RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (Full Version)

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



Message

Bliztk -> RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (1/11/2007 12:25:50 AM)

I cannot reproduce it.

You have to run with 1.804, maybe unistalling WITP and doing a fresh install solves it.



drw61 -> RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (1/11/2007 12:48:01 AM)


RHSBBO and CVO 5.5
This is probably already a known issue, but the following ship weapon slots are now coming up as radars in the ship class menu:

172 (New York) Wpn slot 3
1205 (North Carolina) Wpn slot 1
1206 Wpn slot 1
1208 Wpn slot 3
1222 Wpn slot 1
1308 Wpn slot 1
1405 Wpn slot 1
1410 Wpn slot 2
1622 Wpn slot 8
1626 Wpn slot 2
1634 Wpn slot 2
1636 Wpn slot 3
1637 Wpn slot 7
1654 Wpn slot 5



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (1/11/2007 1:49:42 AM)

I saw some like that - but they are fixed.

I will fix these - and correct - in plus 9 hours. WOrking now.



el cid again -> RE: RHS update plan (1/11/2007 6:55:56 AM)

I fixed the listed errors for ship classes for RHSBBO - and issued it as 6.552 - because I had a request for BBO - and too little time to do more.

This update - and the next of course - also have the PBJ as "carrier capable"

It also addes 6 battalions to the Indian Army (called "rgt") - division or corps troops - not local forces - and renames 4 others ]

I plan to add an ancient Soviet giant transport (ANT-6) and a squadron using it in Central Asia - and to put the regiment of Li-2/DC-3 at Vladivostok back to the correct date of appearence - but the art for the plane will be wrong - it will be LB-30 art - until Cobra gets it right. That means there will need to be a microupdate to fix the art pointer later.

I am going to issue a comprehensive update to fix all identified isses. We are NOT having data washing done yet - unfortunately - so we are on our own - but I will fix all identified problems. About plus six hours. [Working still]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: RHS update plan (1/11/2007 1:22:38 PM)

Bliztk, you fixed the problem, thanks a lot [&o] I was not using the patch 1.804 (but the 1.801). I did want to keep the "named pilots" feature, so I avoided 1.804. Yes, I know the "named pilots" toy does not work, since all the pilots will disappear on the next turn (in fact, on the same turn if you use that tool). I just forgot to download the new patch. I was being cautious as well: I think I read somewhere there were some problems with this new patch. Good to know you must have it. Yes or yes.

Thanks again [:)]



el cid again -> RE: RHS 6.554 uploading (1/12/2007 12:09:44 AM)

I reviewed BBO 6.553 when not tired - and found a few missed ship class/ship updates.

Meanwhile Cobra did art for the ANT-6 - so we had to reissue to get the pointer right.

I then applied all the updates to all Level 6 scenarios - and am uploading now.

You MUST use RHS plane art level 7.02 with this file set - OR if you look at the ANT-6 it will crash (new art slot -
a call to an empty slot is a guaranteed crash - Matrix gave modders 4 more plane art slots).



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.554 and 6.554 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/12/2007 12:59:30 AM)

Now for EOS.

If we ID the Doolittle squadron I will put that in x.555 - along with any eratta.

No other plans to change things.

I hope we can utility wash these files and get to x.60



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS 5.554 and 6.554 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/12/2007 11:35:55 AM)

CVO 5.51:
- class 635 (PG Ratanakosindra) and 636 (PG Sri Ayuthaya) upgrades to class 1551 PG Soemba. Both classes are lacking their small 40mm and 20mm guns. They should be made CL and CA respectively (you are making AMCs as CLs, and minelayers - so they also deserve as being cruisers).




Dili -> RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (1/12/2007 11:46:56 AM)

quote:

Instead of 50% too much, it is 33% too little - and THAT is a big deal (either way).


Your evidence is?


It's for me clear that no serious work was made on CLs; right now most still have the 36kt from begin of career and  when they had 5500t instead of 7000t and 32kt  of end of 30's ; still without 25mm guns. In RHS almost identical ships with 1580-1645 t fuel and 6000nm range and  1260t fuel  and still the same 6000nm ...  And Kitakami /Oi came in RHSCVO with a Type11/12/13 set in 1941.




Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (1/12/2007 11:59:34 AM)

- class 172 (BB New York) wpn slot 3: 356mm guns replaced with radar.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.554 and 6.554 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 12:31:23 AM)

In terms of mission simulation, reclassification is justified. It is better simulation to classify them as CA and CL.

