RE: RHS 4.47 status report (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 4.47 status report (9/25/2006 1:13:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

It depends, for example if supply sinks are too hard to take, we can then divide it into more bases. But we still don´t know if they are too powerful.

Having an inherent defense value in the bases plus the supply sink itself, are the principal virtues of the concept.

We only need to refine it, and see if it works




This is correct: IF they are too hard to take - I will take additional steps to deal with them. Lets find out.



m10bob -> RE: RHS 4.47 status report (9/25/2006 1:23:07 AM)

As Sid continues to tinker with vanilla WITP and meet both players needs, historical concerns, AND critics,I have been one of the testers, for months and can testify that the Japanese AI has continually improved and is working on a different timetable than either vanilla or CHS(with and without the Nikmod)..
I can also testify the Japanese AI (in RHS) is attacking places it never ventured into before!!
I have been a supporter of CHS since its' inception, so do not feel I am denegrating anything here, I am simply stating fact.
I have seen some of Sids' findings already adopted and being discussed on these threads in a worthwhile manner, but it should not be over-looked that everytime somebody offers a mod of any kind, the self-appointed critics seem to flourish like rats to a stinkpile.
I don't mean critics who have been willing to test EVERY new improved addition as released, but the critics who have recently downloaded a couple of versions and have gone public with concerns, (as if this were a final product they had to PAY for, (which these mods are not)..
I have seen too many of my friends and acquaintances pack their bags because of some of the critics, and the gaming community ends up with an unfinished product.
It's not a matter of "being able to stand the heat in the kitchen", as much as it is people losing sight of the fact these ARE FREE, voluntary enhancements to the game with no tie to Matrix or ANY commercial concern whatsoever.
If you don't like the mod, just don't download it, don't play it, and especially don't ctitisize it, unless you are willing to report on it accurately AND have the intent to be one to see it thru to the end-for good or bad, but willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with it, and not "cut and run" as a matter of predetermined course.........[sm=00000924.gif]



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS 4.47 status report (9/25/2006 3:10:47 AM)

Well, I would consider myself a big fan of RHS... OTOH liking the mod doesn't preclude one from being able to assess its flaws and comment on them... I particularly reject any of the sort of balderdash which has been presented here in the last few hours which, at the very least, intimates that if one criticises something that one shouldn't play it or that trenchant criticism is incompatible with a reasonable assessment of the mod.


I think the mod is very good BUT if thinking it is good means that one can't criticise what are major flaws with great impact on the combat model then we truly have entered a depressing low. If that's what you guys want though then fine I'll shut my mouth and not comment on it again. I will point out, however, that I was the first person to spot this problem and the only person who seems to have modded RHS into 1944 ( albeit on a small scale) to act as a testbed. But fine, you want to create an atmosphere in which criticism is equivalent to ungratefulness then so be it.

I will say the following before I go though:

1. 1944 and 45 air combats.... Interestingly the tactic of using low-quality planes ( Ki-27s and 43s) to occupy the Allied CAP while bombers sneak past does work. In addition while most planes except the Shinden do very poorly the Shinden does very well against Corsairs. With equal experience the Shinden can match the Corsair even when outnumbered 1.5 to 1.

2. Torpedoes in the Me-264 and other planes which carry bombs and torps at the same time.... Query whether these work. I have run several thousand Me264 sorties and have yet to see a single torpedo launch. In addition when using them as kamikazes they tend not to penetrate armour belts in the same way as kamikaze G4Ms do. I wonder if the torpedo is actually being modelled as being carried even if it shows up as being carried?

3. Taking into account pilot replacement issues it looks like air parity can be maintained into mid-43 and then on a local basis into 44. It will definitely be lost from mid-44 to mid-45 though.

4. Even in 44 and 45 with 300 Corsairs on CAP over a CV TF it is possible to sneak planes into CV TFs.

5. High-altitude kami attacks over the altitude of most CAP is still possible. Fortunately the planes that do this don't tend to do much damage.

