RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution

RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (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: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (3/15/2007 1:34:29 AM)
Cobra sent me a set of Level 6 pwhex files. They are identical in date stamp with my own - but his work and mine do not. IF you got your pwhex of the latest version (Level 6 ONLY) from me directly - or if you have any problem with Level 6 pwhex files - I have reissued the set to my direct distribution list. Use the version Cobra has - and which are on his download links - or the new set from me - or ask me for a copy. I cannot explain what happened - but things like this do happen. Presumably something went wrong at my end on my primary system.

m10bob -> RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (3/15/2007 2:01:02 AM)
Thank you for watching over our shoulders on this..FWIW, I have apparently kept most of the files, if needed..(Went thru a huge folder of all WITP data,mods,etc..)

CobraAus -> RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (3/15/2007 2:14:55 AM)
if anyone is after a working version of v6.642 PWHEX files its avail on RHS web site note current version is v6.655 Cobra Aus

Herrbear -> RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (3/15/2007 7:03:52 AM)
"It converts all IJN sub chasers to two ship units, and US Admirable class MS to two ship units. A few more Admirable's are added in 1945 - including one not on any WITP list but lost in action. " Sid-- By putting the IJN sub chasers into two ship units, won't that cut their detection ablility to find a sub by 1/2?. I am assuming that for each unit, the code would have each unit search for a sub. By combining them, you now have two units with the ability of one before. Same applies to combining the MSWs. Not to say that putting them into two ship units is not the correct way to go, but only thinking that the computer will see only one unit searching.

CobraAus -> RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (3/15/2007 10:54:26 AM)
I don't know whats happing here but Sid network is down but through E-mail he said that v5 and 6.642 PWHEX files still crash the game to desktop and he will produce a Vx.643 today tomorrow whats throwing me out is that I have the current PWHEX as standing at vx.655 anyhow if anyone needs vx.641 they are avail at the RHS web site only Send Space is down for maintenance Cobra Aus

el cid again -> RE: RHS pwhex issues revisited (3/15/2007 11:27:17 AM)
For a comprehensive discussion of what went wrong, why it went wrong, why it was not detected, and how to get it right - see the new pwhex thread.

el cid again -> RE: RHS Level 6 pwhex issue and solution (3/15/2007 11:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear "It converts all IJN sub chasers to two ship units, and US Admirable class MS to two ship units. A few more Admirable's are added in 1945 - including one not on any WITP list but lost in action. " Sid-- By putting the IJN sub chasers into two ship units, won't that cut their detection ablility to find a sub by 1/2?. I am assuming that for each unit, the code would have each unit search for a sub. By combining them, you now have two units with the ability of one before. Same applies to combining the MSWs. Not to say that putting them into two ship units is not the correct way to go, but only thinking that the computer will see only one unit searching. Outstanding analysis. Wholly correct. But consider this: IF a sub chaser attacks with DC it MUST lose contact. IF ANOTHER sub chaser is present - it will be able to regain contact much faster. It also will not be masked by self noise during the run (before detonation) - and may be able to tell how the submarine has maneuvered. [Up doppler? He is moving toward us. Down doppler? He is moving away from us. Right or left bearing drift? He is evading to right or left, respectively.] So in a sense, it takes approximately two ASW vessels to maintain one full time tracking picture - the optimum case. A single vessel alone is at a significant disadvantage and almost always fails to successfully prosecute the target. I took this a step farther: the two ship units only attack with a SINGLE ship salvo - but get twice as many attacks as a single ship does. They alternate which ship attacks - and prosecute the target longer before running out of ASW ordnance. This is basic ASW doctrine - prosecute longer and the chance of success goes up. Right now All Japanese and Russian PC are in two vessel units. Eventually every PC unit will be. I probably should do DE as well. For minesweepers, there is more involved. But start with the fact that MS are also ASW escorts, and have sonar, and have the same detection/prosecution issues PCs do. So when they act as escorts, the will be better modeled if they are two ship units. But add to that the way minesweepers work: a "sweep" is a cable towed by TWO minesweepers. [The French term is literally "wire dragger"]. There are other ways a MS can work - by the end of WWII "advances in Japanese mine technology led to what would be called minehunters today." But it has NEVER been done successfully! The CURRENT (modern era) US mine hunter program is a technical failure - and there is NO replacement program - since we have no idea how to do this right? The few operational experiences we have had indicate both our MS helos and minehunters are not up to the challenge posed by mines. Since the main thing that works vs WWII era mines is the sweep - I am using that as the basic model. But there is a third way: divers can disarm mines manually. They don't need to operate from minesweepers at all - but I see no way to model them except to say our mine specialist divers operate from MS. Either way - sweeping or fielding divers - is very slow - much harder than WITP code says it is - and cutting the number of MS in half is NOT NEARLY enough of a move to make things realistic. Right now all Japanese and Soviet MS are in pairs, and the first class of US MS is - a class that also specifically doubled as PCs (some were even classified as PC or PCE). Eventually all MS and MSE will be. FYI WITP hard code seems to have three levels of ASW detection effectiveness: DEs are best, DDs are second best, and PCs are third best. There might also be a fourth level- everything else. It is also clear that - whatever you sail - being Japanese is less effective than being Allied. And in stock and CHS they go one step farther - there are no Japanese DEs at all - not even the real Japanese DEs! In RHS we have classified Japanese DEs as DEs. Similarly, DDEs are DEs. But TBs are classified as DD - not as good as a DE even if of similar size. [WITP does not have a way to say TB - or small DD - but small DD are always defined as DD.] Similarly, DL are defined as DD - not as good as a DE.

