RE: US Engineers

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: US Engineers

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: US Engineers

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 8:04:09 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle.

Mohandas Ghandi

Google is at least good for something....

_____________________________

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 jwilkerson)

Post #: 91

RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 8:52:31 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

You're a researcher alright - so - you're hired !!!

( ah - but you were already hired !? )

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 92

RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 9:15:32 AM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I am amazed that twits like Oleg can snidely comment that 'we at CHS don't touch these minor forces because all we care about is the big countries'.

Gosh Oleg...Compare CHS with the stock WITP and you will see these guys have added *hundreds* of units to the Japanese OOB's !!!!!
How in the hell can you say they are trying to improve just one side or another ??..
Your comments have been decidedly one-sided and ritualistically wrong for quite some time now.
At first,some months ago,I actually felt you were an intelligent sort, and being "tongue in cheek" with some of your comments,but now I am convinced you truly believe the "stuff" you are saying !!!!
Not quite.

Consciously or subcosciously all you CHS guys care is *significantly* improving Allied player chances of winning the game and/or simply giving him more toys to play with. You will always find some reason or another not to add, not to care and not to research Manchu forces, not to improve this or that if it would belong to Jap player. Or if you reluctantly add it to your project you'll make sure to "compensate" by adding 10x more stuff to Allied players aresenal.

For you there will always be some important reason why XYth Indian garrison batallion was or is more important to the game than similar Manchu, or Mongolian, or Bose collaborationist unit. Just look at your post(s). You basically said that in black and white!

[Not to mention that Allied player is already in great advantage in this game (by the very design and the nature of the conflict the game is depicting.)]

That is my opinion based on reading this forum and you may well call me "twit" because of that (I am not easy to insult).

Oleg

_____________________________

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 93

RE: US Engineers - 7/27/2005 7:47:32 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

So far I'm very much enjoying CHS. I'm only up to 1 Jan 42.. but already it's been refreshingly different. The Japanese are storming through Malaya. I assume this is because the new river crossing rule mean they need to bring more force to bear on Singapore. Will be interesting to see how long it lasts (they're almost at the river now!)

Getting my CV's out the way of KB after PH was also rather exciting!

The reduction in supplies also means I have to be a little less slap dash about distribution. Lots of other changes.. all great stuff! Thanks for all the effort you guys have put in :)

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 94

Hurricane IIB and CHS OB edits - 8/1/2005 11:02:41 PM

mwalker

Posts: 19
Joined: 7/13/2004
From: Sheridan Wyoming
Status: offline

I've been looking over the database for CHS and I think I've uncovered a small error. The Hurricane IIB is presently listed as having 8 browning 303s when in fact it was 12. My refernce is Bloody Shambles Vol. I p. 297. Another point, I think I've read around here at some point that this should be the best early war Allied fighter. According this this excerpt the extra 4 guns badly affected the Cane's manuverability. I'd say at the very least, the extra guns should be added, though perhaps a tweak to manuverability as well.

Mike

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 95

RE: Hurricane IIB and CHS OB edits - 8/2/2005 12:50:03 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

mwalker,

In 'jungleizing' the Hurri 2 the British removed the 4 out board MGs
to lighten the aircraft.

As it stands the Hurri2 has the best mnvr rating of any allied fighter till the Spitfire V.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to mwalker)

Post #: 96

RE: US Engineers - 8/2/2005 4:50:19 AM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

OTOH, when someone asks for any Allied vessel or unit, no matter how small, insignifciant or perhaps even redundant it may be, be sure Don will hurry to add it to database in matter of minutes. Never mind if it didn't - to paraphrase Lemurs - "fire a shot during the whole war" (most ships or units didn't anyway).

Oleg

"You betcha Oleg, please let me know if I missed any."

** Uhhh...Don...How about a special "Bob Hope" USO troupe unit with transportation of it's own built in, which will increase morale of any units it stacks with for several days ???
I mean,....I think Oleg has given his permission for any special Allied units which *might* have been...especially since the current Jap OOB's contain *SEVERAL* totally fictitious "might-have-been" units.............

