RE: CHS errata (Full Version)

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



Message

Nomad -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 2:57:52 AM)

Andrew, I was wondering how the 2.06 version is going?



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 4:01:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Andrew, I was wondering how the 2.06 version is going?


I have been on the verge of releasing 2.06 for a couple of weeks at least. However every time I prepare to do so another problem has cropped up (such as the bomber loads, CV squadron resizing issues, and changes to the Nik Mod version). The latest hitch is over US late war fighter production, which I am looking at right now (prompted by the discussions about the F6F).

What is interesting about these problems with CHS is that most of the issues that have been raised are problems that have been in CHS all along, since 1.0, but are only now coming to light. They still need to be fixed though.

I should explain from a personal perspective I have been very busy for the last couple of weeks looking after sick family members (all OK now), so my spare time has been minimal of late.

But 2.06 will be released very shortly.

Andrew



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 5:40:25 AM)

You're doing a great job, Andrew. I did not buy this game until I saw that dedicated fans of WitP produced lots of scenarios, mods and art files. A lively modding community is always a sign for a good game.



ny59giants -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 6:43:29 AM)

Andrew,
I just finished reading Andy's AAR against PzB and he was upset about the low number of F6F's produced monthly (144) vs what he considered historical numbers. Does his point have any validity??

He feels and I kind of agree that the Japanese can outproduce the USA. [&:]



treespider -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 6:54:04 AM)

F6F-3 first flew Oct 4, 1942--production ended in mid 1944 - total built - 4423
F6F-5 first flew April 4, 1944 ---production ended in November 1945

Total Hellcat production - 12,275



worr -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 6:57:33 AM)

Great to hear about the 2.06 release.

I'm just getting ready for another game...my other one is going to restart due to map issues.



Sardaukar -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 4:51:54 PM)

SD (etc.) radar in subs might beed slight toning down. I think it's working fine...bit too well, actually...[8D] Very few hits against subs equipped with it.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 5:54:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

SD (etc.) radar in subs might beed slight toning down. I think it's working fine...bit too well, actually...[8D] Very few hits against subs equipped with it.


I would not tone down a thing because IMO subs are caught on the surface waaaaay too often in the game...they are modelled as surface ships I think and this is off. Be nice if the logistics model demanded Japan use its merchant fleet...nothing for subs to shoot at.[8|]



Sardaukar -> RE: CHS errata (7/10/2006 6:08:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

SD (etc.) radar in subs might beed slight toning down. I think it's working fine...bit too well, actually...[8D] Very few hits against subs equipped with it.


I would not tone down a thing because IMO subs are caught on the surface waaaaay too often in the game...they are modelled as surface ships I think and this is off. Be nice if the logistics model demanded Japan use its merchant fleet...nothing for subs to shoot at.[8|]



Well..since I think I came up with SD radar etc. and played with it a few campaigns, I have comparisons I can make. With new air-ASW model SD may be just bit too potent just now. I see attacks, though, so it's not way too potent, though. Maybe taking the effect down by 10 ? I agree with you, Ron, that subs were attacked too often, that's why I tried air-search radars for subs and found that they do reduce attacks and hits.



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/11/2006 1:42:22 AM)

Would it be possible to increase the crew experience on the British Q-ships? They have day/night ratings of in the low tens. They were warships, after all.



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/11/2006 2:30:18 PM)

In the surface combat screen, AP Kitano Maru has a pink box around ship.



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS errata (7/11/2006 4:52:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Would it be possible to increase the crew experience on the British Q-ships? They have day/night ratings of in the low tens. They were warships, after all.


That's a good idea. I increased them.

Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS errata (7/11/2006 4:58:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Well..since I think I came up with SD radar etc. and played with it a few campaigns, I have comparisons I can make. With new air-ASW model SD may be just bit too potent just now. I see attacks, though, so it's not way too potent, though. Maybe taking the effect down by 10 ? I agree with you, Ron, that subs were attacked too often, that's why I tried air-search radars for subs and found that they do reduce attacks and hits.


I trust your judgement on this, so I have decreased the SD, the SV and the Snorkel (the sub-only "radars"). However the decrease is only small - 5. I would not want to go too far the other way and make them too ineffective.

Andrew



Sardaukar -> RE: CHS errata (7/13/2006 5:18:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Well..since I think I came up with SD radar etc. and played with it a few campaigns, I have comparisons I can make. With new air-ASW model SD may be just bit too potent just now. I see attacks, though, so it's not way too potent, though. Maybe taking the effect down by 10 ? I agree with you, Ron, that subs were attacked too often, that's why I tried air-search radars for subs and found that they do reduce attacks and hits.


