RE: pwhex.dat File (Full Version)

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



Message

el cid again -> RE: pwhex.dat File (6/21/2006 1:31:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, maybe this has been answered, but I could not find it. What are the "coolies" for? Aesthetics?

And by the way, I am not a native english speaker, but from what I know "coolie" is a derogatory term (just like "jap" or "cowboy" for that matter). Shouldn't you be avoiding it? "Workers" or any other synonymous would be fine? [;)]


It is indeed a pejorative. But is also a proper noun. I have two different kinds of civilian worker units - Field Hand Squads and Coolie Squads.
They are identical in primary function - eat supplies - and secondary function (if it works - WITPQs and my tests indicate they don't - but Matrix says otherwise) - building (fixing) things. But they are different in military value in a fight. Neither is worth a whole lot - but a Field Hand Squad fights harder than a Coolie Squad.

Now the term is questionable in modern politically correct America. On the other hand, it has real meaning - laborers without a lot of tools. Since I was married in China - I don't think many people think I am anti-Chinese. Note also I have "coolies" in many places - including Russia, China, Japan, Malaya, India, Burma - and some colonial islands - notably the family owned island of Christmas and Nauru (guano miners). Note I mix in a few construction engineers in medium and large supply sinks. Try to take those places you are almost guaranteed to destroy the industry/resources there.

IF you or anyone else feels we need to aviod this term - I will change it. It exists as a device name so one change has global effect. I am a bit of a multi-culturalist, a linguist, a member of my School District's Minority Education Concerns Committee, and I go after cops who think it is OK to do the Rodney King thing (or rape) to minorities: I am not insecure in my credentials as a person who believes in and fights for respect for all. But I recognize this may be a controversial choice: In the end it is artistic: it would have made perfect sense to everyone in 1941.



akdreemer -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/21/2006 10:08:23 AM)

I have not looked too close, but was the Mexican 201st Fighter Squadron included in the US OOB?

"After finishing the unit training, the MEAF(Mexican Exbiditionary Air Force - 201 FS and associated support), which received the Mexican Flag on February 22, 1945, was ready to go overseas.The pilots went to Topeka, Kansas, for final processing by the 21st Bombardment Wing, and the ground personnel left Majors Field by train on 18 March. The MEAF departed San Francisco, California, onboard the Fairislile on March 27, and arrive to Manila Bay on April 30, 1945.40"



TulliusDetritus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/21/2006 6:23:01 PM)

El Cid Again, I see, they are cannon fodder and some sort of engineers. Thank you.

As for changing the therm: well, it's your mod. That was my personal [& irrelevant] opinion. Maybe other people/players have a different one. I don't know.

Anyway, true, on 1941 that term was used. But let's assume this game is "War in Europe - The Struggle Against Germany [& other satellites]". Should we see something like this in some german units TOE's: Untermenschen Slaves = 1200 [squads]? Because after all that was the correct nomenclature during WW2 (I mean in nazi Germany).



Mifune -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/21/2006 6:44:03 PM)

You would also see listed POW and "Volunteer" units in the TOE and OOB's. Of course the Germans used a very structured nomenclature system. I play a HPS game which made me delve into the army unit structure and was surprised how many of these units were used.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (6/22/2006 1:29:18 AM)

As a German speaker and student of German history, if trying to create the "flavor" of a German economy, I might indeed use the term. I would not expect anyone to read into that I like the term.



CobraAus -> RE: pwhex.dat File (6/22/2006 3:29:15 AM)

V3.33 for all scenarios + EOS posted on download link page

Note CVO now posted along with v3.34 PWHEX .dat file on the download link page

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: pwhex.dat File (6/23/2006 12:33:21 AM)

Thanks to some inside help from Matrix, we will implement (from 3.34 level) some art long in your program you never could see: cavalry symbols. [EDIT: Andrew writes he implemented this but failed to mention it in the notes for the latest CHS version - so you could see it in the latest CHS - I tested it and it works fine] Done for the Japanese, I will add it to the Allies tonight - and issue with the 3.34 micro-update - along with any other eratta or improvements found. At last I have the economy of Manchukuo running with a full burdon - having figured out how to exceed the limit allowed for device counts.

Continuing to work on EOS - I have also added USS Lagarto (just found on the bottom of the Gulf of Thailand, vindicating the log of IJN Hatsutaka - a minelayer - saying she sank a submarine) in a unique configuration: two TWIN five inch gun mountings!

EOS is reworking the Japanese submarine fleet. The best (most maneuverable and cost effective) Japanese submarine never had snorkel or radar! Japanese twin gun mountings were rarely used. Many submarines were built of questionable configuration. None of these things address how they were used - which limited their effectiveness. I have stressed in particular more modest sized vessels - in particular KD7s, K6 and KS. I let the Army use a better Navy design for its second series of transport boats. And I did away with the long construction of very tiny numbers of very large exoctic vessels, with few exceptions. The EOS focus is on what is available early - or midwar. The war needs to be decisevely won early - and the nature of the war will change if it is not.

