RHS 4.23 Micro Update RELEASED (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 -> RHS 4.23 Micro Update RELEASED (8/12/2006 11:36:31 PM)

RHS 4.20 is different in terms of aircraft and art. An art error in the pointer for G3M3 is corrected for all scenarios. An art set in the works
will put in one or two things for all scenarios - and 6 or 8 for RHSEOS.
Further, it is expected that a switch program will be available to permit changes between stock, CHS and RHS maps and art.

From version 4.20 there will be TWO sets of RHS art - regular and EOS.
You may use these in separate installs - or you must pick one or the other - until we get a switch modified to let you choose. The reason is that EOS has some planes not present in regular RHS - Ki-74, Ki-77,
Me-264, D4Y1-C, Ki-49Q, B5N1-C, B5N2-Q, etc. While the PB4Y recon variant was also added - it was added for ALL versions of RHS and it does not matter which art set you pick.

When released, 4.20 will continue to use existing RHS art and point to the nearest art for every given type. When the art is released (need to check on its status) it will just replace the existing art. When the switch is tested it will be released - and will work with the same scenarios - or with earlier ones as well.

4.20 involves a vast review of Allied AT guns - which were sometimes wrong for many nations - if academic. [A 2 pounder IS a 37mm - but we like the names to be right for chrome). Also upgrade paths for Allied AT guns and squads were revised - and the Dutch and Commonwealth rifle squads have nicer upgrade paths in one sense or another. Otherwise, Hiryu and Soryu are redefined - they have different ranges and fuel requirements now - and some other ships speeds match their upgrades better. A number of eratta were corrected - things like bad date fields.
Me-264 is added for RHSEOS only.

EDIT: Also a number of Japanese (and Taiwanese) airborne units are converted to use airborne squads instead of infantry squads.

Note that Allied planes can be added on request - as the recon version of B-24 was (although given its Navy name because more of those saw service).



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 11:39:17 AM)

2pdr IS NOT a 37mm, its a 40mm gun.



mefi -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 1:08:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

2pdr IS NOT a 37mm, its a 40mm gun.


This is shown by those captured by the Germans after the fall of France being used under the name '4.0 cm Pak 192 (e)'.




el cid again -> Chinese Forces (8/13/2006 1:17:24 PM)

Some things about Chinese heavy weapons didn't seem right - so I did a quick check - and found some problems. First of all, the organization is wrong. China had no corps at all - but rather two different kinds of infantry "armies" (a two division Field Army and a three division Group Army) and no Cavalry Corps whatever. The TO&E strength of formations was much higher than given - although this may not mean the game figures are wrong. More cosmetically, I found PLA was not used until 1946, and Workers and Peoples Red Army was used prior to that.

I decided most "ROC corps" were Field Armies, but left their strength as given - assuming careful research was done. They will build up to proper strength IF there is enough supply. I decided "new diisions" are standard divisions. In that context, I decided a Group Army is 1.5 times stronger than a Field Army - and made it 1.5 times the standard field army given - with a new formation so it will build up to a proper TO&E if there is enough supply (a big if in parts of China).

The biggest problem is absence of machine guns - and there are 6 per regiment - 24 per division - 50 per field army and 74 per group army. The artillery was right for a division (@ 4), but should be 8 for a field army or 12 for a group army. Group armies will also build up to contain a section of armored cars and a battery of 105s. The real weakness of the Chinese army is support - so a TO&E formation has only 75% of what it needs - and most units have only half at start. [Guerillas have 75%].
To be effetive Chinese troops need to be located with a HQ - which controls the support they need.

Otherwise I substituted US 37mm ATG for 2 pounders and issued numbers of 3 inch mortars vice 81mm - but the latter upgrade to 81mm.
The Red Army HQ and the ROC general HQ were upgraded somewhat in respect to heavy weapons.

Regretfully these few changes are massive because of the sheer size of the Chinese army - and I still need to figure out what all those WITP "cavalry corps" are??? I suspect they are divisions - but have yet to confirm even that size of a formation. EDIT: I have confirmed the existence of Chinese cavalry divisions - although details are harder to obtain.