I trust your judgement on this, so I have decreased the SD, the SV and the Snorkel (the sub-only "radars"). However the decrease is only small - 5. I would not want to go too far the other way and make them too ineffective.

Andrew


I'm happy with that. Just small decrease should make it OK, since I have "feel" that it was close but bit too potent.



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS errata (7/13/2006 5:28:27 PM)

It looks like there is going to be a 2.07. Someone just found a problem with 2.06: The new base force for the Canada base didn't quite make it into the scenario. This is a minor error, so I will wait for a few more to roll in before making another update.

Andrew

PS: First, though, I'm heading down the coast with the family for a long weekend...



jcjordan -> RE: CHS errata (7/14/2006 1:16:01 AM)

Andrew some additional things from when I was working on the leaders & from poking around -

No488 RAF should be NZ pilot setting as it was an overseas NZ unit but still listed as No488 RAF
No435 & 436 RCAF should be RAF with Can pilot setting as they were overseas Canadian units
No436 RAF is duplicated with No436 RCAF depending on what you do with 435/436 RCAF
No321 RAF should be activated 8/15/42 in SE Asia Ceylon with Dutch pilot setting as it was formed from Dutch pilots escaping from the DEI flying Catalinas upgrading to Lib VI
No67 & 243 RAF & No10 RIAF should be set to Commonwealth pilot setting as pilots were mostly from CW not Brit pilots or in the case of No10 Indian it was filled with CW pilots even though it was RIAF but transferred to RIAF at the end of the war & filled at that time with Indian (similar to No5 RAF becoming No5 RIAF after the war). 67 & 243 to get technical should have a pilot setting of NZ as 80-90% of the roster was from NZ but they weren't overseas NZ units just filled with those volunteers for overseas duty.

RAF units are quite hard sometimes to tell what pilot nationality is but SE Asia units were filled mostly with pilots from the region so OZ, NZ & Can volunteers filled a good bit of the rosters, which is why I think these units should be CW not Brit. For these units I was able to find a pilot nationality roster of these units as you can see in the leader file I sent you a few weeks ago shows some of the nationalities. 



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/15/2006 12:35:22 AM)

Konan (Korea, Location ID 358) uses two weapon slots for resources (2x 20 resources). Is 40 resource center correct, or should it be 1x 20?

The "8th PAF Air Base Force" in Lingayen is static because it has a SC Radar device.

A question about Chinese Infantry Divisions and Corps: several divisions can be found in Jenan (Communists) and Kunming/Tsuyung (some SEAC, some China Command). Additionaly, there is one lonely division in Kweilin. Shouldn't this unit be an infantry corps? Have a look at this map (Gary: don't click!!):

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6040/chinainf4ir.jpg

Furthermore, at game start all Chinese infantry-LCUs are present on the map - safe for one cavalry corps (ID 2275), which arrives in Chunking in Jan. 1942. Is this correct?







treespider -> RE: CHS errata (7/15/2006 1:09:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

A question about Chinese Infantry Divisions and Corps: several divisions can be found in Jenan (Communists) and Kunming/Tsuyung (some SEAC, some China Command). Additionaly, there is one lonely division in Kweilin. Shouldn't this unit be an infantry corps? Have a look at this map (Gary: don't click!!):

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/6040/chinainf4ir.jpg


No.

quote:


Furthermore, at game start all Chinese infantry-LCUs are present on the map - safe for one cavalry corps (ID 2275), which arrives in Chunking in Jan. 1942. Is this correct?


Yes



JeffroK -> RE: CHS errata (7/15/2006 6:37:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Andrew some additional things from when I was working on the leaders & from poking around -

No488 RAF should be NZ pilot setting as it was an overseas NZ unit but still listed as No488 RAF
No435 & 436 RCAF should be RAF with Can pilot setting as they were overseas Canadian units
No436 RAF is duplicated with No436 RCAF depending on what you do with 435/436 RCAF
No321 RAF should be activated 8/15/42 in SE Asia Ceylon with Dutch pilot setting as it was formed from Dutch pilots escaping from the DEI flying Catalinas upgrading to Lib VI
No67 & 243 RAF & No10 RIAF should be set to Commonwealth pilot setting as pilots were mostly from CW not Brit pilots or in the case of No10 Indian it was filled with CW pilots even though it was RIAF but transferred to RIAF at the end of the war & filled at that time with Indian (similar to No5 RAF becoming No5 RIAF after the war). 67 & 243 to get technical should have a pilot setting of NZ as 80-90% of the roster was from NZ but they weren't overseas NZ units just filled with those volunteers for overseas duty.