6. Rockets in the Stan... Don't seem to be used against naval targets at all. Is this correct? The cannon is deadly to DDs so I would expect the rockets to be used as well. Several thousand sorties of Stans done to test this. Nil rocket firings vs naval targets.


There's more but those are the biggies. Essentially though there can be parity until mid-43 and then local parity until mid-44. From mid-45 local parities will be possible again but only on a defensive basis for Japan.


quote:

I also suspect that even if we have a perfect solution, you are going to be upset that a major economic area is not able to be captured by a squad - a la stock.


Well, that's your erroneous fantasy and says more about you than it does about me ( as do most of our projections about others). The reality is I am happy so long as things perform historically. Now I don't know the Pacific War well compared to other theatres BUT I know that it did not require 5 divisions to take Toboali or 10 to take Kuala Lumpur in the absence of a single allied combat unit ( which is what it took in one of my test games in which ONLY the supply sinks remained in the bases in question).


quote:

Something must be wrong with my composition skills: Major elements should not be interpreted as "tiny units". 


Indeed. OTOH a single NLF is quite sufficient to the "siege" task in-game when facing a supply sink since a supply sink's offensive AV is usually almost zero, whilst its defensive AV is usually equivalent to several divisions. Quite a contrast.


quote:

One player at 4.46 level reports better behavior than ever seen before in important respects.


And so do I BUT that doesn't mean I'm going to turn around and blow smoke up your a*s and tell you everything smells wonderful. RHS is a MAJOR improvement over stock but that doesn't mean it is problem-free. Now if you and others involved in making it would prefer not to hear criticism ( which is intended to be constructive) and would, instead, prefer to just have a cheerleading team cheering about how wonderful you are then that's fine I'll cease and desist. If, on the other hand, you are committed to improving RHS even more then you should welcome constructive criticism.

Now I don't have 4.47 so if that solves this problem, brilliant. I DO have 4.46 and I can say conclusively that the problem is far from solved in that iteration. I also think that it bodes ill that you and others are focussing on firepower in your answers when it is clear that adjusted AV is more of a problem than firepower.


Question: When you took out production lines did you add the production you removed in one base to another base??? Otherwise those changes won't be production-neutral.


As re: PT boats... Hmm, I should have probably used the term torpedo boat. The Japs had a range of them in design and production for heading off the Allied fleets. Sure they would only show up in 44 and 45 and they would be slow and poorly armed compared to the Allies but they would be a threat worth honouring and a lot more useful than barges. You don't have to add it... I'm just asking if it is possible. If 4.47 doesn't properly address the supply/resource situation I may make a mini-mod myself and I would appreciate your insight as to whether the torpedo boat/barge thing is possible.


M10bob,
Criticism which reveals problems is valid. If you wish to ban criticism just so you and yours can feel good about what you've done then you're going to end up with an inferior product. Your stance is emotional and not based on what is and isn't, rationally, valid. Thus it is an inferior stance.

Complaining about errors or decisions which have had unintended, unrealistic side-effects ( unless of course you want to argue that historically Kuala Lumpur took 10 divisions to capture because of the resistance of tens of thousands of field hands???) is not ingratitude or invalidated by the fact that those gamers who might make the complaint didn't spend hours helping develop the mod.... I've spent several hundred hours in the past 6 weeks testing aspects of RHS and coming up with conclusions about the model but I suppose that's worth nothing because some of my conclusions are negative and you don't like to hear negative things about RHS??? Absolute balderdash and completely anti-inimical to improvement


And in general to those who seem to want to stifle criticism of aspects of RHS.
Great mod, a really good bit of work with major improvements in aerial combat, naval combat and the general pacing of the advance ( due to the paucity of Japanese transport) but you should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to draw a link between criticism and ingratitude.



BTW as an aside. here's a 200 J7W7 escort going in against 300 Corsairs. Absolutely equal experiences.