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 12:53:37 AM)
There are some minor and medium technical eratta: Nemo found a plane that should be classified as a level bomber, but isn't. I found some ship art pointers for PC or MS that should be repointed - and Cobra has redone some minor vessel ship art. There are some towns that should relocate or resize or rename or some combination in Celebes and the Eastern DEI - reflecting period maps better. [I like things to look like the US Army official Atlas maps in particular, otherwise like Indonesian maps show] As with many colonial places, the infrastructure and economy was understated - and of course they were colonies because it was profitable to exploit them - so we are making it more that way. We had undeveloped sites that were actual cities! I combined the 5 platoons of 2/1 Independent company into one element - but looks like we can add several others (from 2/3 on looks like - 2/2 being part of another unit) This and some stuff to trivial to remember will issue tomorrow. [e.g. I took out a French DD type which never served in PTO but is in all our data sets - since stock - for reasons unclear - and that gives us an art bitmap too] Pwhex needs rework - and will be a day or two in process. It is two levels out. And I now require exhaustive testing before release using a new and more time consuming procedure. So there will be a comprehensive update - with pwhex files - called x.657 - possibly tomorrow - or the pwhex may follow by a day. There probably will be a ship art update associated with it. This will be frozen again - I saved some of this stuff until we had a significant issue. I will continue to do that - not update because I know of something - just when we must. Hopefully we won't have to for a while. None of this stuff should matter enough to stop an ongoing game. It amounts to enhancements - except possibly if you cannot get a game to run due to a pwhex issue. And pwhex is not related to any version - any game will run with any pwhex. There is some question about wether the latest pwhex might not be working? Still investigating.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 3:09:26 AM)
When we are with minesweepers - anyone has a source showing USN old WWI Lapwing class MSW with DC's? I my books, and on sites I visit I always see them without ASW capability - but in every mod here they actually carry DC's...

