RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS)

RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (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 -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/8/2007 8:20:13 PM)
No - you are not lost. I am old, senile and exhausted from little sleep after four days of entering data! Go back and look again - it is now 6.51!!!

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/8/2007 8:22:03 PM)
Thanks for the quick reply. Ok, this will be the 6,51 then. Now it makes sense [:)]

el cid again -> RE: Level 5.51 and 6.51 micro updates uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/8/2007 8:44:43 PM)
5.51 micro update files now in the upload process

Dili -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/8/2007 10:10:07 PM)
quote: Bad Points: Continue IJN static northern units that should be Home Defense in Amami and Sakashima; REPLY: Only the forts are supposed to be static - which they are; the naval station units are technically movable - and appear static because they (incorrectly) retain "static facility squads" AFTER I have withdrawn these from almost every unit (the exceptions being major command HQ in some cases - representing massive immobile infrastructures not associated with large numbers of squads in a field organization sense). Look for them to become mobile. AI will move them when it should not - but the forts will remain - so I can live with that. That is not my point. It is simple: why that units are in Northern Command when they are near Formosa in a Home HQ Islands. quote: Truk continues to be a mess a 4th Fleet base with Southeast Fleet static units; REPLY: You have forgotten that this is what you recommended. Truk is actually Southeast Fleet - as is all of Nanyo (the Carolines). 4th Fleet is SOUTH of Truk - and NOTHING YET exists for 4th fleet to use as a base! Now I have reassigned some parts of the Eastern Carolines to 4th Fleet in EOS - but these scenarios are more historical - and you can't see that yet. Whatever it is assigned to - Truk MUST BE mixed - since 4th fleet units must be there at start - and so must SE fleet units - it being the very heart of SE fleet area. No, my advice was to put static units in same ownership of the base. Like it is now in Palaus; Saipan;Ponape; Kwajalein quote: Shinshu Maru continues in limbo; REPLY: In what way? I am not having any problem with it - except of course that it cannot do all the things Shinshu Maru could do - however it is cast it only has some capabilities. I dont have it in the game (CVO) only in database. quote: Wasnt supposed to be corrected but i must stress that Japanese CA´s have many things wrong; from 32 torp in Nachis to 24 in Chokai/Maya, REPLY: Suggest you look it up again. This is prefectly correct - in both cases - and the reason I regard these as the world's premier surface warships. Not only do they carry Long Lance- they carry reloads. Fabulous concept - and one I love to exploit in tactical games. [I grew up "pushing lead" aka Fletcher Pratt - and I also do computer simulations. I am a torpedo master, and I once "won" the Battle of the Java Sea with ALLIED torpedoes - in a convention situation with no time to think. That is a lot harder to do than win a battle with Long Lance. Nachis had 24 torps total for 4 quadruple installations; Maya and Chokai had only 4 double(4x2) installations since they werent updated before the war. Total 16 Torpedoes. Only Maya was updated to 16 tubes(4x4) when converted to CLAA. quote: to side torpedos in Agano instead centerline not even going to AA; REPLY: Presumably you don't mean that Agano is a CA. I will look at the torpedoes. I do not understand how a torpedo can "go to AA" however? Sorry I bungled the english for the sake of speed. No may point is that the minor AA continues to be wrong mainly in CLs and minor errors in CAs. quote: DP guns instead of Naval Guns in Yugumos and Kageros. Some of this errors were not in stock. REPLY: This is a difficult one to do right. There are different kinds of 5 inch 50s, and we have limited slots. Technically most of these ships had "DP" guns - because they could elevate above 45 degrees. But the 50 was not an ideal AA gun - too slow a rate of traverse to be completely effective. Thus Takishi Hara had to NOT maneuver vs an attacking bomber in order to shoot it down. Using skip bombing - something that almost always worked - he instead not only got the bomber - but the bomb missed - because the American's aimed ASSUMING he would turn (losing way). It is a rare success for the "long 5" - but UNLESS you rate it as DP it can NEVER do that. Since that was a design decision i will not bug you anymore because that, but my opinion is that there were many instances in war were main armament was fired against skip bombing and torpedo bombers that by definition they fly low. We also dont model japanese main gun AA round and i am sure it scared some pilots at begining . This is a design decision that in facts turns Kageros and Yugumos in pre Akitzukis but it is also your game. quote: Type 2 depth charges in Tomodzuru when they only started to be operational in 1942. REPLY: This may be an error of a classical sort for WITP: fields slip one - apparently the way the editor works. Until reported, no software will detect it - and no one looks at all 133,000 fields - nor knows how to spot this sort of error. Type 2 indeed means 1942 - not because Japan used the Western calendar - but because the Japanese calendar also ends in the same final digit! Few people know how to read "Type" = year - but you do - and you are right. Actually since i never saw any type 2 at start of war in any japanese ship so that surprised me and i checked it. I didnt know that type 2 means 1942. quote: Good Points: Kwajalein; Ponape; Palau; Saipan corrected; Whole mess that apparently came since stock in Northern area corrected (still some Home def units there and i am not sure if northern Honsho should be Northern Area but these are minor points.) REPLY: The Northern Area apparently was virtually NOTHING - and in order to work the AI needs some assets to play with. Having the Tsugaru Straits NOT under a unified command is probably a bad idea - but I changed it for economic rather than military reasons - to help the AI. Good option then.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 12:27:29 AM)
CVO 5.51: Misspelling in Airgroups 1060 - 1063, 1066 - 1068, 1070, 1087 : Persuit instead of Pursuit

