RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release

RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (Full Version)

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

Message

Kereguelen -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/26/2006 11:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again 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. The Ganges is only navigable for ocean-going vessels up to Calcutta. If you make Patna a port it will be possible to send battleships far inland... (It is not even a good idea to have Calcutta as a port - the designers of WITP probably intoduced Diamond Harbour, a suburb of Calcutta, as the port of Calcutta to make it impossible to directly land or bombard Calcutta)

Hornsby -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/27/2006 1:28:04 AM)
In 4.47 EOS the troops which formerly garrisoned Alor Star now seem to be sitting in what is now impenetrable jungle (hex 24,44) They are 2384 ISF 2nd Base Force, 2393 Indian 6th Bde and 2394 Indian 15th Bde

el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.48 micro update released (9/27/2006 11:58:23 AM)
I have uploaded RHSEOS, RHSCVO and RHSBBO micro updates 4.48 via high speed. I lost the cable modem - so I am down for two days. I have uploaded RHSRAO by wire and am attempting to upload RHSRPO and RHSPPO at this time by the same means. Details as above. The 4.48 level extended test game still has not had a carrier battle - so no clear answer to the respawn issue yet.

el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/27/2006 12:04:11 PM)
Andrew made Asanol a port the same time I made it a port in RHS. Our information is that the Ganges is the major transportation system of India - and that it was long navigable to ships. Several things have degraded the system in our era - pollution first of all - and also silting because of a gigantic hydro 'barrage' not far from this city. It is a major source of political problems between Bengladesh and India. But it was passible to my warship in the 1960s - and I saw much bigger vessels loading and traveling along the river. While my ship was nominally a "destroyer" - it was the size of a WWII cruiser and - with its sonar dome - had the draft of a battleship of any era. Where does your information come from?

el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/27/2006 12:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hornsby In 4.47 EOS the troops which formerly garrisoned Alor Star now seem to be sitting in what is now impenetrable jungle (hex 24,44) They are 2384 ISF 2nd Base Force, 2393 Indian 6th Bde and 2394 Indian 15th Bde Turns out this is correct. That is, it is wrong - in 4.47 and 4.48 - since Alor Star moved. Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations. Regretfully I am uploading a 4.49 micro update JUST with the location file to fix these issues. If we are lucky Cobra will post the 4.49 version without the 4.48 step.

Andrew Brown -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/27/2006 1:51:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Andrew made Asanol a port the same time I made it a port in RHS. Perhaps you are thinking of Nanking El Cid? I have made Nanking, and Calcutta, a port on my map, but not Asansol. Some people do not like the idea of Calcutta being a port for the reason Kereguelen mentions: it makes it too easy to bombard the port with BB TFs. I am hoping that this is not a big problem, but in case it is, I have created a pwhex file for my map that returns Calcutta to being a land hex not reachable by ship. I have yet to make this file available, however (should do that soon...). Andrew

el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/27/2006 10:29:34 PM)
Having been to Calcutta by ship, I do not understand the issue. Even today the silted waterways don't prevent ships from reaching Calcutta. Well - not "today" exactly - but 35 years ago. I wonder if we were confused by terminology? Maybe they said "Calcutta" but we were not really there? I will see if I can find the pilot charts?

Kereguelen -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/27/2006 11:01:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Having been to Calcutta by ship, I do not understand the issue. Even today the silted waterways don't prevent ships from reaching Calcutta. Well - not "today" exactly - but 35 years ago. I wonder if we were confused by terminology? Maybe they said "Calcutta" but we were not really there? I will see if I can find the pilot charts? Nobody doubts that ships can reach Calcutta or that Calcutta has a port. The problem in the game is that Calcutta may be bombarded by Bombardment TF's and that landings in Calcutta proper may occur if Calcutta is defined as a port - thus having Diamond Harbour as the port (hexside) of Calcutta is a good solution for the game (the Mississippi is navigable too - but do you think that a battleship could bombard Baton Rouge in a raid and escape?).

el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/28/2006 6:49:11 AM)
I am still not with you - why is that a problem? I worked with Big J shelling target more than 20 miles inland. If the river is navigable, it is navigable, and if a ship goes up it - it can shell WE went up MEkong - a bad place for an aluminum superstructure ship to go - just so we could shell farther inland.