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 1:03:50 PM)
It is more complicated than one might think: ASW armament and detection systems were long considered secrets; naval references began for gamers were not very interested in things not useful in surface battles; you can mount DC chutes on anything - and we did just that on PT boats - but you don't get a PC that way; MOST minesweepers on both sides ended up doing escort duty - and if that included some anti-aircraft and anti-surface roles - it was mainly an ASW thing. These vessels were very suitable - often more suitable than PCs were - due to their practical speed in a seaway and seakeeping qualities - when they were not identical (see the Admirable class - which has PCE and MSE variations). There are technical matters - does the vessel have hydrophones or active sonar? If so - what counts? I saw an amazing "sonar" that was entirely mechanical - in the late 1960s: a drum head beat with a mallet was the "transmitter" and a simplified hydrophone hooked to a sort of stethiscope with a mechanical wheel for bearing training was the "receiver". This worked - if worked is the proper word for something of very limited range in mild sea states. History says that the very first "active sonar" was hammers beating on the hull side (during WWI) - timing echos with a stopwatch! Using such crude instruments with skill and determination is actually MORE effective than using the most complex and sophisticated gear incompetently or lacidasically. Training and attitude matter MORE than the technical side of detection IMHO - strongly supported by historical evidence. Instructors at a San Diego school I knew said that nuclear ASROC was useless: if you could solve the detection/fire control problem, you didn't need it; if you could NOT solve the detection/fire control problem - you couldn't use it anyway. ASW is like land combat the way British advisors teach it: focus on mastering (repeat mastering) fundamentals. Only writ larger than in land combat. ASW is unforgiving to those who have not mastered the fundamentals. It is hard. Make that very hard. The real reason a dedicated ASW ship is more effective is mainly that its people think about and practice ASW all the time - the thing that you must to in order to have minimum skills. A ship where this is a secondary mission is usually a LOT worse - regardless of weapons or sensors - and regardless of era. RN is the NATO ASW specialist. Anyone who worked with them on ASW would tell you they were several times better at it than USN was. Yet in 1982 they failed to localize and successfully engage a single enemy submarine (although one that could not submerge was successfully engaged on the surface). That enemy submarine was able to detect, localize, close and attack its primary targets (aircraft carriers) twice - once wholly undetected - once ineffectively detected by the best ASW units in the world. [Its torpedoes failed on both occasions.] Almost every piece of ASW ordnance in RN was expended - about 200 attacks - all but one of which were not engaging a real submarine at all - and the one exception failing to damage the sub. Real world ASW statistics are dismal: the average ship never ever detects a submarine; the average ship that does detect a submarine never attacks it; the average ship that attacks a submarine never damages it; the average ship that damages a submarine never sinks it. Yet statistical averages (beloved of gamers) are wholly misleading: a skilled ASW ship will win almost every time. USS England sank six subs in a few days - albiet she had help - she got the credit EVEN WHEN she was NOT supposed to be the engaging ship! Anything went wrong - England was there - and cleaned up anyway. What we need to know is to what extent a class was able to do ASW - really trained for it - and was actually used in that role? Much more complicated questions. I have removed whole classes of Japanese trawlers armed with one MMG and 2 DC - these are not sub hunters IMHO.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 1:14:53 PM)
Thanks Sid for that essay. Now back to my question - Has anybody a source showing USN old WWI Lapwing class MSW (AND ONLY LAPWING CLASS MSW) with DC's? I my books, and on sites I visit I always see them without ASW capability - but in every mod here they actually carry DC's...

