RE: CHS Scenario update now available (Full Version)

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



Message

Halsey -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/17/2006 5:57:36 PM)

2.03 and counting![:D]



DD696 -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/17/2006 6:12:18 PM)

Thanks. That was the problem. Had fresh installs of three of the versions so I guess the Historical First Turn option is set to "off" at start, and I just never had to need to glance down at the left hand corner, and the older installs seemed to be working as I remembered. (What manual? Don't need no ol' manual).

Yep. Five installs. WITP Virgin on an external hard drive. Then on internal there is WITP stock, CHS, Iron Storm, and RHS. Now I do realize I could combine stock and CHS with the ModSelect ability, but I prefer just to have a separate version. I also had a NikMod version for awhile until I found out the the new CHS would include significant portions of it. As you can tell, I have no problems trying to keep everything straight! Just the ongoing case if witpemtia which impairs my ability to function. [X(]

Been going bonkers comparing version to try and find the problem.

Edit: And to spell, so it seems. Am I also turning into a Brady? I am doomed, doomed I tell you!



Halsey -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/17/2006 6:25:39 PM)

There is help available for people like you.[:D]

Sometimes medical insurance will even cover a portion of the expense.[;)]



ny59giants -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/17/2006 7:00:00 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I just updated the scenarios to 2.02 and was looking at supply at various bases. In scen 150, San Fran get only 2200 supply per day and 2000 fuel. Is that correct?? It seems very low to me. In the stock game it is 25,000 supply. A decrease of 90% seems very high.



quote:

Take a look at the "United States" base.

The US economy overall should be similar to that in the stock scenarios. Actually it is about 30-40% smaller, but can be built up to a higher level by repairing all of the damaged resource centres at US bases (which takes 2 or so years). This is explained in the documentation somewhere.

I also just noticed that the "United States" base somehow inherited 10,000 HI! I think an extra zero got in there - should be 1,000. That is more a minor annoyance rather than a major bug as the USA is intended to have more HI than resources, but no that much more! This is the first fix for 2.03 it seems.

Andrew


Actually, this makes sense rather than have the same amount all through the game. It will take me some time to adjust as I spent all my time with stock scenario/maps for my first 1 1/2 years playing WitP. [&o]



VSWG -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/17/2006 7:25:41 PM)

Hello Andrew,

I'm in the process of installing CHS for the first time and I ran into a problem when installing your extended map (V6.2):

The readme tells me to copy "mapmod_docs\*.*" to "[Game folder]\mapmod_docs\".
However, the zip-file I just downloaded does not contain \mapmod_docs. It contains the readme, modselect.bat, choice.exe and the folder "art". I assume that I can continue installing CHS, as the missing folder seems to be the documentation only.

Regards,
VSWG


Edit: The link "CHS scenarios" on

http://www.bur.st/~akbrown/witp/CHS_documentation/install_6.html

is broken. I found the scenarios, though.



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 2:57:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG
I'm in the process of installing CHS for the first time and I ran into a problem when installing your extended map (V6.2):

The readme tells me to copy "mapmod_docs\*.*" to "[Game folder]\mapmod_docs\".
However, the zip-file I just downloaded does not contain \mapmod_docs. It contains the readme, modselect.bat, choice.exe and the folder "art". I assume that I can continue installing CHS, as the missing folder seems to be the documentation only.


You are right. The readme is not correct. There is no "mapmod_docs" in the extended map package. There is in the standard map package, so you should already have the map documentation. I will have to fix that readme for the extended map package.

quote:

Edit: The link "CHS scenarios" on

http://www.bur.st/~akbrown/witp/CHS_documentation/install_6.html

is broken. I found the scenarios, though.


So it is. I will fix the link ASAP.

Thanks,
Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:28:30 PM)

CHS has now been updated to version 2.03. There is only one fix included in the update:

1. The "United States" base had too many Heavy Industry points - 10,000 instead of 1,000. Fixed.

The updated scenarios are available from the web page link provided in the top post of this thread.