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 3:41:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: Truk continues to be a mess a 4th Fleet base with Southeast Fleet static units; REPLY: You have forgotten that this is what you recommended. Truk is actually Southeast Fleet - as is all of Nanyo (the Carolines). 4th Fleet is SOUTH of Truk - and NOTHING YET exists for 4th fleet to use as a base! Now I have reassigned some parts of the Eastern Carolines to 4th Fleet in EOS - but these scenarios are more historical - and you can't see that yet. Whatever it is assigned to - Truk MUST BE mixed - since 4th fleet units must be there at start - and so must SE fleet units - it being the very heart of SE fleet area. No, my advice was to put static units in same ownership of the base. Like it is now in Palaus; Saipan;Ponape; Kwajalein quote: You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not."

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 3:48:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili REPLY: Suggest you look it up again. This is prefectly correct - in both cases - and the reason I regard these as the world's premier surface warships. Not only do they carry Long Lance- they carry reloads. Fabulous concept - and one I love to exploit in tactical games. [I grew up "pushing lead" aka Fletcher Pratt - and I also do computer simulations. I am a torpedo master, and I once "won" the Battle of the Java Sea with ALLIED torpedoes - in a convention situation with no time to think. That is a lot harder to do than win a battle with Long Lance. Nachis had 24 torps total for 4 quadruple installations; Maya and Chokai had only 4 double(4x2) installations since they werent updated before the war. Total 16 Torpedoes. Only Maya was updated to 16 tubes(4x4) when converted to CLAA. quote: There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class - as we do for example with Mogami so she can rebuild as a seaplane semicarrier but her sisters cannot - it is not possible to address this problem. Even if we are willing to do that - and I spent countless THOUSANDS of hours redoing Japanese ships in tiny little detail - there is still a matter of TIME: it would take many man years to do them all - and long before we get there we will run out of class slots. A modder is an artist of compromise - and the details of that differ - and may not be easily reconciled with real data. How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions. [The ships were designed for 2 reloads and didn't carry them for reasons of safety and stability. But the space was available, and other combinations of loading/ballast are possible. IJN was much more prone to err on the side of too much punch and too little safety than we, and we were much more willing to err on the same sort of thing than RN was.] And perhaps it is in some sense "better" to "keep it simple" - to force standardization on a class: this was a USN policy (often dishonored in tiny details, but very often a ship got what was "good enough" because it was cheaper and faster to do it the same as the ship before her in the stocks). Real ships have real captains and crews intimately familiar with their differences - advantages and disadvantages. Players are managing thousands (no exaggeration) of ships - and it may be more playable if they can count on "a Tone is a Tone" - and not need to worry about how Chikuma differs.

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 3:56:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: to side torpedos in Agano instead centerline not even going to AA; REPLY: Presumably you don't mean that Agano is a CA. I will look at the torpedoes. I do not understand how a torpedo can "go to AA" however? Sorry I bungled the english for the sake of speed. No may point is that the minor AA continues to be wrong mainly in CLs and minor errors in CAs. quote: OK - it is the normal case - even with "standardized" ships like Fletchers - that the light AA is different ship to ship. In general - you see three cases in RHS: a) It is what was in CHS 155 (the file set modders work on) OR possibly CHS 177 (a later version from which only a few things got lifted) - RHS is CHS 155 modified when it branched - with devices and land units moved back to stock positions when CHS and RHS decided to do that. b) It is the first form the ship appeared with - or the start of war configuration; c) It is some upgrade after that. B and C require I pick a real ship - usually the leader of the class - and real dates - usually the dates from 155 - and use the configuration at war start or on that date for that ship. This means ALL other members of the class that differ in ANY detail - including the date of conversion - are (at least momentarily) "wrong". Fact of life.