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 1:29:18 PM)
There were 49 Lapwing class MS built. [57 authorized, 54 begun, 5 cancelled] Designed to be dual MS/tugs. Armed only with 2 three inch guns and 2 MMG - this is the armament given by the Bird class in our game data sets. These served as minesweepers, lightships, tugs, submarine rescue vessels and seaplane tenders. And IRL some actually served as gunboats - without being officially classified as such. Not one was ever armed to hunt submarines nor operationally employed in such a role. IMHO that means they should not be given an ASW capability in a game system. However - they could have been so employed. These were very versitile vessels - they could embark a seaplane - and would have been formidable ASW platforms if someone worked up a ship and crew for that purpose. A speculative game might make that an option. By WWII - IRL - these vessels were not generally regarded as MS any more. There is no Lapwing class as such in stock, CHS or RHS. If this is the Bird class, it is shown with 1 DC rack and 9 "shots" - which might be more than 1 DC per shot. That is a very minimal ASW capability. Since they are not classified as DE, DD or PC, they will have poor detection ratings as well. Even so, I see no justification for retaining the DC armament - and it will not appear in RHS x.657 18 vessels are listed in CHS and RHS - of which 12 are no problem = 6 each at Manila and Pearl Harbor serving as MS - we can reclassify these into 2 ship units without an issue. 4 others should "disappear" - serving as tugs which we do not show in WITP: Kingfisher at Pago Pago, Oriole at Dutch Harbor, Robin at Johnston Island and Seagull at Lahiana. Alternatively, we could classify them as gunboats - a role this class was successfully able to perform during the war. 1 was an AVP - Pelecan @ San Francisco - a sub class we could easily define. 1 was at Guam - and it accomplished nothing. Perhaps we could also classify it as a PG without harm. Endurance values are (as usual) wrong: should be 6850 nm at 8 knots. Speed might be dropped to 13 - but as they could do 13.5 they might just make the given 14 at flank.

drw61 -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 3:36:28 PM)
Noticed that the IJA 1st Nanyo Rgt to the 5th Nanyo Rgt (slots 1626 to 1630) all have delay set to 460115. Should they be set to arrive in 43? Thanks

m10bob -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 3:40:22 PM)
I have yet to see a single auto-convoy originate from the South Atlantic base..I have intentionally sent more AK's and tankers there, trying to determine if it might be related to number of ships available.(A larger "target" might be easier for the auto-convoy "AI" to "see"?? If indeed auto-convoy point of origination can be created, why not create them at certain river cities, (in a smaller way,of course), like maybe Chung King? BTW, what I read about those "Independent companies" in coastwatcher memoirs I re-read lately, led me to believe the one in Guadalcanal was not especially trained as an offensive military unit, as much as a guerilla warfare unit. They did not oppose the initial Japanese landings, but "retreated hurriedly" into the jungle, and apparently laid low to begin a semblance of hinderance activities later, till evacuated. If I have this wrong, I can re-read the passages I refer to. (It was either in LONELY VIGIL by Walter Lord, or COASTWATCHERS by Eric Feldt.....) Both are excellent accounts of an important group of men and women.

Nemo121 -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 7:15:33 PM)
Sid, A couple of questions/comments/request for clarification: 1. It stands to reason that if a couple of PCs or SC are lumped together as a single unit then a single enemy munition could destroy the entire group. E.g. if a Betty manages to drop a torpedo which hits one of the two-PC groups then wouldn't both PCs be considered to have been sunk by that single torpedo? 2. Have you changed the durability of the ship units to account for the fact that you are lumping two ships together betimes? 3. I suggest that you do not lump DEs into two-ship units as by war's end Japan will be forced to rely on DEs etc in surface combat and AAA roles and I'm not convinced that the two-ship TFs won't unbalance surface combat results.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/16/2007 11:46:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Not one was ever armed to hunt submarines nor operationally employed in such a role. Thanks. I agree that their DC's should be deleted immediatedly. quote: 18 vessels are listed in CHS and RHS - of which 12 are no problem = 6 each at Manila and Pearl Harbor serving as MS - we can reclassify these into 2 ship units without an issue. 4 others should "disappear" - serving as tugs which we do not show in WITP: Kingfisher at Pago Pago, Oriole at Dutch Harbor, Robin at Johnston Island and Seagull at Lahiana. Alternatively, we could classify them as gunboats - a role this class was successfully able to perform during the war. You told us you that status on 7 Dec 41 is most important. I have info that reclassification to tugs were on June 42. So these ships should be retained as MSW. But if you chose otherwise, 11 ships (not 4) should be made PG's, as they all were made tugs on June 42: Bobolink, Grebe, Kingfisher, Oriole, Rail, Robin, Seagull, Tern, Turkey, Virero, Woodcock.

el cid again -> RE: RHS non critical x.657 uploaded (3/17/2007 1:45:09 AM)
Changes outlined above folded in and Level 6 uploaded already. Level 5 follows in plus 5 hours - must go to work. THis will sync with x.657 pwhex not yet released - and 6.657 economic utility also uploaded already. It is not important to have the new pwhex file to run this update - but Celebes at last has all its towns - and Borneo is better.