Andrew




vonSchnitter -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:33:02 PM)

Just in time !

Erm, even though I am not happy about the change of the Mongolians ... there is still one attached to China command ...[8D]

In the northern base ...

Cheers



Kitakami -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:37:25 PM)

Many thanks to all those involved in CHS.
You guys rock.



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:39:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter
Erm, even though I am not happy about the change of the Mongolians ... there is still one attached to China command ...[8D]

In the northern base ...


Why do these things always appear 1 minute after I upload an update? [8|]

Thanks. I will fix it in the next update.

Andrew



ny59giants -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:42:57 PM)

I am going through all the Allied units/bases one by one since this is my first time with CHS and extended maps to get a better understanding. I have gone through all Allied units/bases east of Midway and found:
United States has a Port and it's expandable (??)  
Some bombers set for Naval Attack from around Denver (??)
LA Air Capacity is 10(6) - I thought it could only expand by a factor of 3, not 4
Portland Air Capacity is 7(3)
Portland BF has "Future Objective Set" at (53), but no objective named



vonSchnitter -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:48:30 PM)

Sorry Andrew [&o] !

These are the things hard to determine from the outside.
About to get going on a "friendly" PBM soon.
If you do not mind, I will try to bring up any "questionables" or "huh?s" earlier.


Cheers



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 3:56:25 PM)

815th US TD Bn (location 3155) - in stock it has M10 tank destroyers. Now it has 36 x 3in ATG. It should no longer be of type "armoured unit" and should be changed to "artillery unit".



m10bob -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 4:16:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

815th US TD Bn (location 3155) - in stock it has M10 tank destroyers. Now it has 36 x 3in ATG. It should no longer be of type "armoured unit" and should be changed to "artillery unit".


I don't know how they are treated in WITP, but in nomenclature, a lot of the so-called TD units were towed guns, not self-propelled..Perhaps they maintain their mobility rating due to the fact they did have their own transportation?



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 4:23:32 PM)

But still towed guns as a defensive weapon should not take place in offensive actions. This is why all towed ATG units (Japanese, Australian) are of artillery type.



vonSchnitter -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 4:24:46 PM)

Talking of early warnings ...

I am certainly not an expert in Japanese dispositions or OOBs. But moving the 56th Brigade away from the DEI / Palau does not occur to me as "historic". [sm=00000924.gif]

I am sure there are sharper (and better informed) minds on this board than mine. But according to E. Gries (editor), The Second WW, Asia And Pacific (West Point Military), Appendix 3, the IJF (short for Japaese) used at least two regiment sized forces around the Celebes Area: Saguchi Detachment for Tarakan (Based on the 56th regimental group) and the 228th Regiment for Amboina (plus Kure 1st SNLF). Since I have no IJA Regiment reference in front of me - (I could try, using some sources from the early 40s) I would think moving the brigade to Palau, splitting it up to regiments and giving them the prep points should be a good Idea

By the way, anyone cares about US Army/Navy/Air Corps manuals about the Japanese ? (Ground, Sea, Air). I beleive I can start at prewar ...

Cheers



Terminus -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 4:24:55 PM)

But other towed AT units are counted as Artillery, viz the Australian AT regiments.



m10bob -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 4:57:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

But other towed AT units are counted as Artillery, viz the Australian AT regiments.


Yeah, that's why I started my comment by saying "I did not know how it was handled in WITP"..Now that you have educated me, I will say this. The American "towed" TD units were NOT considered a *defensive* unit, but an *offensive* unit, by American Army SOP..
Yeah, I know, sounds impractical as hell, but even a scan of Patton's book will reveal one of the primary tactics he expected to be used, was the importance of keeping those "towed" ATG's "at the front" of any offensive action. He was not alone in this, but was reinforcing the (then) U.S.Army doctrine that TD units were for fighting enemy tanks, and U.S.tanks were for fighting enemy infantry..
Don't know for sure, but since this is pretty much common knowledge, maybe the designer made those towed U.S. Army units as he did, because of that "offensive" doctrine??
I'm not arguing one way or the other, just speaking from history..



