Important CHS announcement

Important CHS announcement (Full Version)

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

Message

Andrew Brown -> Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 12:11:58 AM)
I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game. I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported). Andrew

MkXIV -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 12:51:12 AM)
So then what do you use to set the bombload of an aircraft?

Terminus -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 1:30:36 AM)
Load capacity, I would presume...

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 2:17:09 AM)
It seems I have outsmarted myself with this one. Looking at the Max load values, I have already changed them back - at least some of them. I now rememeber doing this a while ago when there was a previous discussion about what Max Load was used for. I think I did it "just in case". So hopefully there is no need for further adjustments, but I will do another check just to be sure. Andrew

witpqs -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 2:27:09 AM)
Andrew, Scared the hell out of yourself, eh?! I hear all of Australia has been out of kilter since that penalty kick! [:'(]

Halsey -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 2:43:30 AM)
Since I am now a pseudo "Japanese Fanboy" this doesn't bother me anymore.[:D] Too late for us, we're already on 2.05.

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 2:52:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Halsey Since I am now a pseudo "Japanese Fanboy" this doesn't bother me anymore.[:D] Too late for us, we're already on 2.05. Well, I don't remember hearing any complaints about this from CHS 1.x, which did use the reduced load values. Probably because the main effect would be when the B-29s come into service, and not many people get that far in the game. It looks to already be corrected anyway, as I said above. But if I do find any remaining differences I will fix them. Andrew

ny59giants -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 3:58:37 AM)
Actually, earlier today I was ypdating my list (availability, radius, replacement, bomb load) of Allied aircraft from both CHS and Iron Storm from stock scenarios and I noticed a significant decrease in bomb loads for most Allied bombers. My heavies weren't that heavy and my B-25C carried 6x 500lb GP while a B-17E carries 8x 500lb GP. Yes, at a greater distance, but not much different in bomb load.

jwxspoon -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 4:50:44 AM)
We've completed our first 2 days of turns under 2.05 in the new team game. So far so good. AA is wicked under scenario 157 for low flying aircraft. jw

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:01:16 AM)
Now I'm really confused. [X(] Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:03:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Now I'm really confused. [X(] Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot? Seriously...this is three years and counting. I should have become a programmer so I could sell my useless efforts for a profit.[:@] Must be nice....[8\|]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:06:48 AM)
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.[;)]

Nomad -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I officially retire any games I have if my opponents are so willing. ????????????????????????? If that is what you want, I have scrapped my first turn. [:(]

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Now I'm really confused. [X(] Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot? Seriously...this is three years and counting. I should have become a programmer so I could sell my useless efforts for a profit.[:@] Must be nice....[8\|] This has nothing to do with the editor, Ron. This is about the "Max Load" values for aircraft. Lemurs originally decreased these values for 4E bombers, in an attempt to reduce their effectiveness. This was way back at the start of CHS development. Recently, after hearing that the Max Load value may not be used, except for determining base size for effective operation of the aircraft, I went and changed them back to the stock values (and then forgot I did it!). So the values are the same in CHS and stock now (although I have yet to verify that all the aircraft valules are OK). Andrew

racndoc -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 9:17:42 AM)
I went back and compared just a few bombers between Stock Scenario 15 and CHS 2.04. Here are just a few comparisons for max load at normal range: B-17E stock: 12x500lb.....B-17E CHS 2.04: 6x500lb LB-30 stock: 16x500lb.....LB-30: CHS 2.04: 5x500lb B-25C stock: 6x500lb......B-25C: CHS 2.04:4x500lb B-29 stock: 40x500lb.....B-29: CHS 2.04: 24x500lb

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 9:33:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance I went back and compared just a few bombers between Stock Scenario 15 and CHS 2.04. Here are just a few comparisons for max load at normal range: B-17E stock: 12x500lb.....B-17E CHS 2.04: 6x500lb LB-30 stock: 16x500lb.....LB-30: CHS 2.04: 5x500lb B-25C stock: 6x500lb......B-25C: CHS 2.04:4x500lb B-29 stock: 40x500lb.....B-29: CHS 2.04: 24x500lb Those are weapon loadouts, not "max load". Max load is a single number for the aircraft type. For example, the value for the B-29 is 20,000. In the old CHS it was 14,000. This is the number that is apparently used to calculate required base sizes, and is not used for anything else. Andrew