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 1:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Not one was ever armed to hunt submarines nor operationally employed in such a role. Thanks. I agree that their DC's should be deleted immediatedly. quote: 18 vessels are listed in CHS and RHS - of which 12 are no problem = 6 each at Manila and Pearl Harbor serving as MS - we can reclassify these into 2 ship units without an issue. 4 others should "disappear" - serving as tugs which we do not show in WITP: Kingfisher at Pago Pago, Oriole at Dutch Harbor, Robin at Johnston Island and Seagull at Lahiana. Alternatively, we could classify them as gunboats - a role this class was successfully able to perform during the war. You told us you that status on 7 Dec 41 is most important. I have info that reclassification to tugs were on June 42. So these ships should be retained as MSW. But if you chose otherwise, 11 ships (not 4) should be made PG's, as they all were made tugs on June 42: Bobolink, Grebe, Kingfisher, Oriole, Rail, Robin, Seagull, Tern, Turkey, Virero, Woodcock. They were reclassified to tugs in 1922 - and to "old tugs" in 1942.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 2:55:21 AM)
Definely not Kingfisher - from DANFS: quote: Assigned to the Train Force, Pacific Fleet, Kingfisher departed Hampton Roads, Va., 9 August 1920 for the West Coast. Arriving San Diego 3 October, she began duty as a fleet tug and minesweeper. Over the next 19 years fleet maneuvers and supply, towing, and minesweeping operations sent her to the East Coast, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Canal Zone, and Hawaii. During the summers of 1933, 1934, and 1935 she supplied naval ships and bases in Alaskan waters for the Aleutian Islands Survey Expedition. Departing San Diego 4 October 1939, she sailed to Pearl Harbor for duty with the Base Force, Hawaiian Detachment. Arriving 19 October, she towed target rafts and conducted gunnery and minesweeping exercises until sailing for Samoa 26 October 1941. Kingfisher reached Tutuila 5 November and was on station duty 7 December when hearing of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Oriole - there is not any info in DANFS about any reclassification. Robin: quote: On 7 December 1941 Robin was en route to Hawaii from Johnston Island. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on the 10th and until the end of February 1942 served as a salvage and minesweeping vessel. Only Seagull started the war as not-MSW. I hope you didn't overreacted and did not delete ships which clearly should be in game.

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:19:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drw61 Noticed that the IJA 1st Nanyo Rgt to the 5th Nanyo Rgt (slots 1626 to 1630) all have delay set to 460115.� Should they be set to arrive in 43? Thanks Regretfully - you are correct for Level 6. Levels 5 and 7 are right. I have no clue how this could be wrong in all six Level 6 scenarios? But they are. I also overlooked working with the new Aussie Independent Company data - so I will abort x.657 and go directly to x.658 with these two changes. It won't take much to do that - I don't intend to change things for some time - and who wants either of these to be wrong? See the Independent Company thread for details of my conclusions - which I just figured out.