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 5:07:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
maybe the designer made those towed U.S. Army units as he did, because of that "offensive" doctrine??


Not designer. It was done by a modder. We are talking about CHS not stock.
I still see no reason for such privileage for this unit.



vonSchnitter -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 5:11:48 PM)

Hm,

dunno about Patton and doctrine, but there are two Jap(anese) RF gun units in Canton - antitank guns - which only have some defensive value, none in the offensive (bombarding).

Just for the records

Cheers



jwilkerson -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 5:28:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Talking of early warnings ...

I am certainly not an expert in Japanese dispositions or OOBs. But moving the 56th Brigade away from the DEI / Palau does not occur to me as "historic". [sm=00000924.gif]

I am sure there are sharper (and better informed) minds on this board than mine. But according to E. Gries (editor), The Second WW, Asia And Pacific (West Point Military), Appendix 3, the IJF (short for Japaese) used at least two regiment sized forces around the Celebes Area: Saguchi Detachment for Tarakan (Based on the 56th regimental group) and the 228th Regiment for Amboina (plus Kure 1st SNLF). Since I have no IJA Regiment reference in front of me - (I could try, using some sources from the early 40s) I would think moving the brigade to Palau, splitting it up to regiments and giving them the prep points should be a good Idea

By the way, anyone cares about US Army/Navy/Air Corps manuals about the Japanese ? (Ground, Sea, Air). I beleive I can start at prewar ...

Cheers



Regarding 56th Bde ... this one certainly got some discussion on the team .. but there are sources (such as the oft cited Dr. Niehorster) that show 56th in Home Islands at start of war. Contrarily "destroyer captain" Tameichi Hara describes "many transports" waiting to invade enemy held territories and standing by in the Palau anchorage as his task unit is departing prewar .. at least a "shadow" of an indication that a substantive force is present there. So the evidence is/was inconclusive. However, the balance of the evidence seemed to indicate at least the bulk of the Bde was in the home islands though it certainly rapidly moved to the South.





aletoledo -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 5:38:19 PM)

wow, I'm glad the A2A changes that Nik has put forward have finally been incorparated into CHS. I didn't really feel the non-A2A changes were really dramatic (especially with patch 1.8), so I really look forward to the best of both mods into a single mod!



vonSchnitter -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 5:53:03 PM)

Thx jwilkerson !

yup, I understand your concerns. And as to the 56th Brigade you are right (I have read both accounts).
Diskussing the early IJF dispositions would make for quite a topic. For the most part because of the lack - or contradictions - of resources - even compared to the early war allied ones.

Anyway. I would suggest to "beef up" the IJF forces offensive power at Palau by one or two regiment sized units prepped for Tarakan and/or Amboina just to help the Jap PBM player to maintain the pace of the "Centrifugal offensive" around the Celebes.

It just occured to me to use the 56th for the purpose - since it is in question anyway.

Do not get me wrong - I like the way CHS 2.0x is tightening up on Jap options early on - making it the high risk thing it was - not the easy victory from hind sight. But helping to keep the pace up should be a consideration

Cheers




jwilkerson -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 6:36:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Thx jwilkerson !

yup, I understand your concerns. And as to the 56th Brigade you are right (I have read both accounts).
Diskussing the early IJF dispositions would make for quite a topic. For the most part because of the lack - or contradictions - of resources - even compared to the early war allied ones.

Anyway. I would suggest to "beef up" the IJF forces offensive power at Palau by one or two regiment sized units prepped for Tarakan and/or Amboina just to help the Jap PBM player to maintain the pace of the "Centrifugal offensive" around the Celebes.

It just occured to me to use the 56th for the purpose - since it is in question anyway.