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 11:46:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I officially retire any games I have if my opponents are so willing. ????????????????????????? If that is what you want, I have scrapped my first turn. [:(] Boy of boy, can't even whine anymore.[;)] I really need to remember to use the emoticons when I drop one of these babies.[X(]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 12:04:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Now I'm really confused. [X(] Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot? Seriously...this is three years and counting. I should have become a programmer so I could sell my useless efforts for a profit.[:@] Must be nice....[8\|] This has nothing to do with the editor, Ron. This is about the "Max Load" values for aircraft. Lemurs originally decreased these values for 4E bombers, in an attempt to reduce their effectiveness. This was way back at the start of CHS development. Recently, after hearing that the Max Load value may not be used, except for determining base size for effective operation of the aircraft, I went and changed them back to the stock values (and then forgot I did it!). So the values are the same in CHS and stock now (although I have yet to verify that all the aircraft valules are OK). Andrew Whoohoo[8D]

RevRick -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 2:43:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance I went back and compared just a few bombers between Stock Scenario 15 and CHS 2.04. Here are just a few comparisons for max load at normal range: B-17E stock: 12x500lb.....B-17E CHS 2.04: 6x500lb LB-30 stock: 16x500lb.....LB-30: CHS 2.04: 5x500lb B-25C stock: 6x500lb......B-25C: CHS 2.04:4x500lb B-29 stock: 40x500lb.....B-29: CHS 2.04: 24x500lb Those are weapon loadouts, not "max load". Max load is a single number for the aircraft type. For example, the value for the B-29 is 20,000. In the old CHS it was 14,000. This is the number that is apparently used to calculate required base sizes, and is not used for anything else. Andrew Is it all right for those of us who are flamed about those &!%$#@%%^ (%$%&++ Betties carrying 200 torpedos a day halfway across the Pacific to increase the load outs for some semblance of revenge?????????????? Maybe we can put at least a small dent in Rabaul for the insane IJA favor of that nonsense!

worr -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 3:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game. I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported). Andrew So is the above still true? Are you going to change something?

Terminus -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 3:46:06 PM)
As far as I could tell, it's already been done. So AB won't be changing anything...

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 3:51:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: worr quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown I have just received a message from another forum member regarding maximum bomb loads for aircraft, that confirms that it is only used for airfield size calculation for aircraft, and nothing else. That means that many of the max bombload figures in CHS - originally modified to affect the effectiveness of heavy bombers in the game, I believe - are too low and should be increased back to the values used in the standard game. I will soon - in the next day or two - issue another update to CHS that includes these changes (as well as the usual collection of minor fixes that are still being reported). Andrew So is the above still true? Are you going to change something? I just did another check of the Max Load values. I only found one error, and it is a small one. The Liberator III was 8000 instead of 8800. That will be fixed in the next CHS update. So there is no problem with the CHS Max Load values [:)] Andrew

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 3:52:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick Is it all right for those of us who are flamed about those &!%$#@%%^ (%$%&++ Betties carrying 200 torpedos a day halfway across the Pacific to increase the load outs for some semblance of revenge?????????????? Maybe we can put at least a small dent in Rabaul for the insane IJA favor of that nonsense! Not much I can do about the Betties. So mod away!!! Andrew

Sardaukar -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 4:10:00 PM)
maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?

Andrew Brown -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 4:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ? Not really, as the normal and extended ranges are both calculated, using fixed ratios, from the ferry range (which itself is calculated from the cruise speed and the endurance). Andrew

Sardaukar -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 4:23:44 PM)
Dammit...thought so.... Maybe just reduce the accuracy... But I can already see people screaming bloody murder...[:D]

Terminus -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 4:40:38 PM)
And yelling fanboy-related obscenities in your general direction...

Sardaukar -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:00:17 PM)
Wonder why...prolly I should also increase F4U and F6F speed another 100 mph too...[:D][8D]

Terminus -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:02:21 PM)
And set A6M armament to one 7.7mm MG.

Sardaukar -> RE: Important CHS announcement (6/29/2006 5:03:15 PM)
With penetration of 0...[:D][:D]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484375