On the other side, I found a much greater Manchukuo Army - including a neat White Russian unit - than in the game - an Imperial Guards unit and a Manchukuo Cavalry unit with some lineage. Also an Inner Mongolia formation associated with the tiny regime there. I also learned more about the other auxiliaries in China - and while it is best to leave most of them out altogether - a couple of exceptions existed. Some of these formations may be added. US Army intel estimated the Manchukuo force at 500,000 in 1945, though this is thought to be an overestimate by a close order of magnitude. There were up to 2 million other auxiliaries - but only a handful were useful in a war game sense of the term.

The Cinese (ROC and RED) should build up to rather large formations - divisions are square with 4 regiments and 432 squads - and this may make China a harder nut to crack without the addition of a single unit. Field Armies will build up to about 870 squads and Group Armies to about 1300.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 1:19:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

2pdr IS NOT a 37mm, its a 40mm gun.



I am referring to the US/UK weapons. The same weapon is called 2 pounder in UK and 37mm M3 in the US. Similarly, the 57mm is called six pounder in British and other service.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 1:51:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

2pdr IS NOT a 37mm, its a 40mm gun.



I am referring to the US/UK weapons. The same weapon is called 2 pounder in UK and 37mm M3 in the US. Similarly, the 57mm is called six pounder in British and other service.


To split a hair, it was the six-pounder that was called 57mm in US service, not the other way around. Anyway, different nations had different ways of categorizing what was basically the same caliber.



Iron Duke -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 4:22:38 PM)

Hi,

Just to muddy the water a bit more , I've always thought the US 37mm AT was based on the German 37mm AT [&:]




RETIRED -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 4:27:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

2pdr IS NOT a 37mm, its a 40mm gun.



I am referring to the US/UK weapons. The same weapon is called 2 pounder in UK and 37mm M3 in the US. Similarly, the 57mm is called six pounder in British and other service.


Here you are wrong CID. The British 40mm "2-pounder" was not at all the same weapon as the US "37mm ATG". It was the "6-pounder" that we copied from the Brits as the "57mm ATG"



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 5:21:00 PM)

37mm and 40mm are two different calibres.



mefi -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/13/2006 10:15:30 PM)

Could the confusion be that the original pom-pom was a 37mm weapon? The Maxim was a 1 pounder on which the 2 pound pom-pom was based (the 2 pounder was just an upscaled version). The 2 pounder pom-pom was also used by the Japanese as 40 mm/62 "HI" Shiki.

The anti-tank 2 pounders were always 40mm in calibre. They were far superior in performance to the PaK36 (37mm) used by the Germans and on which the US 37mm was based. The 2 pounder could penetrate 42mm of armour at c.1000m, the PaK36 something like 30mm at 500m or 22mm at 1000m (exact comparison is difficult because the German test data may be based on different assumptions eg angle of armour).



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 2:22:55 AM)

The Japanese also used a PAK based 37mm - often confused with a WWI era 37mm trench gun used in greater numbers. And the US had a 19th century 37mm gun - 4 still exist in my state regiment - which won fame (infamy?) at Wounded Knee. These weapons all look a good deal alike and I get them mixed up. IF the 2 pounder is not the same as the US 37mm M3 - then correcting this data is an even better idea than I thought it was - it is not entirely cosmetic.



el cid again -> Chinese HQ (8/14/2006 2:26:15 AM)

There appears to have been confusion about the armies in China -
and "corps" seems to have been completely duplicated with "group army" - and group army is misused when field army was intended.
By turning the "corps" into field armies or group armies (a tedious process which requires giving the commander of the HQ to the formation - which often had no commander assigned) - we have a lot of free Allied HQ slots. Two of these should probably be Red 4th and 8th Route Armies - otherwise - there is a lot of room for Allied HQ now - such as AK Dreemer wanted to add for naval support.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 2:38:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Japanese also used a PAK based 37mm - often confused with a WWI era 37mm trench gun used in greater numbers. And the US had a 19th century 37mm gun - 4 still exist in my state regiment - which won fame (infamy?) at Wounded Knee. These weapons all look a good deal alike and I get them mixed up. IF the 2 pounder is not the same as the US 37mm M3 - then correcting this data is an even better idea than I thought it was - it is not entirely cosmetic.