Doing this work I reviewed gun armament and revised it for all scenarios to more correct data (in general - if one must simplify it to a standard for a class - which ignores individual ship variations).

EDIT: Posting RHS file sets 3.34 now - including a pre-release (meaning incomplete) version of RHSEOS for comment. RHSEOS Still needs escorts, land units, air units revised.



CobraAus -> RE: pwhex.dat File (6/24/2006 1:36:59 AM)

v3.34 RHS all scenarios posted for download

Cobra Aus



Hipper -> Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/24/2006 11:26:47 PM)

 

Hi Cid way back when you said you were going to change the values for aircraft wepons according to the following post  (see below)

However I note in 3.34 US 50 cals seem to have a effect value of 3   while all other aircraft   seem to have been revised according to he table in this post  (In Bold For Emphasis) ,  is this planned or a revision to an earlier dataset during editing ?

Also tiny points  the M4 close support tank has a armour value of 300+ putting it higher than the soviet JS III
plus FAA 815 squadron has Barracudas in 1942 ! I think they should be Albacores !!

PS well impressed on the Madagascar map !

Hipper


Aircraft weapons do not seem to use the same values that are used for surface combat. There, an automatic gun uses ten times shell weight for effect and the ROF = accuracy. [This is a variation of naval gunnery which uses shell weight for effect and ten times ROF = accuracy - this variation for high speed "machine cannon"]

But for aircraft weapons clearly some other system was used. Going back to old stock data, it became clear that the accuracy is purely a function of ROF - but a square root function. Thus

1100 ROF = 33 (sq root 33.166)
850 ROF = 29 (sq root 29.155)
750 ROF = 27 (sq root 27.386)
15 ROF = 4 (sq root 3.873)

In which case, clearly the idea used for machine cannon does not apply:
they are not multiplying by 10. IF they did,

.30 cal would be 1/5 (152 grains or 1/4.6 of a .50 cal round)
.50 cal would be 1 (711.5 grains at 7000 grains per pound times 10)
20 mm would be 3 (about 1/3 pound times 10 - .280 to .363 pound)
40 mm would be 20 (about 2 pounds times 10 - 1.92 to 2.06 pound)

But the game values are typically
.30 cal = 2
.50 cal = 3 or 4
20 mm = 4
23 mm = 5
30 mm = 5
37 mm = 4

Not based clearly on anything. But clearly the relative punch of a cannon is not represented well in this system. [All these guns have AP, explosive HE, and tracer rounds. I didn't realize there were explosive .30 cal, but it was standard issue.]

I am proposing to use the cube root of round weight for effect:

1 for .30 cal
2 for .50 cal
3 for 15 mm
7 for 20 mm
8 for 23 mm
10 for 30 mm
12 for 37 mm
13 for 40 mm
21 for 57 mm

I have added a 57mm to the Ki-102b - because it really had one! It also is the ONLY weapon with a range greater than 1 in this system. Although I just found a 75 mm US aircraft gun - I have not yet found what plane carried it - or if it was for use air to air or vs surface (as I suspect)?



el cid again -> RHS 3.35 micro update series (6/25/2006 1:46:40 AM)

This fixes (for Russian passive scenarios RHSCVO and RHSRPO)
a problem in the location of Ye and Los Angelus.

It fixes a small amount of aircraft/air group data (upgrade paths mainly) - and adds a number of planes to RHSEOS - Ki-74, Ki-77, D4Y1-C, ASW version of Kate, ASW version of Ki-49 (Recon version of Kate already added to mix) and begins conversion of the EOS units to use these planes. A number of planes get dual designations - because Army and Navy cooperate in this scenario (freeing plane slots - no need for separate ones in the coop scenario version).

Otherwise not much changed - there will be one more air group/aircraft update for EOS (and that will find some eratta in other scenarios) -
and a land unit update - and EOS will be done - which is the end of RHS scenarios planned at this point.



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/25/2006 1:49:36 AM)

I checked - the Browning seems to have reverted to 3 - which is wrong -
other .50s are 2 - which is right. Need to fix this - at 3.36 level - but no - we are using 1 for .30s (all of them) and 2 for .50s (all of them).



CobraAus -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/25/2006 3:23:17 AM)

V3.35 all scenarios excpt EOS posted on download link page

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/25/2006 11:44:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

 

Hi Cid way back when you said you were going to change the values for aircraft wepons according to the following post  (see below)

However I note in 3.34 US 50 cals seem to have a effect value of 3   while all other aircraft   seem to have been revised according to he table in this post  (In Bold For Emphasis) ,  is this planned or a revision to an earlier dataset during editing ?