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 4:03:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: DP guns instead of Naval Guns in Yugumos and Kageros. Some of this errors were not in stock. REPLY: This is a difficult one to do right. There are different kinds of 5 inch 50s, and we have limited slots. Technically most of these ships had "DP" guns - because they could elevate above 45 degrees. But the 50 was not an ideal AA gun - too slow a rate of traverse to be completely effective. Thus Takishi Hara had to NOT maneuver vs an attacking bomber in order to shoot it down. Using skip bombing - something that almost always worked - he instead not only got the bomber - but the bomb missed - because the American's aimed ASSUMING he would turn (losing way). It is a rare success for the "long 5" - but UNLESS you rate it as DP it can NEVER do that. Since that was a design decision i will not bug you anymore because that, but my opinion is that there were many instances in war were main armament was fired against skip bombing and torpedo bombers that by definition they fly low. We also dont model japanese main gun AA round and i am sure it scared some pilots at begining . This is a design decision that in facts turns Kageros and Yugumos in pre Akitzukis but it is also your game. quote: IF there were more slots (and there may be I hear - even in WITP I - at some point) I would model the 8 inch AA shells - because the low ROF means they will almost never work. And they DO have altitude. In fact - there IS a Japanese 6 inch AA gun - and there SHOULD BE a Japanese LAND BASED 8 inch AA gun NEVER in ANY scholarly source - which looks very good. [We just found two of them - covered by vines and concealed by trees - in a park in Singapore!!! Fine modern (1990s like) streamlined gun houses - light enough to move - with powerful motors - they may have been the reason B-29s were ordered to avoid that area.] IF I had a slot I would put it in. We devised 6 inch AA guns for ships - see the Worcester class - and that was only a copy of a PRE WAR idea - see the Dutch cruisers. In the end ultra heavy AA is not an ideal weapon - but it isn't nice if you get hit by the bursts either. It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA).

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 4:16:26 AM)
I failed to fix the initial version of Tomodzuru to have Type 95 DC vice Type 2. This will appear from x.52.

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 4:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos CVO 5.51: Misspelling in Airgroups 1060 - 1063, 1066 - 1068, 1070, 1087 : Persuit instead of Pursuit Now you know. I was taught phonic spelling. It works in Japanese or Tagalog or even German - but not in English. Too many options - too many variations - you are supposed to memorize each word - and I don't. I also am guilty of using British spellings instead of American ones - due to reading authors who use that form. There are at least 18 identified types of intelligence - spelling is one of them - and I don't do that well in that area. Thanks. Issuing microupdate x.52 now. It INCLUDES x.51 microupdate - which should be withdrawn from the listings in due course (when Cobra posts x.52 he will probably erase x.51). This will be part of that.

Dili -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 6:09:11 AM)
quote: [You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not." I am only talking about static units. Are you saying that:("there must always be" STATIC "units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command") ? i dont know the reason so i ask: why? it isnt enough to have the HQ to get new units there? Btw I think you want to mean that Southeast Fleet bases are still not Japaneses controlled instead of 4th Fleet. Right now 4th Fleet goes from Saipan to Kwajalein. quote: There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class Chokai/Maya is already a new class, distinct from Takao, Atago. Takao and Atago got their DP suite updated to 5" in 1942 while Chokai/Maya will only get them and 6 turrets instead of 4 in 44 with CLAA update. In instance Chokai was never updated since it was always in use and got sunk. quote: How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions . That was done for some destroyers. Some sets have 1 reload others have 2. I am not aware that Chikuma had half the torpedo tubes of Tone and some destroyer classes have less changes between them then half the torpedo tubes and a dif DP suite since 1942. So i dont think i am asking something unreasonable since this arent minor details. quote: and C require I pick a real ship - usually the leader of the class - and real dates - usually the dates from 155 - and use the configuration at war start or on that date for that ship. This means ALL other members of the class that differ in ANY detail - including the date of conversion - are (at least momentarily) "wrong". Fact of life Some the data seem to have been from stock. AA is wrong, those ships(5500t CLs) were already converted to 25mmAA , range too, for example Kitakami still has the 14kt/9000nm when in reality was 14kt/4000nm. That was one of the reasons that prevented it's use in frontline units and ended working as an APD most of the war. quote: It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA). I think the solution brings more problems than let it stay with the gun they have even without the ability to fire AA that seldom operated that way. It makes them have much more AA ability they had. It turns them worse at surface combat. Btw from my research Kageros didnt have the 75º turret.