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 plan (at end of thread) (9/28/2006 12:51:18 PM)
Due to a possibly significant erattum related to an aircraft carrier, we will be releasing RHS 5.00 tomorrow or the next day. Since we are doing that, we will fold in all lessons learned/eratta reported by now or in the next 12 hours or so. Also, since we are doing that and since we have a consensus to make aircraft operational ranges more correct, we will fold in these as well. We hear that we will have an ETA for aircraft maneuverabilty by Friday - and it will be some time after that the data is done. The problem is getting aircraft weight data for all the Allied types - no surprise - it isn't in our data set and there are 174 of them! So that will be in 5.1 or so. But RANGES will be folded in. The 4.48 level medium term AI vs AI test has reached October 1942. Three US carriers have been sunk (and 2 British Illustrious as well - but only one Japanese seaplane carrier): Lexington, Enterprise and Saratoga (apparently in that order). NONE have respawned. Two were lost in June - so they should have respawned (in the sense of show up on the reinforcement list) by now. Another unexpected development is that the AI is taking supply sinks with battalions rather than divisions and brigades. Apparently it prefers SNLFs (and one CSNLF - a sort of double battalion). These were used at Padang successfully - and two (plus a airborne battalion) have just tackeled Tabaoli - which I don't expect to work out - but we will see. A complaint by AK Warrior has sufficient merit I think we will try an interim fix in the form of making Colon a level 10 port - so ships - which cannot enter loaded - can load at a more reasonabe rate. This has the merit of not making Panama City/Balboa a big port - which it isn't - and still not penalizing the loading rate so badly. Longer term I hope to have other solutions. But this isn't something I had been thinking about - and it is a valid issue.

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 plan (at end of thread) (9/29/2006 12:04:03 PM)
Have added a missing garrison unit to IJA - and turned all 8 into brigades - which they are - since they are supposed to be able to spread out (they have four battalion combat teams - and no brigade assets except HQ and communications - all four teams are self contained). Have reduced and renamed NLFs to NGFs and SNGFs - battalions and companies instead of brigades and battalions. Have changed the unit assaulting Wake to an SNLF - it still isn't able to do the job - and am reviewing the possible names. In general, each major command has one SNGF (a company without heavy weapons) and only actual independent NGFs or SNGFs will show up. Have fixed one plane's gun, one ship's ordnance, a host of minor technical eratta, and am reviewing more. Have changed a number of names - shortening them and making them consistent with the RHS patterns. Shorter names reduce the number of reports too long for the report window. This is already down to well under 1 in 100. Have changed Panama so Colon is a Level 10 port - to permit entering ships to load rapidly - simulating a Caribbean Entry Point Cobra and I intend to add soon. Also have added the option to attack and damage the Gatun Locks.

Mike Scholl -> RE: RHS 5.00 plan (at end of thread) (9/29/2006 1:18:20 PM)
Have changed Panama so Colon is a Level 10 port - to permit entering ships to load rapidly - simulating a Caribbean Entry Point Cobra and I intend to add soon. Also have added the option to attack and damage the Gatun Locks. The Germans are attacking from the Atlantic? The first set of locks on the Pacific side are the Miraflores Locks...., and they are more than 8 miles inland from the channel entrance. What type of "attack" were you envisioning?

witpqs -> RE: RHS 5.00 plan (at end of thread) (9/29/2006 9:27:42 PM)
I know the Japanese intended to carry out an air attack...