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 97

USS Block Island air group error - 8/2/2005 4:58:32 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Hi Don,

Check out the air groups to the USS Block Island. I think the TBF's have 112 planes on that little CVE. With player defined upgrades, a person can upgrade them and reduce them to normal size, but it's still something that might need to be fixed for the next release. (this is version 1.02)

(of course, it could be some corruption with my version.)

thanks!!

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 98

RE: USS Block Island air group error - 8/2/2005 6:19:35 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Don,

Check out the air groups to the USS Block Island. I think the TBF's have 112 planes on that little CVE. With player defined upgrades, a person can upgrade them and reduce them to normal size, but it's still something that might need to be fixed for the next release. (this is version 1.02)

(of course, it could be some corruption with my version.)

thanks!!

No - that's a typo. Or perhaps a finger stutter, VMTB(CVS)-233 should have 12 planes, not 112.

Thanks

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 99

RE: USS Block Island air group error - 8/2/2005 6:27:08 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Don,

Check out the air groups to the USS Block Island. I think the TBF's have 112 planes on that little CVE. With player defined upgrades, a person can upgrade them and reduce them to normal size, but it's still something that might need to be fixed for the next release. (this is version 1.02)

(of course, it could be some corruption with my version.)

thanks!!

No - that's a typo. Or perhaps a finger stutter, VMTB(CVS)-233 should have 12 planes, not 112.

Thanks

I was just going to increase the aircraft capacity of the Block Is. Wouldn't that be cool to see 100 torpedo bombers on attack?

(just kidding)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 100

Future Changes to CHS - 8/2/2005 8:50:36 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Sorry to warm up this whole Jap stuff again but just because there are no slots left it doesn mean that there is no way in adding this stuff to the game.
It's just like a loft full of old for you important stuff. Now you find something new also important to you. Then you have to look thru the loft and see if there is something less important that you could throw out to replace it with the new stuff.

All I want to say is check out those stuff and compare it to the stuff that is already in the game and if there is something that has less impact on the game then for throw it out and instead put Manchuko(or Thai or whatever) in.

But others are right. First you have to research this area extensively so you can really compare it to the stuff that is already in the game and then you can make a decision.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 8/2/2005 8:52:33 PM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 101

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/3/2005 12:07:56 AM

m10bob

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Sorry to warm up this whole Jap stuff again but just because there are no slots left it doesn mean that there is no way in adding this stuff to the game.
It's just like a loft full of old for you important stuff. Now you find something new also important to you. Then you have to look thru the loft and see if there is something less important that you could throw out to replace it with the new stuff.

All I want to say is check out those stuff and compare it to the stuff that is already in the game and if there is something that has less impact on the game then for throw it out and instead put Manchuko(or Thai or whatever) in.

But others are right. First you have to research this area extensively so you can really compare it to the stuff that is already in the game and then you can make a decision.

Trust me on this BigDuke66...The CHS team culled over all kinds of info and even posted "alpha" versions of the mod just to get other people's input...........
Some of the recent criticisms have only appeared of late, and these "critics" had as much opportunity to input *back then* as anybody.
From recent posts, it would seem a couple of folks would want Manchukuo represented by static "CD gun type units,(since it has been shown those forces were *static* and employed purely defensively, and even then only for the single month of August 1945 against the Russians.).
What mobile Japanese units would YOU be willing to do without, for those ONE MONTH units?????
I get my knowledge of the CHS team's work right here on the forum where they posted their research and progress for months before anything was released..
So far, they have gotten some credit (and much appreciation) from people like me, and a lot of crap from a couple of those lazy ne-er do wells who refuse to contribute anything, except un-needed vitriolic comments which hold no worth.....

_____________________________

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 102

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/3/2005 1:37:20 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

As I said IF there are units with less impact on the game then the Manchukos then you could throw them out and Manchuko in.

To me on Manchuko seems to be what Vichy was for Europe. Not much impact but somehow and that's for sure they made a difference.

If there is really no way of adding these units maybe there are other ways to edit China so the Jap player can somehow get the little beneftit the Manchukos gave Japan.
Maybe changing some ToE of Bases Forces in Manchuko(maybe also Thai), making some houserulesor whatever.