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 7:45:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: [You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not." I am only talking about static units. Are you saying that:("there must always be" STATIC "units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command") ? i dont know the reason so i ask: why? it isnt enough to have the HQ to get new units there? Btw I think you want to mean that Southeast Fleet bases are still not Japaneses controlled instead of 4th Fleet. Right now 4th Fleet goes from Saipan to Kwajalein. quote: Actually - there is only a single 4th Fleet unit at Truk - 4th Fleet HQ - and it is not static. Since Truk really is SE Fleet area - it may be best to revert to calling it that. THEN you will see the base and static units all of the same command - and they may do better AI wise. But that means AI will NOT "know" that Truck is the logistic root of 4th Fleet area - and who knows where it will draw from? And no - it isn't enough to have the HQ to get units there. We have a 4th Fleet HQ at Truk. How does that tell AI anything at all about getting any other units to 4th Fleet area - or where that area may be? What it "knows" is probably in hard code - and we don't know for sure what that is. But having the HQ does not do anything for us at all. Since there is no 4th Fleet "place" to put it - unless Truk be that place - it is associated with no place except by where it is. And that gives AI little data about where to send other units. Not sure there is a good answer to this sort of problem either. But I guess that 4th Fleet locations appear as such when captured- or maybe only if captured by units of that command?

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 8:00:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: [You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not." I am only talking about static units. Are you saying that:("there must always be" STATIC "units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command") ? i dont know the reason so i ask: why? it isnt enough to have the HQ to get new units there? Btw I think you want to mean that Southeast Fleet bases are still not Japaneses controlled instead of 4th Fleet. Right now 4th Fleet goes from Saipan to Kwajalein. quote: There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class Chokai/Maya is already a new class, distinct from Takao, Atago. Takao and Atago got their DP suite updated to 5" in 1942 while Chokai/Maya will only get them and 6 turrets instead of 4 in 44 with CLAA update. In instance Chokai was never updated since it was always in use and got sunk. quote: How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions . That was done for some destroyers. Some sets have 1 reload others have 2. I am not aware that Chikuma had half the torpedo tubes of Tone and some destroyer classes have less changes between them then half the torpedo tubes and a dif DP suite since 1942. So i dont think i am asking something unreasonable since this arent minor details. quote: and C require I pick a real ship - usually the leader of the class - and real dates - usually the dates from 155 - and use the configuration at war start or on that date for that ship. This means ALL other members of the class that differ in ANY detail - including the date of conversion - are (at least momentarily) "wrong". Fact of life Some the data seem to have been from stock. AA is wrong, those ships(5500t CLs) were already converted to 25mmAA , range too, for example Kitakami still has the 14kt/9000nm when in reality was 14kt/4000nm. That was one of the reasons that prevented it's use in frontline units and ended working as an APD most of the war. quote: It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA). I think the solution brings more problems than let it stay with the gun they have even without the ability to fire AA that seldom operated that way. It makes them have much more AA ability they had. It turns them worse at surface combat. Btw from my research Kageros didnt have the 75º turret. Well - in the broad scheme of things they are truly minor. The reason we don't review every field for every ship is time. We have a lot of bigger issues. Many ships in the game NEVER were in PTO at all!!! Others are missing. Getting the right ship is a big deal to me - and it will be YEARS if ever we do that for LSTs and probably even destroyers - on the Allied side. Just doing radar I found cruisers - CAs no less - appearing 4 to 12 months late - on the Allied side. That is a much bigger deal IMHO. But the really big deal is we don't have a master list of all the eratta - and if we did we would not have any way to say "this field matters more than that one." In fact, we only address what comes to our notice or attention. On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side). Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that. On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them. But mostly I have to do other things - and when I do rework ships - I always get sick of it before I run out of more ships to look at. I think things like wholly wrong armor and fuel and range were more vital - since they were often bad by hundreds of % - even infinite % - and I put my initial efforts into fixing that. But having just spent 4 days on Allied ships - you will note many detail changes besides radar. 3 inch SP didn't exist even - so I created it - and put it in place of 3 inch DP - on ships that should have it - stuff like that. [I turned the "IJA 75mm Field Gun Ship Mount" into a generic "75mm SP Gun" so both sides could use it.]