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 release and 5.10 plan at end (9/30/2006 1:22:21 AM)
No high speed internet - new cabling required. 5.00 will upload slowly today. It is WOW. New aircraft ranges = fantastic. NLFs either revised smaller or deleted. A few eratta folded in. New situation in Panama - see thread on Gatun lock - Panama pwhex to release tomorrow. Have confirmed Ganges was navigable to steamers until dam construction silted it up - post war. 5.1 will release when aircraft maneuverability data in hand. Looks like we may get revised pilots and/or leader files as well.

witpqs -> RE: RHS 5.00 release and 5.10 plan at end (9/30/2006 4:44:25 AM)
How long for the new cabling?

akdreemer -> RE: RHS File Set 4.41 (9/30/2006 4:58:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again A number of other divisions began the war square (I think) - but reformed before they became operational. I have a giant book on the US Army Order of Battle - and it gives details for each - including a quite complex liniage. The problem is not so much data as the time to look it up case by case - and I was told the US units had been done "more than once" for CHS. And I do see some attempt at accuracy: a US Army RCT was given 24 mortars - which is right - only they were all 81mm - because no 60mm device was available. IRL 18 were not 81s. The US Army was in transition over to triangular from its historical square form. Each Infantry Bn has 6-81mm Mortars, Each Infantry Company has 3 60mm Mortars. A three battalion regiment would have 18-81mm, 27-60mm mortars. Regimental Combat Teams were not independent units, all were formed from parent Division with a slice of Divisional assets (usually one BN of 105mm, 1 troop of Recon, 1 company of Combat Engineers). The 155's BN's were never broken down into batteries, as this was the Division wide general support artillery, therefor there should not be any 155mm in the RCT's. All Independent Regiments, those not affiliated with Divisions, were not RCT's, just standard three BN regiments. In this the stock game is in error in making all US infantry regiments that are independent RCT's. If one wants to play with RCT's in the game, then one needs to divide a Division into three units.

akdreemer -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/30/2006 5:02:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations. At start this is correct, however, they eventually reorganized into two batteries of 40mm and 1 battery of 20mm (24-40mm and 12-20mm?), somewhere around mid 1943 I beleive.

akdreemer -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/30/2006 5:06:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I am still not with you - why is that a problem? I worked with Big J shelling target more than 20 miles inland. If the river is navigable, it is navigable, and if a ship goes up it - it can shell WE went up MEkong - a bad place for an aluminum superstructure ship to go - just so we could shell farther inland. Without a good reliable local pilot or extremely accurate navigational charts, no BB captain is going to sail up any river. I bet the ship you was in had a pilot on board.

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 release and 5.10 plan at end (9/30/2006 6:38:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs How long for the new cabling? Two days all goes well.

el cid again -> RE: RHS File Set 4.41 (9/30/2006 6:41:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again A number of other divisions began the war square (I think) - but reformed before they became operational. I have a giant book on the US Army Order of Battle - and it gives details for each - including a quite complex liniage. The problem is not so much data as the time to look it up case by case - and I was told the US units had been done "more than once" for CHS. And I do see some attempt at accuracy: a US Army RCT was given 24 mortars - which is right - only they were all 81mm - because no 60mm device was available. IRL 18 were not 81s. The US Army was in transition over to triangular from its historical square form. Each Infantry Bn has 6-81mm Mortars, Each Infantry Company has 3 60mm Mortars. A three battalion regiment would have 18-81mm, 27-60mm mortars. Regimental Combat Teams were not independent units, all were formed from parent Division with a slice of Divisional assets (usually one BN of 105mm, 1 troop of Recon, 1 company of Combat Engineers). The 155's BN's were never broken down into batteries, as this was the Division wide general support artillery, therefor there should not be any 155mm in the RCT's. All Independent Regiments, those not affiliated with Divisions, were not RCT's, just standard three BN regiments. In this the stock game is in error in making all US infantry regiments that are independent RCT's. If one wants to play with RCT's in the game, then one needs to divide a Division into three units. This is easy to do. I seem to have the right counts (probably because I use the same ones you do) - and it isn't hard to have pure regiments. In RHS some are RCT and some are not - apparently this is the CHS format - I didn't do that. But all can be strait up regiments - formation already there - and it frees a valuable formation slot. As I assign the most numerous units formations, the code gets more efficient: I am achieving 50% less time per day now because of efficiency improvements (time to process a day - down to 4 minutes).