Japanese aircraft
J7W1/Ki-99 Shinden x 198
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina x 75

Allied aircraft
F4U-4 Corsair x 300

Japanese aircraft losses
J7W1/Ki-99 Shinden: 109 destroyed
Me-264/G9M1 Marlina: 7 destroyed, 19 damaged

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-4 Corsair: 139 destroyed, 7 damaged

It should be noted that almost all of the bombers damaged were damaged during the bombing run... Also, NO torpedo attacks were launched at all.

Any ideas about the torpedo problem in planes with dual loadouts?



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 ISSUED!!!! (9/25/2006 2:48:10 PM)

This micro modification of a micro modification of a sub version of 4.x turned into a time monster.
Mainly because it required about 90% of the location file be redone - six times since there are six versions of it!
This is a slight modification of 4.46 - which itself was a correction of 4.45 - itself a correction of 4.44 - which
was supposed to be what we now have. With some help we have managed to go through virtually every field of every land unit - and compare them to formations - and otherwise just think about them? - if we have to look at a unit do a complete review I say. Only it takes a lot of time. This one took a week - which is over a hundred man hours by my standards.

Many of the changes are cosmetic. We have addressed the report issue - because I think people believe "manpower" in the reports (it is fiction folks). It won't be so big any more. We have addressed the issue of some in game reports being too long for the line: fewer will be from now on (due to shorter names). We changed suffexes - and sometimes this matters. Oddly - it will kill dead AI attempts to move units I want to be static - and it also eliminates the need for the static facility squad with rare exceptions. I use it for major HQ - in numbers - HQ that I want to be immobile and don't want to call forts - and HQ that have large numbers of people who are not "support" in the usual sense. [They support the HQ - not other units. Support for other units can be part of the unit by using regular support or motorized support or air support squads.] Otherwise it is used to make the guerilla units semi-mobile (one per each).

You cannot do a comprehensive review of WITP and not find eratta - and I never did try to do Allied land units in a big way. One reviewer says there may be no errors left to find (there must be - but his point is that tools are not finding them). We found amazing things - too many cooks cause duplication of units! for one. This and other technical factors conspired to allow opening up some slots - not a bad thing as full as it was getting.

There used to be two "Yobo Eki" regiments - or something like that. Turns out these are Yobieki units - and so are many others - only they had English names (Reserve). The word means "first reserve" and more or less stands for reserve units made from people of the highest reserve level: other reserves are used for manpower replacements - which in IJA are actual units (more or less a regiment - a replacement unit has two battalions of infantry - a battalion of artillery - and a battalion of specialist arms - and a staff - all parts of which can be used - together or separately - by a field command - as required). But the "first reserve" units are actual units as such - perminant formations with a job: anti-aircraft artillery, infantry, whatever. So now in RHS these are called Yobieki instead of reserve.

Aside from cosmetics (chrome) - this is intended to be the difinitive form of 4.4x - one suitable for medium term testing - and until the numbers are crunched for 249 plane types there won't be another version - unless something is wrong. I intend to test now (at last). The thing we are testing is to find out how a number of changes have impacted land combat. This is in many people's minds related to supply sinks - and that indeed is the cause of the changes:
but it is much more comprehensive than that. We found support squads of all kinds far too powerful - in a firepower sense - and if they are not support as such - in a squad count sense as well. [You are better off with an aviation support squad than any machine gun or medium mortar - or a number of other crew served weapons - in the existing system! No more in RHS.] I think small combat units will be more effective now. Well - all combat units will be more effective now. But how much more?

A related change is massive use of the term "fortification." This is really a way to immobilize things. I call them a "coast defense fort" if there is any excuse - particularly a static CD gun battery in the unit. However, some other units are also classified as such. The term "base fort" and the term "industry fort" should be read as saying "static base force" and "static industrial site." These units will not move - regardless of combat pressure - and they will not retreat. My preliminary AI vs AI validation test seems to indicate they die instantly - I feared they might resist longer - but they seem to crack under pressure - even such pressure as AI generates (which isn't optimum by any means - although it DOES use "shock attacks"). Maybe this is meant to be doctrine? [Units unable to move are not good at modern tacitcal combat.] What we need is a lot of tests to know - and human tests are indicated at this point - having addressed everything I know about.