I come from "Century of Warfare" and I saw scenarios that also reached the limits of the game engine but the designers really tried EVRYTHING even long lists of houserules(those rules where the salt in the soup) to get as much in the scenario as possible.

Don't forget "All ways lead to Rome".

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 103

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/3/2005 2:37:03 PM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

From recent posts, it would seem a couple of folks would want Manchukuo represented by static "CD gun type units,(since it has been shown those forces were *static* and employed purely defensively, and even then only for the single month of August 1945 against the Russians.).

m10, first let me say I love your "gloves off" posts (no irony whatsoever) because they allow me to make my own counter-posts with gloves off (to a degree at least) and drive my point of view further than I would normally do

It's not as simple as you make it to be. You noticed that there are many fictious and hypothetical units in IJN aresenal, even in CHS. And I agree with you in that. For example, giving Japs opportunity to produce Liz heavy bombers in large numbers is - to put it mildly - controversial. It also shows - in my opinion - amateurish and incosistent approach to modding history games CHS employs.

Now tell me. Is the possibility of using Manchurian units (since you're so fond of them, I am not necesarilly) prior to 1945 ANY MORE fantastic and unhistorical than IJN building large heavy bomber fleet of Liz bombers?

I would not say so.

Is the possibility of IJN having Long Lance batteries on all of their DDs any more fantastic? Who's to decide what of those semi-science fiction capabilities to put in the game, and which not to?

I would say Japanese possibility to recruit troops among their minor allies is more important. If we go down the fantasy road (and CHS did that, to a degree), then Japs need to have opportunity to employ their minor allies and minions far before building the heavy bomber fleet. Building co-prosperity sphere and presenting themselves as "liberators" in Asia was their strategic goal. Building 4E bombers was not (quite obviously).

BTW, since you (almost) labelled me as IJN fanboy (which I am not), I must add that in my opinion there are many biased pro-IJN "factors" even in stock game. I see them, but I consciously refuse to post about them, because it is my opinion there are FAR more pro-Allied "factors" in the game, and Allied fanboys all but swamp the board with their whines.

Allied fanboy invasion on WITP board is so huge, any attempt at posting "balanced" posts is futile. So I consciously chose to do very unpopular thing, and that is to be "devil's advocate" (not fanboy) for the Jap side. Not because I love them, but because they are hugely under-represented on the board.

quote:

I get my knowledge of the CHS team's work right here on the forum where they posted their research and progress for months before anything was released..

Yeah and so what? What their research and "progress" amounts to is a bunch of arbitrary decisions and hodge podge edits by self-proclaimed gods of <insert any specific area>, under pretentious name of "Combined Historic" whatever. This, alone, would not be bad, but this Olymp of self proclaimed gods is lacking in many departments, and produces unbalanced results.

Strictly in my personal opinion, of course.

quote:

So far, they have gotten some credit (and much appreciation) from people like me, and a lot of crap from a couple of those lazy ne-er do wells who refuse to contribute anything, except un-needed vitriolic comments which hold no worth.....

There are far too few of "those lazy ne-er do wells who refuse to contribute anything, except un-needed vitriolic comments" if you ask me

In fact I think there was only one lazy ne-er do weller on your mind when you posted this

BTW, still no one answered to my polite question I posted in Manchuria thread, and that is how will the Subchaser implement his apparently ambitious plan of redoing Japanese OOB if all the slots are already used up?

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 104

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/3/2005 2:48:54 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

BTW, still no one answered to my polite question I posted in Manchuria thread, and that is how will the Subchaser implement his apparently ambitious plan of redoing Japanese OOB if all the slots are already used up?

I believe the slots are all used up for ships for the IJN. So if Subchaser is planning on modding the IJN he will have to drop ships from various used slots to add the ships that he feels are appropriate.

_____________________________

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 Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 105

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/4/2005 12:22:28 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

What about renaming some stuff.

How about adding month/year for further developed Infantry units so you can differentiate them.
USA Rifle Squad
would look like this
USA Rifle Squad 7/42

Just like it is with some new ship classes that come in later in the game.