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob I have yet to see a single auto-convoy originate from the South Atlantic base..I have intentionally sent more AK's and tankers there, trying to determine if it might be related to number of ships available.(A larger "target" might be easier for the auto-convoy "AI" to "see"?? If indeed auto-convoy point of origination can be created, why not create them at certain river cities, (in a smaller way,of course), like maybe Chung King? BTW, what I read about those "Independent companies" in coastwatcher memoirs I re-read lately, led me to believe the one in Guadalcanal was not especially trained as an offensive military unit, as much as a guerilla warfare unit. They did not oppose the initial Japanese landings, but "retreated hurriedly" into the jungle, and apparently laid low to begin a semblance of hinderance activities later, till evacuated. If I have this wrong, I can re-read the passages I refer to. (It was either in LONELY VIGIL by Walter Lord, or COASTWATCHERS by Eric Feldt.....) Both are excellent accounts of an important group of men and women. When you face a major enemy (compared to you) you should not offer battle. I did that once - faced a battalion with a squad - but it was a very special case - and I don't recommend it. [Also - I cheated - and had an Allied squad of militia in support]. Information is the main thing a small unit can contribute - and that is very worth doing. For a long time auto convoys could not originate at Capetown or Stanley or South Atlantic Entry Point. PWHEx issues. Now they can. They seem to - later in the war. Why cannot you create a convoy where you want to?

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:34:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nemo121 Sid, A couple of questions/comments/request for clarification: 1. It stands to reason that if a couple of PCs or SC are lumped together as a single unit then a single enemy munition could destroy the entire group. E.g. if a Betty manages to drop a torpedo which hits one of the two-PC groups then wouldn't both PCs be considered to have been sunk by that single torpedo? REPLY: The two ship group has twice the durability of the single ship element. I review the durability value - decide what it is for one - then double it. Further - I put weapons in groups PER SHIP - so you never take out all the weapons with one hit - just all of that facing on one of the ships. 2. Have you changed the durability of the ship units to account for the fact that you are lumping two ships together betimes? REPLY: Yep 3. I suggest that you do not lump DEs into two-ship units as by war's end Japan will be forced to rely on DEs etc in surface combat and AAA roles and I'm not convinced that the two-ship TFs won't unbalance surface combat results. REPLY: I am not convinced that by war's end surface combat is a viable activity. Everyone on both sides in 1945 thought otherwise. I bet they were right. Since the main job of a DE is ASW - and since Japan will face the biggest sub campaign ever in 1945 - why should they not be configured for that mission?

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Not one was ever armed to hunt submarines nor operationally employed in such a role. Thanks. I agree that their DC's should be deleted immediatedly. quote: 18 vessels are listed in CHS and RHS - of which 12 are no problem = 6 each at Manila and Pearl Harbor serving as MS - we can reclassify these into 2 ship units without an issue. 4 others should "disappear" - serving as tugs which we do not show in WITP: Kingfisher at Pago Pago, Oriole at Dutch Harbor, Robin at Johnston Island and Seagull at Lahiana. Alternatively, we could classify them as gunboats - a role this class was successfully able to perform during the war. You told us you that status on 7 Dec 41 is most important. I have info that reclassification to tugs were on June 42. So these ships should be retained as MSW. But if you chose otherwise, 11 ships (not 4) should be made PG's, as they all were made tugs on June 42: Bobolink, Grebe, Kingfisher, Oriole, Rail, Robin, Seagull, Tern, Turkey, Virero, Woodcock. I looked up each ship record. There were 6 independently deployed - and I looked up each one. One was an AV - and we can do an AV - and it has a unique ability too - so I did it that way. [ It can CARRY a seaplane - but it loses its after gun ] Only one of the other 5 was nominally a MS - but it was not being used that way. It was being used as a sort of coast guard patrol vessel - to enforce maritime law and patrol the coast of Guam. The rest were all classified as tugs 20 years before - and RECLASSIFIED as "old tugs" in 1942. Some additional vessels were by then also rated as old tugs. Others were lost - hard to say what would have happened to them? Still others were given somewhat better AA - apprently the guns were unshiped in favor of 40mm and 20mm AAA. I cannot do more than one thing to any class slot - so I went that way - these vessels will upgrade their AA if you allow it- and remain MS. You end up with 12 MS (in 6 two ship units), 5 gunboats (PG) and 1 AV. It might be useful to get eyes out in some situation. If not - you can let it convert to a gunboat as well. I also corrected range and crusing speed for all.