I found errors in the armament of blimps - which AI does use - as escorts! But seems they had the wrong kind of machine gun. I found the wrong ship file in RHSCVO - so some ships were missing. I found the location files for RHSPPO and RHSBBO were swapped - creating opposite political point problems in both. I found Japanese regiments and brigades overstated. In the last three sub versions we have reviewed every pointer for land units - and found vast numbers that were either wrong or could be better. We also reviewed line by line the device order - if they are not identical it is on purpose (so the war begins with one device but the unit may "upgrade" to another - if it is in a good situation).

I also did some AI programming - particularly in RHSEOS - which is supposed to run Japan automatically for Allied players who want a stronger opponent. Preliminary reports of a human vs AI tester are dramatic - no other word fits. AI is able to be "led" into various things - and also it loves long range bombers, long range transports, airborne troops, etc. Wait until 1943 and you will be amazed what even dumb AI can do with a few Me-264s. [Range really is a force multiplier] In my long term test at 4.46 level, AI vs AI, Japan killed six CVs for loss of Junyo - without my help - I didn't even know about the battles - just saw the sunk list. I attribute this to the use of recon planes early in the war. [The "recon Kate" or C3N1 is a real plane - but it wasn't used. Later the D4Y1-C and then an even better C series plane did the job - almost always successfully. But the C3 might have been a big deal had it been in service early in the war. My carriers have FEWER planes than CHS or stock used to have - and then the recon planes subtract from the reduced totals - but the ships are more effective - I think- because the enemy cannot escape most of the time. The information permits engagement or running - whichever is appropriate.]

There must be something I forgot - but I don't remember what it is!
EDIT: Here is one: a class of AMC was not classified as CL - and it failed to behave aggressively like the others do. This classification change - I call them "ultra light cruises" - works with code well - according to player reports - except in the case where I failed to make the change - so I got complaints!

Uploading now.




el cid again -> PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 2:56:15 PM)

I am also issuing a 4.47 pwhex file and Cobra has done a map change. The border of Thailand
no longer puts Alor Star in the wrong country. A new town called Trang is present at the end of
the RR spur in SW Thailand - a resource hex and an airfield. Cobra put its name in the art too.

I may add Phuket - without any road or rail link to the rest of Thailand - just northwest of Trang.
It is a small port and de facto island - although actually one of two tiny ports is on the mainland -
without any great way of going anywhere fast except by sea.



Sardaukar -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 3:10:06 PM)

While I'm not (yet) convinced about supply sinks and such, I do like many things in RHS. I always try RHS vs. IJ AI when new version is issued. Pity that it means restart every week..but...[8D]



Buck Beach -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 5:30:19 PM)

I don't see 4.47 on your site yet.

Oppps this should have been a reply to Sid.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 5:35:23 PM)

Nemo, if you think you are dealing with inconsistencies, please DO keep informing. After all, El Cid Again has been changing many things, I mean he does pay attention to players/testers comments. And above all, nobody, no mod is 100% perfect, thus criticism (or "snake eyes") is essential, as long as it is constructive, of course.

El Cid Again, what's exactly "until the numbers are crunched for 249 plane types"? It is supposed to make the A2A better? This will be the v.5.0, correct? I really want to start a game. I guess I will have to wait for that 5.0 [:)]



Sardaukar -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 5:47:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I don't see 4.47 on your site yet.

Oppps this should have been a reply to Sid.


Cobra Aus not yet uploaded it to RHS page, it seems. He probably has life...[:D]



Buck Beach -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 6:31:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I don't see 4.47 on your site yet.

Oppps this should have been a reply to Sid.


Cobra Aus not yet uploaded it to RHS page, it seems. He probably has life...[:D]



I hadn't realized it was a two step process.



Sardaukar -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 6:40:14 PM)

I think Cobra Aus (and several others) get the scen/pwhex files from El Cid via email and he then uploads them to various places.