As long as you haven't given the 2 pounder an Anti-Soft rating; they fired solid AP shot ONLY.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 2:49:09 AM)

If that is correct, the anti-soft value should be 1 - not zero. It is not quite worthless - if a shot hit your machine gun or mortar it would mess it up pretty bad. But it does not have any area effect.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 2:51:56 AM)

It IS correct... The British used the same 2pdr gun for all their "cruiser" tanks as well as their towed AT work, and the war is full of laments from British tankers who wished for a proper HE round for use against infantry and anti-tank guns.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 3:02:54 AM)

For what it is worth, I believe you. Turns out it is not a problem here - the 2 pounder shell is too small for an area effect on the scale we are using. It already was assigned an anti-soft value of one = minimum we can use.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 3:38:36 AM)

Just for the sake of argument, why a one? You said it yourself, the scale of the game is too big to notice a machinegun or a mortar getting wrecked by a lucky 2 pounder strike...



mefi -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 4:54:17 AM)

2lb HE ammunition was never released to frontline units. It did exist but was never fired in anger.

Just some data on the 2 pounder ATG.

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_artillery_adv.php?op=show_atg&anti_tank_gunsX=7



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 6:22:34 AM)

Actually (Terminus) that isn't what I said. And it isn't too big. We DO have individual mortars and mg's - so it DOES notice. One means a point hit. Other values are associated (in RHS theory anyway) with multiple point hits - area values. We use the square root of effect for anti-soft value, based on the theory of explosive effect.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 1:28:46 PM)

Based on the theory of explosive effect, where there is none... Anyway, that's your decision, obviously...



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 7:09:02 PM)

quite

A single point is obviously affected by anything. An area effect occurs when you have an explosion, but a point effect can be achieved by literally anything - even bayonetts. The 15 inch guns at Singapore were AP only - and literally would not detonate if they hit a soft target. Fired on advancing Japanese troops - they would hit swamp or jungle and keep on going - until they hit bedrock (if they did) - exploding so far below the explosive effect was nil - or not ever exploding. Yet if an infantry heavy weapon was hit directly - by a shell weighing a ton - the lack of explosion was not germane to its fate. Surely you can grasp this. Well - the SIZE of the kenetic impact is not germane either. Today USMC uses .50 cal rifles to take out heavy weapons - no explosive inside at all. Just kenetic energy damage. A two pound AP round is in between these extremes - and has exactly the same effect if it hits a mortar, light machine gun, or other infantry weapon: that team has no longer a useful primary weapon.
IF the die says you score a direct hit - you score a direct hit - and theory says that should not count for zero.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/14/2006 7:24:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quite

A single point is obviously affected by anything. An area effect occurs when you have an explosion, but a point effect can be achieved by literally anything - even bayonetts. The 15 inch guns at Singapore were AP only - and literally would not detonate if they hit a soft target. Fired on advancing Japanese troops - they would hit swamp or jungle and keep on going - until they hit bedrock (if they did) - exploding so far below the explosive effect was nil - or not ever exploding. Yet if an infantry heavy weapon was hit directly - by a shell weighing a ton - the lack of explosion was not germane to its fate. Surely you can grasp this. Well - the SIZE of the kenetic impact is not germane either. Today USMC uses .50 cal rifles to take out heavy weapons - no explosive inside at all. Just kenetic energy damage. A two pound AP round is in between these extremes - and has exactly the same effect if it hits a mortar, light machine gun, or other infantry weapon: that team has no longer a useful primary weapon.
IF the die says you score a direct hit - you score a direct hit - and theory says that should not count for zero.


What did we talk about recently?