Neither Janes nor Conways lists any smaller AA guns on Ratanakosindra - and I did not see any in the 1960s. What data do you have? Both list 4 single 40mm and no 20mm on the bigger 8 inch gunboats - which I elect to classify as = to 2 pounders (rather than Bofors) - since they were built in Japan. These would really be copies of the Vickers.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.55 and 6.55 Comprehensive REUPLOAD packages (1/13/2007 12:34:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

- class 172 (BB New York) wpn slot 3: 356mm guns replaced with radar.


This was fixed in x.554

I checked and it is fixed. If it isn't - you haven't got x.554 files in fact.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 1:46:38 AM)

This mainly does the B-25 thing and only in EOS - so that is not available for release - but will be this weekend.

However, it modifies Soviet naval air forces and Thai gunboats - and probably some other tiny thing.

It is only a microupdate - only ship and plane related files - one for each level (all scenarios in a batch)

No EOS



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 1:15:57 PM)

probable error

Kashima Shotai converting to E13A1 Jake aboard LST-910
Hosho Atk Chutai converting to B5M/B5N Kate aboard LST-736
Nagato Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-779
Mutsu Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-780
Fuso Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-798
Yamashiro Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-799
Maya-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-806
Chokai-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-807
Ashigara-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-880



TulliusDetritus -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 1:42:56 PM)

CVO 6.55

Auckland does not have "Base Force" or "Fortress unit". Weeks ago, I reported it was in the middle of the Ocean (its correct place in Level 7, you said).

You "fixed" that problem but you placed the Auckland unit (the 9th Hvy CD Fortress) in Christchurch.



keeferon01 -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 7:18:03 PM)

I am playing SO64 V6.554 1st Turn and I am noticing lots of Chinese and Philippines units mixed in with my Japanese units , I have no Base Force at Kwajalein, also have Peng Hu Fortress in Bako with Type 22 radar is that correct?



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 7:41:33 PM)

LCU 2604 indeed belongs in Auckland location 774



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 7:45:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

I am playing SO64 V6.554 1st Turn and I am noticing lots of Chinese and Philippines units mixed in with my Japanese units , I have no Base Force at Kwajalein, also have Peng Hu Fortress in Bako with Type 22 radar is that correct?


Peng Hu is a Japanese mispronunciation of the Chinese name for the Pescadores - themselves a Spanish mispronounciation of the same Chinese name! In all languages the name means "fisherman" - after what the people who live there do. It is correct - except a Type 22 radar should not exist yet.

Chinese and Philippines are classifications for who composes the units. Ethnic Chinese and Korean units are classified as "Chinese" - with the exception of one that is ethnic Russian classified as "USSR" - an elite Caucasian unit. Units made of ethnic Malay, Filipino, Indonesian peoples are usually classified as "Philippines." These classifications invoke code modifiers different than Japanese ones.

While I created the missing Kwajalein Base Force - I failed to put it in Kwajalein - it is up in the Japanese islands near Formosa!



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.555 and 6.555 uploaded (Sans EOS) (1/13/2007 7:48:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

probable error

Kashima Shotai converting to E13A1 Jake aboard LST-910
Hosho Atk Chutai converting to B5M/B5N Kate aboard LST-736
Nagato Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-779
Mutsu Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-780
Fuso Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-798
Yamashiro Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-799
Maya-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-806
Chokai-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-807
Ashigara-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-880


This makes no sense - and indicates some sort of file corruption. Not a single one of these units is aboard any of those ships - at source.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS plan (1/13/2007 7:50:39 PM)

Working on EOS I found a few location file errors - mainly locations (!) and command assignments. These - and reported eratta - will be folded into an update later today. It appears that EOS will release tomorrow.



keeferon01 -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS plan (1/13/2007 8:06:28 PM)

quote:

Peng Hu is a Japanese mispronunciation of the Chinese name for the Pescadores - themselves a Spanish mispronounciation of the same Chinese name! In all languages the name means "fisherman" - after what the people who live there do. It is correct




you learn something every day, thanks



Dili -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS plan (1/13/2007 8:30:38 PM)

quote:

themselves a Spanish mispronounciation of the same Chinese name.
  Portuguese not Spanish like Formosa it's Portuguese for graceful.

quote:

This makes no sense - and indicates some sort of file corruption. Not a single one of these units is aboard any of those ships - at source.  


It's what it says in the report for V1.804 CVO Japanese side after first turn (auto update turned on). 



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS plan (1/14/2007 12:39:03 AM)

What version are you running? That is, Level 5 or 6? RHS Revision x.55?