Nemo121 -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 7:34:14 PM)

Hmm, so am I correct in reading the above to state that 4.47 doesn't contain the airplane manoeuvrability changes?



Bliztk -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 7:52:16 PM)

Negative, those changes will be incorporated onto 5.00. Plus errata.

Also I will try to conduct several tests about supply sinks, to see how powerful they are in combat.

I have several ideas of how reduce them (dividing, putting a more incompetent leader, lowering their experience to 1) if they prove too powerful, and Cid approves the idea.

BTW, lowering the experience and morale of the supply sink, and I was able to get 2:1 with six divisions and three brigades in day one against Karachi, so we are improving.





Nemo121 -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 8:24:46 PM)

Those sound like good cures.

Give them experience and morale of 1, terrible leaders etc and you will bring their AV down.

Of course it still doesn't change the fact that at no point during the war did hordes of peasants defending an area require 6 divisions to put them down.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 AI vs AI to 23 February 42 Report (9/25/2006 11:54:16 PM)

I slept for 6 hours - letting the computer play on settings permitting a day to process in 5 minutes.
Before I lost consciousness I saw Hong Kong fall on 22 December 1941 (it really surrendered on Dec 25 -
Christmas Day - which is called "black Christmas" in Hong Kong). In the past - in all versions - and particularly
in RHS - Hong Kong holds out for excessive periods.

By 23 February AI has taken the East side of Malaya and invested Singapore itself, which has not fallen -
way ahead of history - but not nearly so far ahead as in WITP as issued. It has taken the Northern part of
the West - but is still fighting over Georgetown. In the Philippines - Clark has fallen - and Manila is being
enveloped from both sides. In Java - not waiting for either the Philippines or Malaya - and thus way ahead of history
- Batavia is threatened by a major force to its west - and cut off by an airlanding to its east by First Raiding Brigade.
In the Solomans - way ahead of history - Lae and Solomea have fallen on New Guinea, as has everything on New Britain, and the Solomans invasions are about four months ahead of history. Wake fell, but Wake is marginal
unless you give it human help - since it was a weak point in Japanese planning - and I find even sending a stronger landing party (as EOS does) is not enough - you need to do a bombardment and/or send a second unit. This time I programmed a bombardment. In the Pacific all the islands were taken that were in history - and again often ahead of history - but the AI refuses to proceed much further - one island south of Tarawa and it quits - leaving the US SLOC
uncontested - not even by submarines.

At Singapore AI is attacking - not playing its usual waiting game. We will see. It achieved odds of 1:1 Fort Level 2 - so it may be winning.



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/25/2006 11:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I don't see 4.47 on your site yet.

Oppps this should have been a reply to Sid.



I do not maintain the RHS site. Cobra does (I think). I do upload to a select list - which is anyone who wants direct uploads of new material. I am at trevethans@aol.com



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 12:07:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Nemo, if you think you are dealing with inconsistencies, please DO keep informing. After all, El Cid Again has been changing many things, I mean he does pay attention to players/testers comments. And above all, nobody, no mod is 100% perfect, thus criticism (or "snake eyes") is essential, as long as it is constructive, of course.

El Cid Again, what's exactly "until the numbers are crunched for 249 plane types"? It is supposed to make the A2A better? This will be the v.5.0, correct? I really want to start a game. I guess I will have to wait for that 5.0 [:)]



I was told the planes would be done 'soon' a week ago. But I know from experience it is a lot of work to do either side - and he had not yet begun the Allies - 2.5 times bigger than the Axis. It takes time. The present planes are well behaved - the changes will be:

RELATIVE changes in maneuverability. [4 E bombers will remain about 4 points - 3 to 5; really fantastic fighters may
breech 30 points - but anything in the 20s is good; 2 E planes SPREAD OUT - from 6 to 20 - or maybe more if we add a bonus to any].

Transports drop in range by 8%
Fighters remain as is - including night fighters and fighter bombers - because WITP was apparently designed to
give good operational ranges for fighters.
Bombers and patrol and recon and any other planes will increase in range by 9%. This to make operational ranges
correct.

