RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (Full Version)

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



Message

Andrew Brown -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/25/2006 4:39:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Yes, it seems that Dutch squadrons (apart from No. 18 RAAF) were left out because of this. But by now (with the new disband feature from 1.8/1.81) it may be worth to add them (number of reinforcement pilots stays the same anyway) if one deletes the two Dutch Recce/Army Cooperation Squadrons flying FK.51. But the "new" Dutch RAAF/RAF squadrons should probably enter the game with a limited number of planes (1-3) and pilots (and the Dutch squadrons present at start should have no upgrade paths.


Good points, and I agree in theory, but will this work in practice? My understanding of the new disbanding rule is that the airgroup has to be in its nation's "main base", which for the Dutch are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja, I believe.

Not that this is a huge deal - CHS, for example, already has the No.18 and No.120 RAAF squadrons.

Andrew




Kereguelen -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/25/2006 5:19:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Yes, it seems that Dutch squadrons (apart from No. 18 RAAF) were left out because of this. But by now (with the new disband feature from 1.8/1.81) it may be worth to add them (number of reinforcement pilots stays the same anyway) if one deletes the two Dutch Recce/Army Cooperation Squadrons flying FK.51. But the "new" Dutch RAAF/RAF squadrons should probably enter the game with a limited number of planes (1-3) and pilots (and the Dutch squadrons present at start should have no upgrade paths.


Good points, and I agree in theory, but will this work in practice? My understanding of the new disbanding rule is that the airgroup has to be in its nation's "main base", which for the Dutch are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja, I believe.

Not that this is a huge deal - CHS, for example, already has the No.18 and No.120 RAAF squadrons.

Andrew




Dutch Homebase is Sydney.



JeffroK -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 1:39:45 AM)

Found it


On 15 August 1945, the unofficial transports used by the Netherlands East Indies KLM (KNILM) was renamed 19 (NEI) Transport Squadron and officially taken on the strength of the RAAF. It had 13 Dakota´s.

As they were formed after the end of WW2 nothing I looked at showed them.

(Is that a good enough excuse!!)



Andrew Brown -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 2:45:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Dutch Homebase is Sydney.


So is the manual wrong on this as well? According to the manual the bases are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja.

Andrew



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 2:47:01 AM)

V2.57 medium upgrade released link on Rapidshare link page

This includes a reworking of US bombardment groups to be in time sync with new plane dates in RHS - and found some errors in location and unit creation dates; [Similar issues for other Allied air forces will be resolved tonight]

It totally redefines ALL tankers for all nations - but not by very much. Mostly the fuel is separated from the cargo - a few lose or gain range - and many have higher on board fuel requirements; Cargo drops by 1 or 2 thousand tons.

It continues to redefine Dutch units based on technical information;

it adds two Dutch and one Mexican squadron, and deletes one USAAF one (never used as a combat unit and disbanded as well);

And a number of field corrections as usual.

Cobra Aus



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 2:58:40 AM)

quote:

So is the manual wrong on this as well? According to the manual the bases are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja.


this was change of home base for Dutch in Patch 8.1

Cobra Aus



Don Bowen -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 5:04:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

quote:

So is the manual wrong on this as well? According to the manual the bases are Tjilitjap and Soerabaja.


this was change of home base for Dutch in Patch 8.1

Cobra Aus



Not quite. Arrival locations for all Dutch units are Batavia and Soerabaja. No change was made to this in 1.8.

What was changed was the addition of Canada to a list of National Home Bases that are used for planning purposes (including AI) and for Disband. In this list, the Dutch use the Australian Home Base.







Andrew Brown -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 5:59:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Not quite. Arrival locations for all Dutch units are Batavia and Soerabaja. No change was made to this in 1.8.

What was changed was the addition of Canada to a list of National Home Bases that are used for planning purposes (including AI) and for Disband. In this list, the Dutch use the Australian Home Base.


Thanks Don, I missed that. Nice addition.

Andrew



akdreemer -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Major Version 2.50 Released to testers (5/26/2006 7:39:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I am thinking of setting all merchant skippers to "zero" = random. Let the code pick who it likes.


Frankly, I think this makes sense. I know that some purists might object, but effort in this area hardly can pay dividends.


I agree also.



akdreemer -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 7:45:49 AM)


quote:


It totally redefines ALL tankers for all nations - but not by very much. Mostly the fuel is separated from the cargo - a few lose or gain range - and many have higher on board fuel requirements; Cargo drops by 1 or 2 thousand tons.


One has to wonder, will tankers run out of fuel if they have full cargo on board? Also, a tanker or cargo ship running in ballast only surely has a greater range than one that has a full fuel/cargo load?



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/26/2006 1:00:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus
It continues to redefine Dutch units based on technical information;


I suggest the Dutch Rifle Squad that is added to give the same date/values as the late war British Rifle Squad.