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 8:09:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class Chokai/Maya is already a new class, distinct from Takao, Atago. Takao and Atago got their DP suite updated to 5" in 1942 while Chokai/Maya will only get them and 6 turrets instead of 4 in 44 with CLAA update. In instance Chokai was never updated since it was always in use and got sunk. quote: How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions . That was done for some destroyers. Some sets have 1 reload others have 2. I am not aware that Chikuma had half the torpedo tubes of Tone and some destroyer classes have less changes between them then half the torpedo tubes and a dif DP suite since 1942. So i dont think i am asking something unreasonable since this arent minor details. Well - in the broad scheme of things they are truly minor. The reason we don't review every field for every ship is time. We have a lot of bigger issues. Many ships in the game NEVER were in PTO at all!!! Others are missing. Getting the right ship is a big deal to me - and it will be YEARS if ever we do that for LSTs and probably even destroyers - on the Allied side. Just doing radar I found cruisers - CAs no less - appearing 4 to 12 months late - on the Allied side. That is a much bigger deal IMHO. But the really big deal is we don't have a master list of all the eratta - and if we did we would not have any way to say "this field matters more than that one." In fact, we only address what comes to our notice or attention. On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side). Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that. On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them. But mostly I have to do other things - and when I do rework ships - I always get sick of it before I run out of more ships to look at. I think things like wholly wrong armor and fuel and range were more vital - since they were often bad by hundreds of % - even infinite % - and I put my initial efforts into fixing that. But having just spent 4 days on Allied ships - you will note many detail changes besides radar. 3 inch SP didn't exist even - so I created it - and put it in place of 3 inch DP - on ships that should have it - stuff like that. [I turned the "IJA 75mm Field Gun Ship Mount" into a generic "75mm SP Gun" so both sides could use it.] I have not taken the time to rework every field of every ship - and if we are to play in 2007 - I won't get to them all. In fact - it is by playing I find many errors. I know the ships so well I spot them in the ship data pages - and take notes. Otherwise I learn of errors because people point out possible errors and I can investigate them. But how to express the real data in our data set is partly art - and it is not always clear how to do it "right" - or which way is "best" if there is more than one way to proceed? There also sometimes are differences in materials. I have facimilie of hand recorded data done for the Allied powers by a Japanese naval architect named Fukui - who knew the ships intimately - and so I tend to use the original data (as did authors of most references). But that means I am looking at line drawings with a magnifing glass - and reading notes in not always clear form by a person who didn't use English as his primary language. My conclusions might not always be the same as you see in references - and in particular not the same as in Jane's - which is done at the time from less complete information - sometimes even rumors. There must always be some points at which an informed person will disagree with another.