I do not think this is a big deal - just tweeking. And to insure 5.0 is the difinitive release - I would like to know if anything else is a problem? In particular if you can take big economic centers - and in a reasonable way?

Another (unpublished) change may be we will wholly revise the Eastern Map edge. The art is done. It is up to me to code pwhex and the location file. NO MORE restricted area - we have located Panama the right distance from San Diego and Hawaii - but had to put it at the wrong latitude to do so. Also - we probably will have an entry hex for the Cape Horne route - and make this the alternate British entry point (instead of Melbourne - in the former Kerachi slot).
That point will be in the extreme SE corner of the map. Working with Cobra on this.

Cobra has art for Madagascar and Cape of Good Hope - but I have not figured out how to use it in a way that makes sense in the cramped area available? But I have a radical idea - which needs time to work out. Won't be in 5.0.
That idea is RESTORE Kerachi as an entry point - (that is - make Bombay be the Strait of Magellan entry point and Kerachi the other one); Kill Aden and approaches altogether; Then make the entry path from Cape of Good Hope go the wrong way - up to the top of the map - and maybe we can go a lot farther in that case? Wish I could "jump" from one hex to another!



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 12:09:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Hmm, so am I correct in reading the above to state that 4.47 doesn't contain the airplane manoeuvrability changes?



No - it does not - and I have no firm idea when they will fold in - along with range changes (which I can do separately if you wish). It is impossible until ALL 249 planes are redefined - and that takes a monsterous amount of work - which is why I asked for a volunteer. FIRST he had to get a function that worked - and he crunched for over a week to do that. NOW he must apply it - WITH RESEARCH - and that is a hard job. I did it twice already - and it takes me over a month - every time.



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 12:13:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Those sound like good cures.

Give them experience and morale of 1, terrible leaders etc and you will bring their AV down.

Of course it still doesn't change the fact that at no point during the war did hordes of peasants defending an area require 6 divisions to put them down.



Yet the miners of Lae and other points DID tie up even worse ratios of enemy forces. A single stranded US Navy sailor - joined by natives - created a significant force on Borneo. Most US fugitives on Luzon were joined by numbers of civilians - and they moved in force to Leyte - where critical points were taken BY THE LAND SIDE BEFORE the troops came ashore! I do not regard giving civilians a role - adding "friction" to the offensive moves of Imperial forces - as wholly incorrect either.



Nemo121 -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 12:28:41 AM)

Well, time to pony up....

I can help with this. My girlfriend is visiting until Saturday so my free time till then will be limited. I can put in a 24 hour shift on Saturday though with little problem. So, call it 30 hrs this week. So, if there's data and it needs to be plugged into cumbersome equations then I can be of help.

If, OTOH, we're talking about applying figures from books to get the data in the first place then you are better of sticking with a single point source as, I'm sure, my books would differ and have some info he doesn't have and not have some info he does.


As to making Karachi another entry point.... I think this is a big mistake... All you would be doing is re-creating the original Karachi spawn point which can cause such trouble in games.... IF you want to remove Aden then, by all means, add Madagascar and have British troops etc arrive there but don't have them just magically appear in an uninterceptible form at Karachi.


Ok, I'll bite, how many troops did the miners at Lae tie up and does this come anywhere close to 6+ divisions?




witpqs -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 12:29:50 AM)

I haven't looked at the Soviet L subs in 4.47 yet (the reloading mines problem), but if that is still pending it might be v5.00 fix.



CobraAus -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 2:02:32 AM)

RHS v4.47 avail at download link page and at web site

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 2:08:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, time to pony up....

I can help with this. My girlfriend is visiting until Saturday so my free time till then will be limited. I can put in a 24 hour shift on Saturday though with little problem. So, call it 30 hrs this week. So, if there's data and it needs to be plugged into cumbersome equations then I can be of help.

If, OTOH, we're talking about applying figures from books to get the data in the first place then you are better of sticking with a single point source as, I'm sure, my books would differ and have some info he doesn't have and not have some info he does.