Other Dutch Units that can have the Dutch Marine Squad are the KM Naval Bases. Small Bases platoon strenght and large bases Company strength

quote:


it adds two Dutch and one Mexican squadron, and deletes one USAAF one (never used as a combat unit and disbanded as well);


The 121st NEI squadron must be RAF not RAAF
The Transport NEI squadron must be 19th NEI RAAF
The 119th is on a online source listed as a Bomber Squadron

Then another thing. The Dutch had in february 1942 received 24 Hurricanes. And split these between 2 Squadrons. I have no info about which squadrons. Mayby to simulated this add the following
4e-VLG-IV Groep Maroen Hurricanes 12 Ready Max 0 Planes
4e-VLG-V Groep Batavia Hurricanes 12 Ready Max 0 Planes



Aterpa -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/27/2006 7:50:50 PM)

Version 2.57:

Several japanese formations have 75mm Cannon M6 (device 175) equipped, which is defined as aircraft cannon.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:06:22 AM)

quote:

There are equipment that you have give to the KNIL Mobiele Eenheid, but never had.

1. 6 pdr AT-gun (Dutch has 47mm AT Gun)This also for other KNIL/Netherlands units. Only the Tiger Brigade had this AT gun.

2. M7 Priest?


The latter is a wierd British armored car - or should be - 12 were sent to the NEI - and I have added the device back in from CHS - but with NO production - so it will produce a WITP check error.

Note that it is NOT an error to have zero production when that is correct data.




el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:11:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
The crews of the Sqns in the RAAF are for the most part about 70 to 80% evacuated from the NEI. The others came from the UK, US West Indies etc.

Also late in the war when Allieds liberated parts of the NEI came more crews available.


The reason I asked about where the aircrews and aircraft came from is that, in the game players can, and do, evacuate Dutch squadrons from the DEI. If we also add these units, does that lead to a duplication, at least in part?


For that reason I think we need to be very careful. Thus only the 3 catalinas that did NOT escape - etc.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:17:04 AM)

quote:

One has to wonder, will tankers run out of fuel if they have full cargo on board? Also, a tanker or cargo ship running in ballast only surely has a greater range than one that has a full fuel/cargo load?


Please - I do not control the model or the code. I could write more complex range algorithms. But we have only ONE range per ship - and the load has nothing to do with it.

Yes - ships can run out of fuel - and if tankers - with fuel on board! [Of course, it might be oil, not fuel]. But right now we have something worse: Shiretoko is rated at 30,000 miles range at 10 knots. Her actual range is 8,000 miles at 8 knots. She is allowed to consume her cargo and still deliver it!



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:19:46 AM)

quote:

Several japanese formations have 75mm Cannon M6 (device 175) equipped, which is defined as aircraft cannon.


Sounds wrong. Any numbers? I know of no such.

I see none either. Sounds like a mis matched file.

There IS such a weapon - on AMERICAN bombers (B-25G).




CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:27:57 AM)

V2.58 medium update posted on Rapidshare link page

This update almost entirely relates to aircraft - but it is comprehensive and fixes every identified data issue - vital or academic:

1) Many plane errors re data in improper fields, drop tanks, and upgrade paths defined.

2) Many unit errors corrected. In particular, Allied units had planes appearing too early - inherited from CHS.

3) Fleet Air Arm (Can of Worms first class - there is NO right way to do this - so many units disband, change bases, change planes, etc) revised

4) Assignments of aircraft to carriers reviewed

5) BBO has the British Colossus class CVLs and associated air groups inactivated.

cobra aus



Aterpa -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:30:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Several japanese formations have 75mm Cannon M6 (device 175) equipped, which is defined as aircraft cannon.


Sounds wrong. Any numbers? I know of no such.

I see none either. Sounds like a mis matched file.

There IS such a weapon - on AMERICAN bombers (B-25G).




Formations 901, 902, 904, 923 and all formation that have these as their TOE. Also all port base forces have 40mm Bofors (ID:960 and formations that point to 960).

Also all JAAF Air Sector HQs (964 and depending) have 37mm 61-K AA gun, that I think is allied device.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Minor Version 2.51 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:46:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
The crews of the Sqns in the RAAF are for the most part about 70 to 80% evacuated from the NEI. The others came from the UK, US West Indies etc.

Also late in the war when Allieds liberated parts of the NEI came more crews available.


The reason I asked about where the aircrews and aircraft came from is that, in the game players can, and do, evacuate Dutch squadrons from the DEI. If we also add these units, does that lead to a duplication, at least in part?


For that reason I think we need to be very careful. Thus only the 3 catalinas that did NOT escape - etc.