el cid again -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (9/30/2006 6:43:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I am still not with you - why is that a problem? I worked with Big J shelling target more than 20 miles inland. If the river is navigable, it is navigable, and if a ship goes up it - it can shell WE went up MEkong - a bad place for an aluminum superstructure ship to go - just so we could shell farther inland. Without a good reliable local pilot or extremely accurate navigational charts, no BB captain is going to sail up any river. I bet the ship you was in had a pilot on board. Well - we certainly had fine depth sounders and 3D sonar. I am not sure a pilot is a problem: Britain had real problems (all of Congress - a united party including Muslims then - was in prison for the duration - and the Mayor of Calcutta led the Indian National Army - so a pilot might have been found).

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date (9/30/2006 12:55:09 PM)
I think it is time for human testing of a longer term sort. I think 5.00 has resolved even minor things (like a carrier that won't rearm, or a mid war bomber with a huge 57 mm tail gun) - and we really do need to get some eyes on the many changes made to see how they are working and what issues may exist with unintended conseqences? I intend to issue my playtesters opening turn shortly - by Monday at the latest - maybe sooner. One big surprise: The Allies have lost just under 24,000 ground strength points (are these 100 men?) in about six months - to about 800 for Japan - the first time I have seen such lopsided outcomes. I believe this may represent the fall of the manpower at supply sinks captured. I have run the AI vs AI validation test through six months - in just over half a real day - and turn execution efficiency is 20% better than 4.49 and 50% better than 4.40 (that is, I am running a day in 4 minutes real time without animations vs 5 minutes in the last version and 8 minutes ten sub versions back). It is not entirely clear why this is the case - but I have been systematically resolving technical issues and attempting to make things require less memory. We have reached the point we are pruning - each version has more free lines - and many records have fewer fields - after many months of growth in both senses. Stability seems in large measure to have come once we got art calls right: call something not there you have trouble. But speed - it is not entirely clear what that comes from? AI was able to take Manila by February and Bataan and Singapore and Batavia since. It has invested Soerabaja - to shut down the supplies made there I think - with a minor unit - and has others on the march. It regularly begins operations in the DEI before the fall of Singapore - particularly at Menado and Tarakan and Brunei and points in Western Borneo. In this game it was able to take Wake - and as far as I can tell AI never sends reinforements - it either takes it or not with the initial force. No carriers have been lost on either side yet - the AI seems to collect US carriers in Hawaii until it has 5 or 6 - only the RN commits its carriers in small forces. Carrier battles usually occur in late spring or early summer in AI vs AI - unless the Brits get into one - which they always lose. I have a report that the work on aircraft maneuverability fields will take until about a week more. I also have a volunteer working on leaders and pilots - and while he felt he needed 36 hours - a week is more realistic. He is resolving things like the same person assigned to several different commands and/or assigned on the wrong date. There are more than a few such instances - although I am not convinced they matter much - I have no problem cleaning them up. So the major update to 5.00 will be adding these things. Minor things I am folding into my human test turn include replacing "Indian" with IA for many brigades and divisions - shortening the name - and adding mmg and supplies to these units - which have either no supplies or too few when they start. Also I am going to convert all US Army RCT to pure regiments - and get rid of the RCT slot - so we can use it for some common formation (meaning the program does not have to have so many fields tracking specific formations - I think formations should be used when there are large numbers of similar units - and never when there is only one - like the US cavalry division: if there is only one formation, let the unit point to itself by entering nothing in the formation field). And of course any errors which are reported. So far I have not found any - unless the above are errors. I am not sure I have said this - but 5.00 has moved US cruiser classes so they will not respawn - and two runs show it seems to work. I will report on planes from the data entry point of view in a separate thread. And I have to post a revised Panama pwhex procedure.