As to making Karachi another entry point.... I think this is a big mistake... All you would be doing is re-creating the original Karachi spawn point which can cause such trouble in games.... IF you want to remove Aden then, by all means, add Madagascar and have British troops etc arrive there but don't have them just magically appear in an uninterceptible form at Karachi.


Ok, I'll bite, how many troops did the miners at Lae tie up and does this come anywhere close to 6+ divisions?





Tell me more about Kerachi. Never saw that issue. Before my time. [I do CHS and RHS not stock]

Now I didn't mean Japan sent six divisions to New Guinea. I am talking ratio of forces here. In New Guinea even almost naked troops mattered (see the photographs of the NGVF - I particularly like its Command Master Sergeant - who I gather was something of a piece of work - a soldier's soldier - with great command preseance and field craft.
But he is almost naked in his "official" photograph. Sodiers need not look like soldiers.] I doubled my force in a critical (to our survival) situation in Vietnam using militia. I believe in em - otherwise I would not be here.



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 2:43:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I haven't looked at the Soviet L subs in 4.47 yet (the reloading mines problem), but if that is still pending it might be v5.00 fix.


Remind me what this problem is?

I am going to make some changes and do a 4.48 with little stuff. No need to restart games - but no need for future games not to benefit from these:

1) Some name changes for Soviet ships / classes - and correction of some nationalities.

2) Programming all RHS scenarios EXCEPT EOS not to make engines not used in those scenarios.

3) This problem - if you can identify it.

4) Any eratta I find making my opening standard turn.

ADD to this list increasing industry at Patna India - which will be turned from an airfield into a base - a river port - for 4.48. The Ganges is navigable to Patna - if you use the 4.47 pwhex file.

We have a reported problem with units reporting to a HQ formation. They don't report TO&E - instead you get a
"not available" message. This goes all the way back to stock - we didn't create HQ pointing at this formation.
It may or may not be important - but it is fixed.

I am reverting mortars and ATG units to artillery symbols - since the code does NOT look at the suffex to determine attack options. If you only have guns - you may only bombard with them. More sophisticated than I thought.

I am adopting the suggestion to make the generic leaders (used for supply sinks among other things) very poor.
This won't be perfect: leaders learn. So there is a premium on taking objectives soon - fine for Japan. And the Allies have fewer problems massing overwhelming force later in the war. It is not ideal - but it might help a little.

I also am adopting a suggestion or two that might help prevent CV respawn. I have learned how to kill it completely - but that kills other respawns which we need. The small craft won't respawn if there are no slots for them - and that is not good. There are only a tiny fraction - so respawn is a good way to simulate their numbers. You get some - and they get replaced.



witpqs -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 3:16:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I haven't looked at the Soviet L subs in 4.47 yet (the reloading mines problem), but if that is still pending it might be v5.00 fix.


Remind me what this problem is?



This (copied the other post):

quote:


Sid,

In EOS 4.46 (and prior versions) there is a problem with the Soviet L class subs (slot 1585) - the ones with the mine racks. Whenever you reload them, they get messed up. Here's what I mean. There are 2 mine racks, with 14 ammo (which means 7 ammo each rack). Upon reloading (after laying the initial mine loadout), the ship display changes to now say there are 7 mine racks, with a total ammo of 2, and the '2' is displayed in red.

I looked at the database and tried to correct the problem so I could pass that on to you. First, I noted that Turrets (Mounts on the in-game ship display) is set to 0. Other mine-laying subs have 1, so I changed that to 1 and updated the ships. No change.

Second, I noted that the weapon is set to facing R, while other mine-laying subs have their mines as facing C. So, I changed the facing to C (leaving Mounts as 1). Still no good (same results as initially described).

At this point, I don't know what else to try changing, because everything else looks fine. I also looked at the device record and compared it to other mines - it looks okay as far as I can see.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/20/2006 1:54:19 PM >



el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/26/2006 11:32:18 AM)

I am uploading an update to the pwhex file.

It is NOT required. It MAY be installed for use with an ongoing game. It goes in the top level WITP folder.