CobraAus -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:46:31 PM)
quote: so I will abort x.657 and go directly to x.658 with these two changes. all the multi MSW ship art is now done and sent to you 5 min ago you might want to fold into Vx658 as well - changes to map art should also follow in 2 - 3 days Cobra Aus

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos Definely not Kingfisher - from DANFS: quote: Assigned to the Train Force, Pacific Fleet, Kingfisher departed Hampton Roads, Va., 9 August 1920 for the West Coast. Arriving San Diego 3 October, she began duty as a fleet tug and minesweeper. Over the next 19 years fleet maneuvers and supply, towing, and minesweeping operations sent her to the East Coast, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Canal Zone, and Hawaii. During the summers of 1933, 1934, and 1935 she supplied naval ships and bases in Alaskan waters for the Aleutian Islands Survey Expedition. Departing San Diego 4 October 1939, she sailed to Pearl Harbor for duty with the Base Force, Hawaiian Detachment. Arriving 19 October, she towed target rafts and conducted gunnery and minesweeping exercises until sailing for Samoa 26 October 1941. Kingfisher reached Tutuila 5 November and was on station duty 7 December when hearing of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Oriole - there is not any info in DANFS about any reclassification. Robin: quote: On 7 December 1941 Robin was en route to Hawaii from Johnston Island. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on the 10th and until the end of February 1942 served as a salvage and minesweeping vessel. Only Seagull started the war as not-MSW. I hope you didn't overreacted and did not delete ships which clearly should be in game. I obtained records from something called "The Splinter Fleet Association" - sailors of wooden MS and PC and such like - who feel their vessels records are somewhat slighted in the major publications available. I also have a technical problem: any single vessel cannot be a MS in RHS terms - because it cannot do a sweep. It takes two to tango as it were. [Now it can use paravanes - but so can any ship - and paravanes do not turn a ship into a minesweeper. My 10,000 ton APA had paravanes, but no one considered it to be a MSW!] I had two options for single vessels: take them out (they are so minor - and it frees a ship slot - this is a good idea) - or treat them as PG. Since they are usually in places where there is almost nothing else - I regarded that as a better idea. They can be "eyes" - and they can argue with merchants, raiders, or surfaced subs. More fun than nothing. Since a number of this class DID serve as PG - this preserves the "flavor" of the real history as well. Since the class was designed as dual function MS and tugs - classification may not mean much. They may all have been able to be sweepers. Even if the sweeps were removed (which I bet they were) - it would not be hard to put them back. Essentially, it is a question of "do you carry the sweeping cable? or not?" Slightly more complicated than that, but boiled down to the lowest level, that would be the difference. I consider the PG versions not to have embarked sweeps - and not to be able to sweep even if they were because there is no other vessel to take the other end of the sweep. In game terms, they cannot sweep because they are not in a pair, and lack the gear. And in compensation, they carry more ammunition, and can shoot longer - useful for a gunboat.

el cid again -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:54:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CobraAus quote: so I will abort x.657 and go directly to x.658 with these two changes. all the multi MSW ship art is now done and sent to you 5 min ago you might want to fold into Vx658 as well - changes to map art should also follow in 2 - 3 days Cobra Aus Do any of these change bitmap numbers? If not - they will not change any file - just dump in the art folder.

CobraAus -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 12:56:15 PM)
quote: Do any of these change bitmap numbers? only 1 its in the cover notes on the e-mail Cobra PS hard work has its rewards - took a break this afternoon and went to my club -in 5 mins I had won $2000 so came back home and back to work again

el cid again -> RE: RHS 6.658 and pwhex uploaded (3/17/2007 2:40:52 PM)
Level 6 files slightly modified to x.658 standards uploaded - these require a new art package from Cobra to safely run. They will show Allied MS in pairs - wether or not they really are in pairs. Over time all Allied MS will convert to pairs - as eventually will PC as well. Japanese (and Soviet) MS and PC already are. One day maybe we will do this for DEs and other MS vessels. Technically speaking, ships cannot sweep alone - only in pairs. I also have uploaded a copy of the 6.655 level pwhex file which works - so no changes are required. I will use this to make a full pwhex package tomorrow. [Thanks to Herrbear] We don't have a Level 5 copy that works yet later than 5.541. I also have uploaded an economic utility that is at 6.658 standard - reflecting changes in the Eastern DEI - and also correcting a technical issue that prevented all UK/CW statistics from totalling properly.