Or wouldn't that work?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 106

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/4/2005 12:35:03 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

What about renaming some stuff.

How about adding month/year for further developed Infantry units so you can differentiate them.
USA Rifle Squad
would look like this
USA Rifle Squad 7/42

Just like it is with some new ship classes that come in later in the game.

Or wouldn't that work?

Actually the date next to ship classes is generated by the game during display - it is not in the name as seen in the editor.

_____________________________

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 107

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/4/2005 11:48:35 PM

ADM Halsey

Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline

Is there any other place to download CHS 1.02? I am trying to get it from Spooky's site but it cuts out at random points of the download ( 9MB to 17MB ). If anyone could let me know that would be great. Thanks

< Message edited by ADM Halsey -- 8/4/2005 11:50:22 PM >

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 108

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/5/2005 1:17:07 AM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

You NEED a download manager like GetRight. Spoocky has problems with his side so till it's ok you will only able to get very small files with a normal browser.
I tried it with the normal browser many many times and it didn't work but with the download manager it worked fine.
Spooky said that also an his news page.

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 8/5/2005 3:13:02 AM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to ADM Halsey)

Post #: 109

RE: Future Changes to CHS - 8/5/2005 2:56:34 AM

ADM Halsey

Posts: 349
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline

Thanks, I will see if I can download it now.

_____________________________

USS Enterprise The Big-E Haul a## with Halsey

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 110

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 6:40:03 AM

Herrbear

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

I notice that the P-36A Mohawks (159) have 6x.303 MGs and 4x100 lb bombs.

I thought the they only had 1x.30 and 1x50 except for the last 30 in production which added 2 more .30 on the wings to give 3x.30 and 1x.50. These were redesignated P-36C.

I don't have my books with me at the moment, but isn't the bomb load a bit heavy? Most fighters of that era did not carry that heavy of a bomb load.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 111

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 1:35:44 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

I think those 30 were designated for Norway. Because of the German occupation they never reached it.

Here what I found:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p36.htm
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p36_1.html

< Message edited by BigDuke66 -- 8/5/2005 1:41:03 PM >

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 112

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 3:18:00 PM

Herrbear

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

You are right about the last 30 of the complete production they were P-36G. The "C" was the last 30 of the "A" production with the increased amount of guns.

(in reply to BigDuke66)

Post #: 113

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 4:07:12 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Yea, our data was lost somewhere. I checked an old version and the P36s were armed correctly but in this one they are incorrect.
I will get it fixed.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 114

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 5:06:01 PM

BigDuke66

Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline

Not sure but wasn't 1.02 the last release for a while?

Could you be so kind to give us the correct armament so we can fix it ourself?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 115

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 5:17:16 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I found one more error.

There are 3 RCT's in the Panama Canal area. The one that's in the furthest east base (I think Christobal is the base name) uses the 1943 version of the US rifle squad. Don fixed the other two RCT's that are in the base just to the west in 1.02.

thanks!!

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 116

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 9:17:10 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Oh, one more thing.

i think there are two I-1 Japanese submarines in the game. One that starts 12/7/41 and one in the building que. Is this correct?

If it's correct, then why don't we have other ships named the same (eg Yorktown and Yorktown 2). Ok, I'm just teasing about this last statement. I know Ron will make a no-spawn version when he can. But my first statement, above, is not in jest.

thanks, Brad

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 117

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 9:28:05 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

The I-1 issue is correct. We beat this to death about 6-7 months ago and this was the team decision.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 118

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 9:30:31 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

I am going to release a 1.3 shortly to go with Andrew's map.
There will not be huge changes just the collection of fixes and map changes.

The P36A should have 1-50 cal Browning forward and 1-303 Browning forward amd 2-100lb GP bombs external.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 119

RE: CHS Release 1.02 - 8/5/2005 9:31:37 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I figured it was correct (intentional). But I thought I'd post it in case it was a true error.

Can you give me the historics on it? I assume the first one was sunk at some point and Japan just named a new construction after it?

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: US Engineers