This version is mainly released to do something special for Trang, Thailand - a new place.

Trang is inland - in mountains in fact - and not susceptable to invasion by sea. So the seacoast side of the hex
is blocked. The other sides are all land - you can enter the hex by any of these - but only the one to the NE has
a rail line of communications.

For reasons unclear AI loves Trang - and collects supplies, resources and oil there - in spite of the presence of NO units of any sort! Should be a great place to upgrade the airfield.

Other changes include:

Making the River Ganges navigable to Patna - the next city upriver from Asanol. Also Patna will be upgraded in terms of factories in 4.48 - because it is a major manufacturing center in modern times. A lot of the resources from Asanol get used at Patna - short trip - by river.

I also corrected mismatched hex sides in the Malacca Strait - making it clear which path is passible - mainly for ships.

I added impassible mountains on Borneo (that is, blocked hex sides) - as I did long ago to New Guinea. I doubt anyone is going into the interior of Borneo - but this is one of several reasons why.

I checked most of the lower DEI for coastal hexes - without finding any errors - but I did find a "coastal" hex IN the interior of Borneo!



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 11:42:14 AM)

OK - WITPQS - I found a problem - with the sub and some Soviet destroyers. Some of these classes didn't have proper fields in the class file. Should be fixed now.



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 2:03:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, time to pony up....

I can help with this. My girlfriend is visiting until Saturday so my free time till then will be limited. I can put in a 24 hour shift on Saturday though with little problem. So, call it 30 hrs this week. So, if there's data and it needs to be plugged into cumbersome equations then I can be of help.

If, OTOH, we're talking about applying figures from books to get the data in the first place then you are better of sticking with a single point source as, I'm sure, my books would differ and have some info he doesn't have and not have some info he does.





Research pretty much needs to use a single set of materials - and the researcher can ask for help on any point.

What we need is a review of small weapons for British and CW units. I believe the main combat units don't have proper numbers of machine guns and mortars. They had NONE - so I guessed - and I prefer actual data.

ALso - we have thousands of ships - many of them wrong. We need to cull out the ones never in PTO so we can add in those that are missing.

And anything you want to look up - we accept ALL changes if they are better data.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 7:17:35 PM)

Er... more chaos, El Cid Again => RHSCVO v4.47 [8D]

A lot of japanese artillery units are now listed as INF[antry] units.

The list (and it is complete):

Curved Gun Rgt's:

- 2nd

Curved Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 21st

Rpd Fire Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th



el cid again -> RE: PWHEX and map changes (9/26/2006 10:24:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Er... more chaos, El Cid Again => RHSCVO v4.47 [8D]

A lot of japanese artillery units are now listed as INF[antry] units.


REPLY: This went back a few sub versions - and I did mention it. I had problems when I redid
device values for consistency - problems because if you go below certain values a weapon won't
bombard. I just found my notes on this from earlier - I also forgot there is a minimum range (3).
The minimum anti-soft value is 5. And one other minimum - I forget the field name just now.
Anyway - what got changed was small mortars (81mm ) - and "rapid fire gun" (AT) units.
The former I got to bombard - and 4.48 will restore the artillery symbol since the infantry one does
not permit a regular attack anyway. The latter will never attack - the range is too short at (2) -
and I am not sure what to do - but I left them as infantry - in case they attack in that form.
I have not got one in the right situation to tell. [It must be in an enemy hex, in supply, and a few other
things - or it won't give an option to attack]. Eventually these may become attachments if they won't
ever attack on their own? Or maybe armor. Tanks with these values do fire. I like the RHS device
values - but code has minimum limits (a strange concept) - and while I can play statistical games with
most fields - range isn't one of them. Giving an ATG too much range is bad simulation. Arab tanks
had a range of 3 when I was in Israel during a war (oops - we didn't officially fight any wars in Israel) -
giving a WWII 37 mm a range of 3 just seems wrong.

The list (and it is complete):

Curved Gun Rgt's:

- 2nd

Curved Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 21st

Rpd Fire Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th





Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625