Do not get me wrong - I like the way CHS 2.0x is tightening up on Jap options early on - making it the high risk thing it was - not the easy victory from hind sight. But helping to keep the pace up should be a consideration

Cheers




If there is sufficient shipping present at the current CHS loc for 56 Bde, then exploiting the pre-game accelerated move, may be sufficient to allow historical capabilities .. if not, perhaps we should relocate a bit more shipping to the 56 Bde H.I. location.

Just quickly scanning around ... I note the following historical timetables for elements and attachments of 56 Bde.

20 Dec - Sakaguchi detechment (bulk of 56 Bde with I/33 I.R. of 16 I.D. attached ) Davao
24 Dec - Matsumoto detachment (III/146 -2 Co) Jolo Island ... as support for Borneo Invasion
11 Jan - Sakaguchi detachment (bulk of 56 Bde with 146 I.R.) Tarakan.
24 Jan - Sakaguchi detechment () Balikpapan.

Regarding Amboina, historically this seems to have been handled by the Ito detachment.

30 Jan - Ito detachment (bulk of 228 I.R. of 38th I.D. ) Amboina.

So actually, I don't see anything jumping out at me that should not be achiveable with the current deployment, even if insufficient shipping exists to leverage the pre-game advanced move for 56 Bde.




vonSchnitter -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 6:56:23 PM)

jwilkerson,

thank you for your attention again.

Even though, I was not aware of the details - care to name the sources (please) - I had understood, the IJF used a lot of "fragments" in WitP parlance - to get things moving.

Right now (2.03) the 56th is located at Fukuoka - and there is not enough shipping available to get them moving. And both regiments are training for Davao.

Making the shipping available at this port should be a "good enough" solution

Cheers




bradfordkay -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 7:48:42 PM)

As far as the question of US TD units is concerned: they started out the war as towed AT guns, but later upgraded to the M10 (and then M36?) Tank Destroyers. Making them artillery units might preclude this historic upgrade.



jwilkerson -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 7:48:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

jwilkerson,

thank you for your attention again.

Even though, I was not aware of the details - care to name the sources (please) - I had understood, the IJF used a lot of "fragments" in WitP parlance - to get things moving.

Right now (2.03) the 56th is located at Fukuoka - and there is not enough shipping available to get them moving. And both regiments are training for Davao.

Making the shipping available at this port should be a "good enough" solution

Cheers




Rottman, Gordon L., "Japanese Army in World War II - Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42", Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd, 2005.

Andrew's call on the shipping, though as I indicated above, upon examination, seems like redeployment of shipping not neceesary to enable historical operations.

Regarding "both regiments" the 56th Brigade only had one regiment, the 146th (though there were both attachments and detechments from this base). The other two regiments of the 56 I.D. the 113th and the 148th were, together with the bulk of the 56th Division, initially assigned to Yamashita and the Malaya operation. However, Yamashita declined to commit the new, untested division to combat and it was not deployed for combat operations, until reassigned to the 15th Army and landed in Rangoon 25 March 1942.

I will start up a thread in the design forum entitled CHS OOB Questions, so that these topics can be pursued further. We generally try to avoid detailed scenario design questions on the main forum.

But your comments and questions are certainly welcome.

Thx.






Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 8:19:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

As far as the question of US TD units is concerned: they started out the war as towed AT guns, but later upgraded to the M10 (and then M36?) Tank Destroyers. Making them artillery units might preclude this historic upgrade.


Nope, some of them remained towed. Particullary in this scenario 76mm ATG is not upgrading to anythung.



Terminus -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 9:05:48 PM)

Oh yeah, there were plenty of towed TD units in the US Army, all the way through to the end...



m10bob -> RE: CHS Scenario update now available (6/18/2006 9:43:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh yeah, there were plenty of towed TD units in the US Army, all the way through to the end...

In the event anybody decides to "re-do" any of the American TD units, I have the unit histories of every U.S, Army unit,roughly Bn on up, and the dates those TD units upgraded to "anything", (towed or SP)..



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625