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.20 RELEASED (8/14/2006 10:09:49 PM)

All RHS scenarios released at 4.20 level.

A new utility - a variation of Mod Select - is also uploaded - so you can easily switch between stock, CHS and RHS art and maps.

New RHS art is in the works but not quite released. The 4.20 version works with existing art.

There will eventually be TWO RHS art packages - standard and one dedicated to RHSEOS - with its unique planes. The only difference is in the plane art.

Me-264 is in RHSEOS 4.20 only.




CobraAus -> RE: RHS 4.20 RELEASED (8/15/2006 3:16:38 AM)

RHS v4.2 all scenarios + a mod select tool posted on download link page

Cobra Aus



akdreemer -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/15/2006 11:59:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Japanese also used a PAK based 37mm - often confused with a WWI era 37mm trench gun used in greater numbers. And the US had a 19th century 37mm gun - 4 still exist in my state regiment - which won fame (infamy?) at Wounded Knee. These weapons all look a good deal alike and I get them mixed up. IF the 2 pounder is not the same as the US 37mm M3 - then correcting this data is an even better idea than I thought it was - it is not entirely cosmetic.


As long as you haven't given the 2 pounder an Anti-Soft rating; they fired solid AP shot ONLY.

Actually, only ammo for the 2pdr in tanks was AP. According to Hogg the HE was never issued to tanks. Something about the peculiar nature of the 2pdr atg being part of the Artillery thus was perfectly normal to have a HE capability, whereas the AFV mounting was to be used exclusively against other tnaks, so what was the need for HE. The australians DID use the HE rounds in their Matildas.


[image]local://upfiles/14228/E99CBAB0C28D42B2B60637EA1994E24D.jpg[/image]



mefi -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/16/2006 1:39:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


Actually, only ammo for the 2pdr in tanks was AP. According to Hogg the HE was never issued to tanks. Something about the peculiar nature of the 2pdr atg being part of the Artillery thus was perfectly normal to have a HE capability, whereas the AFV mounting was to be used exclusively against other tnaks, so what was the need for HE. The australians DID use the HE rounds in their Matildas.


Interesting. The Royal New South Wales Lancers used 71 HE shells at Balikpapan in July, 1945 (Matildas with 2lb guns).

Checking through the Royal Artillery information I've got, HE shells were released to ATG units in early 1944 as the concerns over reducing the guns' accuracy through use of HE became less of an issue. But by then frontline units in the British army (at least in Europe) were using 6 pounders and 17 pounders. Will try to dig out some more over the weekend over the use of HE for the 2 pounder ATG.



akdreemer -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/16/2006 3:15:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mefi

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


Actually, only ammo for the 2pdr in tanks was AP. According to Hogg the HE was never issued to tanks. Something about the peculiar nature of the 2pdr atg being part of the Artillery thus was perfectly normal to have a HE capability, whereas the AFV mounting was to be used exclusively against other tnaks, so what was the need for HE. The australians DID use the HE rounds in their Matildas.


Interesting. The Royal New South Wales Lancers used 71 HE shells at Balikpapan in July, 1945 (Matildas with 2lb guns).

Checking through the Royal Artillery information I've got, HE shells were released to ATG units in early 1944 as the concerns over reducing the guns' accuracy through use of HE became less of an issue. But by then frontline units in the British army (at least in Europe) were using 6 pounders and 17 pounders. Will try to dig out some more over the weekend over the use of HE for the 2 pounder ATG.

I seem to recall that the Aussies manufactured their own HE ammo for the 2pdr. Lets face it, there is no place in the jungle for a gun that cannot fire HE, since the likely hood of engaging Japanese tanks was slim to none.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/16/2006 3:20:33 AM)

Wonder if they had canister for it?



akdreemer -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/16/2006 3:48:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Wonder if they had canister for it?

Not that I am aware of.



Terminus -> RE: RHS 4.20 concept, release and art (8/16/2006 3:54:09 AM)

As far as I know, the USMC had canister for the 37mm guns on their Stuarts, and since the caliber isn't that far off...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125