the player sends them. A few other LCU got technical changes, generally reported by the eratta hunter or by test games, to fix eratta of minor kinds.
There should be one more round of this sort of thing, re Japanese minelayers and Allied minelayers in particular, and probably also Allied merchant vessels. And I need to bring more pwhexe files up to current standard. When I am done the problem of rearming minecraft will generally (but not quite universally) be solved. Some cases exist where the vessel cannot be rearmed - and one case exists where USN never used its one set of mines (USS Argonaut!) - never mind they were designed to complicate minesweeping if laid with other types of mines. I let you convert her to a transport (her historical fate) - OR lay the mines and then convert her - your choice. But you cannot convert her back to "reload the mines." For most other cases, in RHS, you can convert a minelaying vessel to another form (either with different mines, or possibly to a minesweeper) - and then convert it back if you wish - with delays of one day (because the real ships had alternate forms involving mounting and dismounting a small amount of deck gear). I mention this because, if I did not, you might not grasp minelayers can (or soon will be) able to be rearmed even if the game refuses to do so as it should. [This issue generally does not apply to submarines, which can rearm in a suitable port of suitable nationality, with sufficient supplies and size.]
< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/1/2016 3:37:33 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Why RHS Aircraft are Different? & update 1.04 Level I - 
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