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 3:10:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I obtained records from something called "The Splinter Fleet Association" - sailors of wooden MS and PC and such like - who feel their vessels records are somewhat slighted in the major publications available. People who tries to remind things which happened 40 years ago are not a source at all. DANFS is a source. You seem to often use very doubtful information, which effects in weird things such as Uragan's in coast guard, Vnushitelny completed two years before it did histroically, etc. quote: Since the class was designed as dual function MS and tugs - classification may not mean much. They may all have been able to be sweepers. Even if the sweeps were removed (which I bet they were) - it would not be hard to put them back. Essentially, it is a question of "do you carry the sweeping cable? or not?" I showed you they were practicing minesweeping during that time. So we need a common logic: was this possible with sweeps removed? No it wasn't. They still had their sweeps.

m10bob -> RE: RHS update plans and ETAs (3/17/2007 3:44:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob I have yet to see a single auto-convoy originate from the South Atlantic base..I have intentionally sent more AK's and tankers there, trying to determine if it might be related to number of ships available.(A larger "target" might be easier for the auto-convoy "AI" to "see"?? If indeed auto-convoy point of origination can be created, why not create them at certain river cities, (in a smaller way,of course), like maybe Chung King? BTW, what I read about those "Independent companies" in coastwatcher memoirs I re-read lately, led me to believe the one in Guadalcanal was not especially trained as an offensive military unit, as much as a guerilla warfare unit. They did not oppose the initial Japanese landings, but "retreated hurriedly" into the jungle, and apparently laid low to begin a semblance of hinderance activities later, till evacuated. If I have this wrong, I can re-read the passages I refer to. (It was either in LONELY VIGIL by Walter Lord, or COASTWATCHERS by Eric Feldt.....) Both are excellent accounts of an important group of men and women. When you face a major enemy (compared to you) you should not offer battle. I did that once - faced a battalion with a squad - but it was a very special case - and I don't recommend it. [Also - I cheated - and had an Allied squad of militia in support]. Information is the main thing a small unit can contribute - and that is very worth doing. For a long time auto convoys could not originate at Capetown or Stanley or South Atlantic Entry Point. PWHEx issues. Now they can. They seem to - later in the war. Why cannot you create a convoy where you want to? In the game, enemy controlled area evolves into a large "lister bag" shape on the map..The major flaw with auto convoy(as stated) has been the friendly AI continually wants to plod right thru tthat enemy area,(with the expected results. Too, the pathway from Aden/Karachi to "refuel" at Pearl just makes no sense whatsoever as they just departed a major fuel dump, and with (what to me should be such a major error in-game for the auto convoy concept), maybe the auto-convoys should KNOW THEIR LIMITATIONS,(range-wise), and not venture into/beyond say, the middle third of the map,(that lister bag area)?? IMHO, the lanes you created for the South Atlantic areas might go a long way toward effecting a cure for this problem, especially when servicing the more southern points on the map. If this only effects 1/3 of the auto-convoy ships, it would be a vast improvement on that system. Of course we have the ability to create convoys anywhere we wish,(manually), but this defeats the idea I am addressing. Why was Edison not content with candles?[:)] I cannot offer the cure, just ideas.. I really believe your added "areas of origination" might be part of that solution. I do not believe I am over-evaluating the concepts you have implemented to date. Andrew Brown showed us how a stock "area of origination" could be stretched, or moved,and you may be showing how it might be multiplied.

Page: << < prev 35 36 [37] 38 39 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.453125