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 8:25:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA). I think the solution brings more problems than let it stay with the gun they have even without the ability to fire AA that seldom operated that way. It makes them have much more AA ability they had. It turns them worse at surface combat. Btw from my research Kageros didnt have the 75º turret. Oddly, this is my baliwik. I was (and sort of am in a consultant sense) a USN "anti-air warfare" specialist. And my first ship had WWII era guns - and fire control. We had a somewhat ultra-professional chief gunner who worked the guns to perfection - always winning the E - and outshooting every other ship in the Atlantic Fleet (which generally has higher standards than Pacific Fleet - ever since Adm King was its boss). He permitted his gunners only "one round per tube" to evaluate if they had properly solved the fire control problem - or not - and his gunners rarely missed - perhaps 20-25% of the shots were not judged "hits" (they shot at a canvas sleeve towed through the air - so it was not "shot down" - a "hit" was a burst within so many feet of the sleeve - 2 or 3 maybe - I don't remember exactly). It is hard to know - and I have been collecting statistics - but tentatively I think ALL AAA is GROSSLY undervalued in WITP. USAAF recorded AAA was the primary cause of damage and loss due to enemy action. That is, if you add up air air combat, planes lost to air strikes on their bases, planes lost to anti-shipping (or anti-train) strikes on their carrier vehicles, and planes lost to enemy ground action on their bases, ALL of those COMBINED is LESS than those lost to AAA (same for damaged). AAA was a really big deal - and the models we are using will not allow a Takhishi Hara to defeat a skip bomber - when IRL his solution was almost perfect - and would have worked in terms of shooting down the plane at least 9 times in 10. It was a big deal at the time - his crew was terrified - but they had great faith in him. He himself had no clue what to do - he had worried about it for many months. When it happened it came to him - from his subconscious - and it violated several different aspects of norms in IJN. But it was a technical solution that - once applied - would generally work - just as skip bombing itself was such a general technical solution useless before someone figured it out. I am loth to force program ZERO into a real capability - and since the simulated capability is almost certainly far less than it should be - I have no problem with that. In the present age - if you have professional gunners (RN or RAN standards, not USN standards) - you have nothing like the number of AA guns firing you did in WWII. But it is deadly dangerous to fly in their range - and it does not matter very much what method is used to solve the fire control problem - provided the method works at all. We train gunners how to shoot WITHOUT radar because it is very normal not to have valid radar data in the modern age - not because it isn't issued or because it is broken - but because it is defeated by countermeasures. Matters very little to the first plane in the sights - he is dead meat. It is only later planes that have a shot at delivering ordnance. This is why it is preferred to stand off with weapons that they can shoot down - or not - without casualties: flying into AA range is a great way to make someone a widow. [Once a C-130 deliberately tried to get shot at - to record some signals - and on inspection we could not find any part of the plane undamaged. It was a very miraculous thing it returned at all - and it was a write off. In effect a delayed kill. Some WWII pilots in Viet Nam said MAYBE the flak was as deadly as they remembered - but only maybe. It was pretty much same same.] What makes a ship a Shimikaze is indeed its fine guns. And the 100 mm guns of Shimakaze are fabulous - they outrange the 5 inch with a better shell. [You cannot tell this in this game because I restrict DP gun range to = effective AA ceiling]. The 5 inch guns do NOT make a ship a Shimikaze because they are not as good. And in fact they DO make it a MUCH WORSE DD at long ranges - since the DP guns have much less range than even the real DP guns do. IF I permit a DP gun to have full SURFACE range it is far too effective as an AA weapon. Ships with SP weapons, on the other hand, get the max range of the gun. IRL the Japanese often compromised: many DD had one mounting of 5 inch 50s and one of 5 inch 40s! Both could shoot at surface or air targets, but the 50 was much better at the surface (with more range) while the 40 was much better at the air target. Tracking this for each ship would be hard - all the data isn't even known - and we lack the slots to try - even if we had - say - five man years JUST for IJN ship entry. Other factors helped Shimikaze. She had the first AA plot in IJN - before almost any other ship in the USN did. But we don't have a way to show that sort of thing having impact. But I just invented a way! Maybe - if I get time.

el cid again -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 8:29:44 AM)
Two scenarios have ship eratta not covered by 5.51 or 5.52 - CVO and RAO. So this - and a change of a command assignment for Truk - are folded into x.53 - which remains a micro update but INCLUDES EVERYTHING in x.51 and x.52. It is only some of the files - you must do this AFTER installing 5.5 or 6.5 files. This uploading now.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 10:11:08 AM)
CVO 5.51: IJN Naval Station Battalions are now supposed to be a artillery units instead of engineer? (for example Location 1777 - and MANY others)

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 11:54:35 AM)
Monter, yes, they all are ART units. If I remember correctly it is intended: months ago I asked him about these "weird" ART units. El Cid Again has to have good reasons.

el cid again -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 12:43:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos CVO 5.51: IJN Naval Station Battalions are now supposed to be a artillery units instead of engineer? (for example Location 1777 - and MANY others) It is a difficult designation (for me at least). However, this isn't exactly new - it is in many versions of RHS. And it has some merits. The technical advantage is that it permits me to "anchor" a naval station (by calling it a "coast defense unit" and classify that as "fortification" - WITHOUT the use of a static device. Most static naval station and naval bases are done in this way. The rest are called "artillery units" so they look similar - and are transportable (movable). Those still classified as "engineer" units are just inherited and for some reason not reworked. Now it solves two problems to do that: a) A base that should not and would not "wander" all over the map - mainly under AI control but also under ignorant player control - now stays put; b) IF I need a small supply sink (one that is not a big problem combat wise) at a location, I can "hide" it inside the now static unit - and it will stay there - eating supplies - and doing the other function of a supply sink: rendering greater damage to resource centers if the place falls to land combat. Sometimes in RHS a naval station that COULD move is also anchored - because it is hiding a supply sink. The merit of this designation is that a naval station in that era always had some coast defense guns - even if small ones - and (in one case or) medium caliber (4 to five inch) AA guns that can function to some degree as coast defense guns - and these guns are uniformly the heaviest in the unit. Such units are not infantry heavy, have no armor, and not a whole lot of engineers - so they are somewhat "artillery units" of a peculiar sort. Their other function - as support units - is still implied in the name "naval station" - so I think it is a reasonable designation. But I would prefer a separate category altogether for bases and stations - and the option to pick "static" or "transportable" under that.