RAF units are quite hard sometimes to tell what pilot nationality is but SE Asia units were filled mostly with pilots from the region so OZ, NZ & Can volunteers filled a good bit of the rosters, which is why I think these units should be CW not Brit. For these units I was able to find a pilot nationality roster of these units as you can see in the leader file I sent you a few weeks ago shows some of the nationalities. 



JC

Making changes like this can open Pandoras can of worms.

Each of the units you mention were on the strength of the RAF. It was 488 (New Zealand) Sqn RAF (A Chapter XV EATS Sqn), same goes for 456 (Aust)& 457(Aust) Sqns unitl they returned to Australia and came onto the RAAF strength.
IMHO members of these units should be rated as British or Commonwealth, as most were a mixture of Commonwealth pilots and Air Crews. Very few RAF squadrons had 100% British Pilots. The same can be said for the FAA Sqns, there were a lot of Canadians there plus a smattering of OZ & Enzed pilots.

The only exception could be 321 (Dutch) Sqn, was it crewed from Dutch pilots sent out from England, I thought the DEI pilots made their way to Australia and crewed 18 & 120 Sqns RAAF.



rockmedic109 -> RE: CHS errata (7/15/2006 11:52:30 AM)

A few {very} minor things I've noticed.

Several Japanese cities have two engine plants of the same engine type.  I have noticed it before but assumed it was supposed to be that way for whatever reason {upgrades?}.

ABDA HQ is in Batavia with Port Moresby as a target?  Doesn't seem right on the face of it.  And I always thought that ABDA was formed after the start of the war.

Several Chinese HQ in field locations seem to have their targets as being in areas they are nowhere near.

I think the following is more a limitation of the engine rather than a flaw in CHS.  U.S. forces in the Philippines can mass enough guns at Clark Field {or anywhere else on Luzon} to cause 200-500 casulties a day when given bombardment orders.  I don't have the figures for IJA casulties during the battle for Luzon so I have no idea if this is historical.  Against the AI, it seems to cause enough casulties to make taking Luzon very difficult.  I imagine that the allies would run out of supplies and fall, but does causing that many casulties cause too much difficulty for the AI?  From a historical perspective, were all the guns in good repair and able to be used?  From a game standpoint, would making some of these "disrupted" help?  If playing the AI, do I need to not set the allies to bombard?  I think I will try the later in my present game {2.06} and see what happens.

Great Job and a big Thank You.  Having an incredible amount of fun.



langley -> RE: CHS errata (7/15/2006 1:59:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Andrew some additional things from when I was working on the leaders & from poking around -

No488 RAF should be NZ pilot setting as it was an overseas NZ unit but still listed as No488 RAF
No435 & 436 RCAF should be RAF with Can pilot setting as they were overseas Canadian units
No436 RAF is duplicated with No436 RCAF depending on what you do with 435/436 RCAF
No321 RAF should be activated 8/15/42 in SE Asia Ceylon with Dutch pilot setting as it was formed from Dutch pilots escaping from the DEI flying Catalinas upgrading to Lib VI
No67 & 243 RAF & No10 RIAF should be set to Commonwealth pilot setting as pilots were mostly from CW not Brit pilots or in the case of No10 Indian it was filled with CW pilots even though it was RIAF but transferred to RIAF at the end of the war & filled at that time with Indian (similar to No5 RAF becoming No5 RIAF after the war). 67 & 243 to get technical should have a pilot setting of NZ as 80-90% of the roster was from NZ but they weren't overseas NZ units just filled with those volunteers for overseas duty.

RAF units are quite hard sometimes to tell what pilot nationality is but SE Asia units were filled mostly with pilots from the region so OZ, NZ & Can volunteers filled a good bit of the rosters, which is why I think these units should be CW not Brit. For these units I was able to find a pilot nationality roster of these units as you can see in the leader file I sent you a few weeks ago shows some of the nationalities. 



JC

Making changes like this can open Pandoras can of worms.

Each of the units you mention were on the strength of the RAF. It was 488 (New Zealand) Sqn RAF (A Chapter XV EATS Sqn), same goes for 456 (Aust)& 457(Aust) Sqns unitl they returned to Australia and came onto the RAAF strength.
IMHO members of these units should be rated as British or Commonwealth, as most were a mixture of Commonwealth pilots and Air Crews. Very few RAF squadrons had 100% British Pilots. The same can be said for the FAA Sqns, there were a lot of Canadians there plus a smattering of OZ & Enzed pilots.