And send me an address so I can send files direct to you.

trevethans@aol.com



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 12:52:04 AM)

I am uploading the x.556 package to the primary distribution list. I will send it to anyone else who wants it when I return for lunch in 5 hours - or for my days off in 10 hours. Cobra seems not to be posting today/yesterday.
I will also send a version of EOS for comments to anyone who wants it. It is only suitable for human use - not for
AI play at the moment. I expect to issue it tomorrow - and will call everything x.60 probably.

The big change in EOS at the moment is a revised command area feature - Burma Area Army is renamed Southwest Area Army. North China Expeditionary Army is renamed Southern Expeditionary Army. SE Asia is under SWAA.

A significant change in EOS is reduction of supply points in Japan, China, Kwangtung Area Army in favor of forward bases - to facilitate operations. [All of them had to be moved of course]. The deck is reshuffeled naval wise - ships are essentially traded into a somewhat more rational formation list - and this is the main thing not completed. I have trouble with loadings of units on ships - and while humans can suppliment that - AI cannot.

Non EOS x.556 only addresses eratta found while doing EOS or reported on the board.

I have run x.556 to January 25 with no evidence of file corruption or crashes at source. Dili is having trouble with about 9 air units appearing on Allied LSTs - no clue why?

I sent this as a microupdate INCLUDING 555 - aircraft, ship and location files only.

The ANT-6 is BOTH a bomber and a transport. There is a house rule you MUST use it at a large airfield (mechanics won't force you to)! The transport is an unarmed squadron - but the mine-torpedo unit is armed - with torpedoes - and as a 4E plane - maybe also with mines after a certain date.




Dili -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 1:21:08 AM)

5.554 RHSCVO



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 1:30:21 AM)

I will send you a direct copy comprehensive. Assuming I have an address that works.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 12:09:15 PM)

RAO (now I don't know which wersion - for sure with 5.556 microupdate) - possibly others too.

Airgroup 1105: minor error with airgroup name: STOF AirFlot 34 PBAP, PB = dive bomber. This unit was actually 34 BBAP, BB = fast bomber. Everything other remains the same. Note that 33 PBAP is correct.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 2:45:12 PM)

This appears to be correct. That is, I confirm that the aircraft assigned makes BBOP the proper name.
It appears to be wrong in the source OB listings. It is possible the name changes - or didn't change when the aircraft did (which sometimes happened in Soviet air units). Still - I like having names be meaningful - to help players know what is what? So since that is the SOP convention for a Russian designation I will use this - from whatever point I get the files back - and in EOS right now. It is incorrect (if incorrect it is) in all scenarios. I like our effort to use the various names in something close to a correct form - and no one is better at spotting name issues in the Russian than Monter. Thanks.

I assume the 17 BAP (also STOF = Northern Pacific Ocean Fleet Air Flotilla) should be a BBAP - since it has the same bomber.

FYI the Ki-48 was inspired by this Russian bomber - which was difficult to intercept at Nomanhan.

Also FYI it was my intention - once I had a bomber version of the ANT-6 available - to set the 4th MTAP to game start. I don't know WHEN it went to the Far East - but there are NO real naval bomber units there until 1945 - and I bet that isn't correct. The more complete OB listings are for 1945 - so if you have more specific information - I am interested. But look for slot 1113 to set to date = 0 (game start) in some future release - and in EOS.

I am having some trouble with the ANT-6 upgrading to Tu-4s in its transport form! Working on it.
Hmmm - seems code does what you tell it to do! I hate that - when I tell it wrongly.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 2:52:53 PM)

Well i am insisting about that because it's a unique name - I never heard about another example of PBAP or BBAP - just regular BAPs.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading (1/14/2007 2:58:58 PM)

It appears to be a naval usage thing. It is not clear if it is official or just what is said? But I do note one sees the same bomber in other air forces as just BAP. The PBAP is listed in most OBs - but again - only in the Naval section - not in other air forces - for the same plane. I like it - insofar as it helps players know what the unit is? But I don't see any BBAP at all - just PBAP and BAP - so perhaps one is right and the other not? I thought YOU were telling me it is BBAP actually. It certainly could be.

I DO see PBAP in the other air force - see 83rd Division.

Do we know when IL-4 appears in Far East theater? I am showing in Long Range Air Force in July 1943 - but that probably means it appeared before that. Do we know? I must set a date so the ANT-6 group won't upgrade too soon.

I only see two regiments (442nd & 443rd) in 55th Air Division (DBAP) - Long Range Air Force. Was there a third? If so, have we an ID for it? A date of entry and a location?



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.467773