ANSWER: This is a big problem - and making it right reduces the air combat attrition of the Japanese.

Also tiny points  the M4 close support tank has a armour value of 300+ putting it higher than the soviet JS III

ANSWER: This appears to be correct. We use the max frontal armor value in WTIP.

plus FAA 815 squadron has Barracudas in 1942 ! I think they should be Albacores !!

ANSWER: You are indeed correct. 815 operated Barracudas from August 1941 to July 1943. British Naval Aircraft Since 1913.


These items addressed in 3.36 - including a pre release version of RHSESO with many air groups revised. Also air eratta - particularly upgrades - in all scenarios. This is the first version of ESO to show the Ki-74, Ki-77, B5N2-Q and the ASW Ki-49. There is also an effort to help the AI get Manchukuo's economy started right - in the form of supply depots.

In addition, we are again doubling the durability rating of aircraft. This will reduce operational losses somewhat - but it has been determined they are not as bad as originally thought. It should also help make air combat less bloody, and reduce AA losses slightly.

I intend to release one more update for comments (mainly on ESO) and then a final set - tomorrow. Please comment on this in particular - durability values.



Hipper -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/26/2006 2:57:23 AM)

ANSWER: You are indeed correct. 815 operated Barracudas from August 1941 to July 1943. British Naval Aircraft Since 1913.

Hi Cid Can I suggest That that is a error !  
My sources suggest that The Barracuda did not enter service untill spring 1943 !
RHS has it start production in 43 as well .......







CobraAus -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/26/2006 4:34:37 AM)

V3.36 for all senarios posted on download link page

Cobra Aus



Terminus -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/26/2006 4:43:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

ANSWER: You are indeed correct. 815 operated Barracudas from August 1941 to July 1943. British Naval Aircraft Since 1913.

Hi Cid Can I suggest That that is a error !  
My sources suggest that The Barracuda did not enter service untill spring 1943 !
RHS has it start production in 43 as well .......



815 Squadron operated in the Mediterranean from August 1941 to July 1943, flying Albacores and Swordfish. It was disbanded at Mersa Matruh in 7/43 and reformed 10/43 at Lee-on-Solent with Barracudas.

Source (quoted by fleetairarmarchive.net): Sturtivant, R & Ballance, T (1994). 'The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm' Published by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd, 1994 ISBN: 0 85130 223 8



akdreemer -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/26/2006 6:38:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also tiny points the M4 close support tank has a armour value of 300+ putting it higher than the soviet JS III



This is grossly incorrect, the thickest armor is the gun shield at 178mm.






el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/26/2006 3:49:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

ANSWER: You are indeed correct. 815 operated Barracudas from August 1941 to July 1943. British Naval Aircraft Since 1913.

Hi Cid Can I suggest That that is a error !  
My sources suggest that The Barracuda did not enter service untill spring 1943 !
RHS has it start production in 43 as well .......



815 Squadron operated in the Mediterranean from August 1941 to July 1943, flying Albacores and Swordfish. It was disbanded at Mersa Matruh in 7/43 and reformed 10/43 at Lee-on-Solent with Barracudas.

Source (quoted by fleetairarmarchive.net): Sturtivant, R & Ballance, T (1994). 'The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm' Published by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd, 1994 ISBN: 0 85130 223 8


First of all, I just got mixed up: I wrote the wrong type: It operated Albacores - just as you said it did. I fixed it properly - but reported it incorrectly. I do have a lot of trouble with the British fleet units which only operated in the edge of our map area: players are not really forced to withdraw them for off map ops - nor restricted how far to bring them onto the map either. But I have followed the present system - and if it EVER enters our area of ops - you get it. Don't think it is fair or politic but I have not got a better system - yet.



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/26/2006 3:53:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also tiny points the M4 close support tank has a armour value of 300+ putting it higher than the soviet JS III



This is grossly incorrect, the thickest armor is the gun shield at 178mm.







According to the US Army, there is a lot of sloped armor to defeat mines - both at the front and the bottom of the forward part of the tank. Since this is not standard in reporting nomenclature - it may be it is not listed at all by references which must put something in the standard fields (front, side, turret, Etc)? It appears that frontal armor is the WITP standard - although I think possibly turret armor should be? But I am not at all sure this vehicle was used in PTO - and if we get only one - it should be the most common. I really didn't do land units for the Allies - and only reviewed vehicles to a degree. What vehicle is most representative? And for this vehicle, do you like the 100 mm of CHS better than 330? Does it matter if it had special armor to defeat mines? Perhaps that should NOT count - since shells won't be hitting there?



el cid again -> RE: pwhex.dat File (6/27/2006 1:01:30 AM)

A new PW hex file is issued (same time as 3.37)
correcting a single hex side near New Guinea - 46.86 always was wrong in all maps and Cobra found it (as 45,87 - a shared hex side).