m10bob -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 2:36:18 PM)
"The merit of this designation is that a naval station in that era always had some coast defense guns - even if small ones - and (in one case or) medium caliber (4 to five inch) AA guns that can function to some degree as coast defense guns - and these guns are uniformly the heaviest in the unit. Such units are not infantry heavy, have no armor, and not a whole lot of engineers - so they are somewhat "artillery units" of a peculiar sort. Their other function - as support units - is still implied in the name "naval station" - so I think it is a reasonable designation. But I would prefer a separate category altogether for bases and stations - and the option to pick "static" or "transportable" under that. " In a very similar vein, when modding units for Steel Panthers,I was able to replicate both the Piper J3 and the German "Goliath"(r/c demo tank). The J3 would not fly without ammo, and I did not wish to use it as a "weapon", so I created a weapons slot called a "honey pot" for the pilot to carry, and if he had to "fire it", there was no damage done to the enemy. The radio controlled Goliath required a "crewman"(in game terms), so I did put a man aboard, but with no weapons other than a napalm-type device which would explode anything within so many hexes of it.(I would keep it hidden in brush/holes, and move it only when an enemy tank moved near it-then KER-BLAMM). I knew the real Goliath had no crewman, but I accomplished the mission. You have had to think outside the box on several issues to get around things, but in the end, mission is accomplished.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:09:44 PM)
El Cid Again, I am perplexed. I did an air transfer: from Panama Canal to West Coast (a PBY Catalina). The unit had 12 planes (and pilots). After the transfer there were only 4 planes (2 ready and 2 damaged) [X(] I have tried other air transfers and have seen the same. Anyway if I well understood (and I know this is a very rudimentary analysis) this only happens when the range is extra long [?] Back to my example: the unit had 12 planes. It lost 8! I never saw such operational losses in this game before: in stock, CHS and other RHS versions. What is going on? Or may this be intended? [&:]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:15:43 PM)
One more observation: The unit is in Cristobal (Panama Canal). If the destination is San Diego => "normal" operational losses If the destination is San Francisco => the trip is a massacre (the losses mentioned above). These extra hexes make the difference?

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 5:18:53 PM)
Dili: I checked Shinshu Maru. It is appearing at game start. It has the proper outfit of 5 x 75mm AA guns. It is classified as an LSD. I see no sense in which it is "screwed up." Can you be more specific?

el cid again -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:22:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus One more observation: The unit is in Cristobal (Panama Canal). If the destination is San Diego => "normal" operational losses If the destination is San Francisco => the trip is a massacre (the losses mentioned above). These extra hexes make the difference? Maybe. Never encountered this specific matter. But - yes - I observe it matters at other locations. And by increasing ranges of many plane types (so as to permit ops to 42% of transfer range for all but fighters - which remain at 33%) we have had a general increase of the POSSIBILITY of "crossing the line" for each type. [It is worse for Japan, and worse for certain types - a GG signature - lots of variables.] Anyway - I warned at the time that just because you can fly farther does not mean it is wise to do so. IF you are not circumspect - you will pay a high price. [Another variable is the number of engines - probably].

el cid again -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:24:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob "The merit of this designation is that a naval station in that era always had some coast defense guns - even if small ones - and (in one case or) medium caliber (4 to five inch) AA guns that can function to some degree as coast defense guns - and these guns are uniformly the heaviest in the unit. Such units are not infantry heavy, have no armor, and not a whole lot of engineers - so they are somewhat "artillery units" of a peculiar sort. Their other function - as support units - is still implied in the name "naval station" - so I think it is a reasonable designation. But I would prefer a separate category altogether for bases and stations - and the option to pick "static" or "transportable" under that. " In a very similar vein, when modding units for Steel Panthers,I was able to replicate both the Piper J3 and the German "Goliath"(r/c demo tank). quote: You may then find it interesting that Japan had a similar vehicle (both wire and R/C versions) BEFORE Goliath - and that you can see it in RHS in the 7th "Electric" Engineer Regiment! [In EOS it is also in the 27th Regiment - renamed "Electric" as well - because that refers to these vehicles]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:29:58 PM)
El Cid Again, so players of this mod must know that air transfers can be a pretty massacre. What should be the maximum air transfer range then? 2/3 of the ferry range or something like that?