The only exception could be 321 (Dutch) Sqn, was it crewed from Dutch pilots sent out from England, I thought the DEI pilots made their way to Australia and crewed 18 & 120 Sqns RAAF.


I feel that apart from making 488 squadron either a New Zealand outfit or a Commonwealth outfit to aloud this unit to upgrade to the Hurricane Mk IIb in early 1942 that you are correct and it should be left alone!!
This should be done only because this was the was what happen to 488 squadron in early 1942.

MJT



jcjordan -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 1:55:12 AM)

It shouldn't create many problems at all. In one version of CHS, 488 was set to NZ but now is back to Brit. As far as upgrades go just set it to upgrade to Hurricanes from what it originally is & it would follow that path with the exception being player controlled upgrades where you would get Kittyhawks & Corsair like other NZ units have, yes it would also be able to switch sooner than Brit units but so would any RIAF units which started with Lysanders but switched to Hurricanes or others but not until late 42/43, I think that just small price to compromise on. In the last version I got installed 2.04 (I think) 436 is duplicated, there is 436 RCAF & 436 RAF (set to Brit pilots) but it is the same unit. 435 & 436 RCAF are set to SE Asia command coming into Canada & 436 RAF set also to SE Asia. So the 435, 436 & 488 should be No.xxx RAF Squadron but with the setting of country of origin due to the fact that they were sent by the original country to serve under RAF command so would likely be filled with pilots from that country. The 400 RAAF units should fall along these lines as well.

The other squadrons I suggested because they were regular RAF units not from a country & were filled with mostly non Brit pilots & I was able to get a pilot roster on them so could see the makeup of the unit nationality. There are CW pilots accruing in the pool but no CW air units other than what I mentioned changing so thought it would be more representative if a regular RAF squadron had mostly non Brit pilots known to be in it then it should use CW as the pilot setting. So guess we should define what CW would be - CW as any non Brit or CW as smaller CW nations not already having it's own pilot pool in the game. For the FAA I've not been able to find much in the way of pilot rosters other than a few aces here & there & some leaders but would assume they would be a mix as well of CW types but you also open another argument there as there were Royal Marine pilots which used ranks similar to USMC ranks which aren't even represented. Currently the game uses Brit air ranks when it should be using naval ranks so it's no even using the right ranks.



rockmedic109 -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 2:35:53 AM)

American P-43s have Chinese emblems. 

I imagine this is a non-issue.  Perhaps more than a non-issue as changing might require another aircraft slot and picture slot, {putting my dunce cap on} I have no idea how these {picture slots} work.



timtom -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 2:58:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

American P-43s have Chinese emblems. 

Perhaps more than a non-issue as changing might require another aircraft slot and picture slot.



All true - which is why I would imagine it to be a non-issue [8D]



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 3:07:27 AM)

A suggestion for the installation guide:

The "Installation Steps" on this page seem to imply that running ModSelect.bat is not necessary for a dual game installation. However, the utility must be run once, as it is said here. I guess many people performing a dual game installation open the links from the first page one after the other, and then omit the last step. It should be made clear on the first page that ModSelect.bat must be run once for a dual game installation.



Terminus -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 3:11:10 AM)

Why? I've never run it...



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 3:15:58 AM)

quote:

If using the dual game installation, then once the map and art files have been installed - by running the "ModSelect" batch file utility - then that utility does not need to be used again; simply use the second installation of WitP to load and play the CHS scenario (you will still need to use the utility if you want to switch between the two versions of Andrew's map, however).


I guess you installed those files manually - you must be extraordinary intelligent!

*tries to suppress a smile



Terminus -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 3:17:10 AM)

Ah, that would explain it... Just unzipped and moved them manually...[;)]



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS errata (7/19/2006 5:01:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

A suggestion for the installation guide:

The "Installation Steps" on this page seem to imply that running ModSelect.bat is not necessary for a dual game installation. However, the utility must be run once, as it is said here. I guess many people performing a dual game installation open the links from the first page one after the other, and then omit the last step. It should be made clear on the first page that ModSelect.bat must be run once for a dual game installation.


You are right. The wording on the first page needs to be changed.

Andrew



VSWG -> RE: CHS errata (7/29/2006 3:29:23 AM)

"91 RAAF Base Force" (ID 2957) and "92 RAAF Base Force" (ID 3121) are the only RAAF Base Forces that do not use the standard RAAF BF TO&E. They're lacking "No." in front of their name, too.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625