The supply dumps work in Manchukuo = the economy works everywhere.

We will call the final series issued - likely tomorrow or the next day -

4.00 - it will equal 3.38 level. There will be no updates for a while - so get erratta in now. I will be doing long term human testing and traveling. Only critical errors will be addressed from 4.0 on.



CobraAus -> RE: pwhex.dat File (6/27/2006 3:55:25 AM)

V3.37 RHS update posted on download link page includes v3.37 PWHEX file

Cobra Aus



akdreemer -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 8:52:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Also tiny points the M4 close support tank has a armour value of 300+ putting it higher than the soviet JS III



This is grossly incorrect, the thickest armor is the gun shield at 178mm.







According to the US Army, there is a lot of sloped armor to defeat mines - both at the front and the bottom of the forward part of the tank. Since this is not standard in reporting nomenclature - it may be it is not listed at all by references which must put something in the standard fields (front, side, turret, Etc)? It appears that frontal armor is the WITP standard - although I think possibly turret armor should be? But I am not at all sure this vehicle was used in PTO - and if we get only one - it should be the most common. I really didn't do land units for the Allies - and only reviewed vehicles to a degree. What vehicle is most representative? And for this vehicle, do you like the 100 mm of CHS better than 330? Does it matter if it had special armor to defeat mines? Perhaps that should NOT count - since shells won't be hitting there?


Mines.. don't they sink ships? The upper hull front of all standard models of M4's was only 64mm (there are a lot of miniature gamers out there who have fought countless battles with Shermans, they would of loved to have had 100mm upper front armor, but in reality it was only 64mm). The lower hull front was around 108mm. The upper hull of the M4A3E2 Jumbo was 100mm and the lower hull was 140mm. Gunshields vary with most less than 90mm. Thus if you use the rule of max armor then from my previous posting the gunshield on the Jumbo being 178mm would be its armor value for the game. For standard Shermans the 108mm lower hull is geberally the thickest. 300mm belly armor sounds abit excessive and VERY heavy. The belly armor was 25mm front and 13mm rear. 254 were received and I beleive all went to Europe, where they were designed for and needed.



JeffroK -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 10:46:06 AM)

I find it hard to believe that the Sherman had 13 Inches of Armour anywhere, certainly no on the belly.

Also, should the Armour value be at the thickest point, or a value calculated from front, side & mantle to arrive at an average.

100mm seems to be more accurate than 330.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 12:24:23 PM)

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...



timtom -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 2:36:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

There are a lot of miniature gamers out there who have fought countless battles with Shermans, they would of loved to have had 100mm upper front armor, but in reality it was only 64mm.



Not to mention the guys who had to fight for their lives in these things [:'(]



Hipper -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 10:20:23 PM)

Hi Cid I think you want to have a look at the stockpiled Planes avaiable to the allies at the game start

592 Beaufighter X's seem a little much in 1941! also lots of small numbers of spitfires mustangs Lancasters etc available prior to availability dates

Cheers Hipper



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 11:09:57 PM)

If ALL the engineer tanks in the M4 series of interest went to ETO - WHY is it in our PTO game at all? Is it used in any organization? Should we replace it with a different vehicle? If so, what vehicle?



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 11:13:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Hi Cid I think you want to have a look at the stockpiled Planes avaiable to the allies at the game start

592 Beaufighter X's seem a little much in 1941! also lots of small numbers of spitfires mustangs Lancasters etc available prior to availability dates

Cheers Hipper


Note this is the TOTAL count - there will NEVER be another one!!!
The build rate is zero. It is my tricky way of not allowing the game to build too many. You get all the planes not in units in the pool - and when you run out - you run out. That is, the total number PTO - I do not include those that are ETO - and it is sometimes hard to tell for planes in the mideast - but normally my rule was "if they made it to Aden you get them - if not you don't".



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 11:16:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Also what is represented by the M4 Sherman CS-Tank? I think it is simply M4(105), not the Jumbo...



I like this concept - although I can demonstrate on technical grounds it is not the vehicle in the statistics. The 105 would have different weapon values - this is apparently a 76mm high velocity - a slight variation on the original weapon. However - maybe we SHOULD go for the 105 tank - and use its weapon and armor values? Were any PTO?



Hipper -> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO (6/27/2006 11:19:26 PM)

Ah fair enough ..... however there are a few fighters in there available in small numbers before their theoretical availibility date but its not a big issue 

Ok Im off to start a game !

cheers Hipper  




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.390625