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.01 micro update and 5.10 date (10/1/2006 1:20:31 AM)
I found one significant eratta - a duplicated supply sink at Harbin - and issued 5.01 location files for anyone who prefers to kill it. This includes the Indian Army brigade/division update (they use IA name format and have mmg from start) and changes US Army and Philippine Army RCT to regiments (no artillery). The pilot and leader files will both be in the 5.10 release and may be more updated than originally thought due to more time.

Kereguelen -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (10/1/2006 2:20:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations. At start this is correct, however, they eventually reorganized into two batteries of 40mm and 1 battery of 20mm (24-40mm and 12-20mm?), somewhere around mid 1943 I beleive. Not in India/Burma - all OOB's for British/Indian/East African LAA Rgt I have access to still show the standard of 54 Bofors as equipment in 1944. However, some LAA Rgt were used to form LAA/AT Rgt in August 1943 (1 AT Bty + 2 LAA Bty). But this change lasted only until June or September 1944 when the LAA/AT Rgt were dissolved, which means that they were used to (re-) form the LAA and AT Rgt they had been formed from originally. And independent LAA Rgt were not involved, LAA/AT Rgt were only formed as divisional assets.

akdreemer -> RE: RHS 4.47 RHS pwhex release (10/1/2006 4:36:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations. At start this is correct, however, they eventually reorganized into two batteries of 40mm and 1 battery of 20mm (24-40mm and 12-20mm?), somewhere around mid 1943 I beleive. Not in India/Burma - all OOB's for British/Indian/East African LAA Rgt I have access to still show the standard of 54 Bofors as equipment in 1944. However, some LAA Rgt were used to form LAA/AT Rgt in August 1943 (1 AT Bty + 2 LAA Bty). But this change lasted only until June or September 1944 when the LAA/AT Rgt were dissolved, which means that they were used to (re-) form the LAA and AT Rgt they had been formed from originally. And independent LAA Rgt were not involved, LAA/AT Rgt were only formed as divisional assets. Well i do know that a few LAA Regiments converted into FA/MA Regiments in Burma late 44 early 45. What I did not know was that the LAA did not change, but keeping them constant well make to OOb simpler. I know that most of the LAA/AT Regiments served organic to various infantry divisions, not independent formations.

akdreemer -> RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date (10/1/2006 4:39:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I am not sure I have said this - but 5.00 has moved US cruiser classes so they will not respawn - and two runs show it seems to work. Are you saying that respawn is slot dependent?

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date (10/1/2006 6:32:16 AM)
Yes I am. Apparently it is sufficient to move the class. It is not clear if a suggestion to move the ships individually works? Moving both works - and moving the class works. I moved the carriers back to their slots - no problem. It is Essex that had to move. So I figure same for ships like Brooklyn. In Test 127 at 5.50 level - in to September 42 - no respawns.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date (10/3/2006 12:48:03 AM)
RHSCVO 5.02: carrier Lexington has disappeared. The TF 1005 only contains the CA's and DD's. Not in the ship list either Poof, gone

witpqs -> RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date (10/3/2006 3:56:42 AM)
In 5.02 EOS the only Allied carriers present at game start (12/7/41) are Enterprise, Hermes, and Saratoga.

el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.00 validation report and 5.10 date (10/3/2006 5:55:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus RHSCVO 5.02: carrier Lexington has disappeared. The TF 1005 only contains the CA's and DD's. Not in the ship list either Poof, gone Now that is something. Can't have that - so 5.03 will release with it fixed - as soon as I can find the darn thing. I expect to have new pilot and leader files (with over 3000 lines fixed - many deleted) any time. And when the plane maneuverability is done there will be 5.10 with that - possibly tomorrow. I have converted Indian Divisions to "division" brigades - Japanese style - because they divide into two formations - not three. I may do this to other British units - but I have trouble with sources: my official US Army manual on the British Army says the norm is THREE brigades per division in the British forces - and not two like I remember. A few other errors have been found in a line by line review of Allied armies - all of them fixed.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.46875