The 121st Dutch RAF Squadron had 12 planes and crews from the UK.
And is a MLD (Navy) squadron. The 70 to 80% crews is only for the squadrons RAAF raised in Australia 18th NEI, 19th NEI, 119th NEI and 120th NEI these are ML (Airforce)squadrons.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:52:15 AM)

quote:


Several japanese formations have 75mm Cannon M6 (device 175) equipped, which is defined as aircraft cannon.

Sounds wrong. Any numbers? I know of no such.

I see none either. Sounds like a mis matched file.

There IS such a weapon - on AMERICAN bombers (B-25G).




Formations 901, 902, 904, 923 and all formation that have these as their TOE. Also all port base forces have 40mm Bofors (ID:960 and formations that point to 960).

Also all JAAF Air Sector HQs (964 and depending) have 37mm 61-K AA gun, that I think is allied device.
\\

The latter should be 37mm AA gun: one device lower on the list.

The former should be one device higher on the list: the 2 pounder - referring to a Japanese 40mm device other than the Bofors (imported and licenced - a Vickers weapon - the actual 2 pounder itself).



Aterpa -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 1:30:46 AM)

Version 2.581:

Japanese units that had 40mm Bofors before (2.57) have now 2 pounder...that upgrade to 40mm Bofors. (And 40mm Bofors is upgrading to 37mm AA gun.)



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 1:44:45 AM)

v2.58.1 posted at Rapidshare link

Cobra Aus

Make sure you install 2.58 first then 2.58.1



Buck Beach -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 2:25:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

v2.58.1 posted at Rapidshare link

Cobra Aus

Make sure you install 2.58 first then 2.58.1


OK guys. Not trying to be a wise guy or rude and I so much appreciate all of you for trying to make this great game better but having said that "Wake me when it's over". And, that includes CHS, Nick, etc, etc. I sure would like to see a product(s) that may not be perfect but will allow us all to enjoy the adventure. We were all waiting for 1.80 and now we have it. I/we now all wait impatiently (speaking for myself) for the mods to catch up.



turkey1 -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 8:08:21 AM)

Cobra

I have fallen behind on the updates.

Is 2.58 and 2.58.1 OK to load in without any other downloads
Have there been any map panel changes required.



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:35:10 PM)

yes to the first question as to the 2nd question check the Rapidshare link page to find the latest required panels - not the new Digital map panels are not Mission critical just better

Cobra Aus



CobraAus -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 12:39:41 PM)

V2.58.2 micro upgrades for CVO-RAO-BBO posted on Rapidshare link page
V2.58.1 the link is there now - I had a mental lapse

Cobra Aus

The ship files for CVO and RAO were reversed - so the Russian subs are active when they should not be. Here are the correct named files.

Air group files apparently missing from CVO RAO BBO transmission.

Sid



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 2:01:04 PM)

quote:

OK guys. Not trying to be a wise guy or rude and I so much appreciate all of you for trying to make this great game better but having said that "Wake me when it's over". And, that includes CHS, Nick, etc, etc. I sure would like to see a product(s) that may not be perfect but will allow us all to enjoy the adventure. We were all waiting for 1.80 and now we have it. I/we now all wait impatiently (speaking for myself) for the mods to catch up.


I got a private message from Andrew a matter of hours ago. It said it is taking longer than he likes. It is harder than I like. But I expect a relatively stable release at 2.60 - now projected for two days from now.
Note that there are two different kinds of things going on:

1) Correction of technical issues;

2) Calibration.

We CANNOT produce an ACCURATE simulation without MEASURING things - and measuring things means someone must be testing/playing.
I tried AI vs AI testing - and it is nothing like good enough to detect what players can detect.

The MOST you can expect from 2.60 is a game that works through mid-1943. After that, we may find we have undetected economic issues that require addressing. And we KNOW there are code issues that begin to take effect which may actually prevent games from completing: have you ever seen a game in 1945 that didn't begin in 1945? Joes has not, and says he does not think there ever will be one. THESE issues will probably be addressed by 1.9 - and certainly by WITP 2. But WE cannot fix them as modders. It is the interest in the game getting better that drives changes. SOME of them are things we can do - SOME are not. ALL will mean - to a degree - instability - in the sense that any change is instability. IF you want total stability, go play the 1.0 release.



el cid again -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 2:22:29 PM)

quote:

Japanese units that had 40mm Bofors before (2.57) have now 2 pounder...that upgrade to 40mm Bofors. (And 40mm Bofors is upgrading to 37mm AA gun.)


mutter mutter mutter

OK - all device upgrade paths reviewed - see 2.583



Buck Beach -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 4:28:37 PM)

Thank you El Sid for the courtesy of your response.



Aterpa -> RE: RHSCVO and RHSRAO Medium Version 2.54 Released to testers (5/28/2006 10:56:09 PM)

Version 2.583

- japanese sound detector is upgrading to type 21 radar (surface radar) -> should upgrade to type 13 radar (air search radar)
- type 21 radar upgrades to type 22 radar -> type 21 radar should not upgrade



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625