el cid again -> RE: Level 6.01 micro update (sans EOS) (1/9/2007 5:32:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili Some the data seem to have been from stock. AA is wrong, those ships(5500t CLs) were already converted to 25mmAA , range too, for example Kitakami still has the 14kt/9000nm when in reality was 14kt/4000nm. That was one of the reasons that prevented it's use in frontline units and ended working as an APD most of the war. Well - the speed of 14 is pure RHS - no one else uses that. Stock seems to like 15 knots and CHS 18 knots - but RHS uses the ACTUAL cruising speed for the ship. [For the unfamiliar - a ship has a designed cruising speed - and this is a big deal. It is most efficient at that speed - and we have accurate data for that speed. A ship usually can cruise at other speeds - but we don't know exactly how that changes range (there are formulas that help us guess) - but if the speed is higher it will be less efficient.] In this case ALL the old "long" cruisers (Nagara, Kuma, Sendai and Kitakami) had a DESIGNED range of 5000 nm at 14 knots and an ACTUAL range of 6000 nm at 14 knots (which was achieved by slightly different fuel loadings). Whoever said 9000 (and at 15 or 18) was not checking the data. [WITP makes a class by copying some other class. Often they just leave this field alone. And few Americans would believe a range less than 9000 nm for a long cruiser. But JAPAN designed ships for less range - expecting to fight on its side of the ocean - and more weight to weapons. They also had lower efficiency boilers - reducing range.] Your data for Kitakami is not exactly wrong either - but it IS wrong for 1941. That is 1944 data - after hp was reduced to 75,000 and (probably) bunkerage as well. Anyway - it is in that configuration the range was 4000 nm - not earlier.

el cid again -> RE: Level 5.54 and 6.54 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:38:17 PM)
One more time: This micro is the same as the last two: It INCLUDES and REPLACES previous micro updates since 5.50. This one corrects range on a few sub classes of old cruisers and it corrects pointers for USN Seabee units in 3 of the 10 scenarios (the others were OK). Uploading now.

Dili -> RE: Level 5.53 and 6.53 micro updates (1/9/2007 5:43:52 PM)
quote: Actually - there is only a single 4th Fleet unit at Truk - 4th Fleet HQ - and it is not static. Since Truk really is SE Fleet area - it may be best to revert to calling it that. THEN you will see the base and static units all of the same command - and they may do better AI wise. But that means AI will NOT "know" that Truck is the logistic root of 4th Fleet area - and who knows where it will draw from? And no - it isn't enough to have the HQ to get units there. We have a 4th Fleet HQ at Truk Okay seems that i am not being understood so will revert to a simple question: Why IJN Truk Base Fortress ; IJN Truk SGNF; IJN Truk NGF and IJN Truk AA Rgt arent 4th Fleet units since Truk is a 4th Fleet base? quote: On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side). Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that. I can see your point but to make a judgement i need to know the game routines concerning side firing. If it changes sides when torpedoes are depleted that would be unfair for allies. Also if the Japanese gamer uses all it's torpedoes it is an increase of 25% from what existed in reality! quote: On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.htm also Combined Fleet and Profile Morskie state that Kageros didnt have High Angle mounts. What the Takhishi Hara "solution" had to do with High Angle mounts? You can shot against skip bombing with every naval gun a ship had. Putting a real DP gun in them changes the whole thing. quote: It is hard to know - and I have been collecting statistics - but tentatively I think ALL AAA is GROSSLY undervalued in WITP. USAAF recorded AAA was the primary cause of damage and loss due to enemy action. That depends on war period. From every mission/attack i remember i never saw outrageous casualities except the Devastators at Midway and they were mainly prey of Zeros and not of AA. Yamato attack didnt showed many kills from Japanese AA same for many others like Bismark Sea. quote: What makes a ship a Shimikaze is indeed its fine guns. And the 100 mm guns of Shimakaze are fabulous Mixup. You are talking about Akitzukis not the Shimakaze. quote: Two scenarios have ship eratta not covered by 5.51 or 5.52 - CVO and RAO. Does that means that is the reason i am not seeing Shinshu Maru yet? quote: Well - in the broad scheme of things they are truly minor. For the many tiny things that are changed, half the number of torpedo tubes and a diferent DP suite are indeed an important change IMO.

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

7.718994