RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (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 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (10/13/2006 5:24:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Also, can you explain why slot 1019, the Tokyo Bay fortress has some 7,000 support troops when no resources are even produced in Tokyo....

We've gone from supply sinks at resource centres to supply sinks where there are no resources at all. What's up with that?



OK - I confess: because sometimes I actually LISTEN to advice from guys like Nemo (gasp). This eats supplies from several surrounding places and puts the resistence in a place more likely to be a problem. But it should not be 7000 - must review that.



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (10/13/2006 10:55:21 AM)

Sometimes but rarely and usually not without calling the person's intelligence or motivation into question first [8|].


So, when will the LAST update in the 5.xx series of updates be? And will you answer my question in the other thread re: hosting mini-mods off that last update.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: pwhex files released (10/13/2006 12:31:39 PM)

See the RHS pwhex thread for details:

coordinated updated file sets 5.11 and 6.11 are released.

Each set has a regular RHS pwhex file and a Panama pwhex file.

Version 5 is for use with Version 5 map art = Andrew Brown's Extended Map - and you may mix
and match this pwhex file with Andrew's map.

Version 6 is for use with Version 6 map art and it is NOT compatable with Andrew's map system.
It DOES contain the new map edge shipping route for entry/exit/transit between theaters.




el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (10/13/2006 12:36:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121


So, when will the LAST update in the 5.xx series of updates be? And will you answer my question in the other thread re: hosting mini-mods off that last update.



I plan to release a 5.11 version with the new 6.11 as soon as I can do it. Working now - having completed the pwhex files for version 6 map art. 5.11 will convert Chinese supply sinks to Philipino - and a number of other eratta -
and will change the fort locations near Manila so Fort Drum (and another fort) are in the Bataan hex. It might add the G7M1 IF there is interest in this to EOS only. Might happen tomorrow - but time is short. Back to work.

I do not understand what "hosting mini-mods" refers to? If I did understand, I would answer.



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (10/13/2006 8:46:19 PM)

Mini-mods... Simple, you have a mod. many errors in that mod which I've reported haven't been fixed and there are some differences of opinion as to how EOS should progress.

I amn't interested in map 6.x etc but would be interested in getting the last iteration of 5.1x and continuing to fix any errors as they are reported +/- offering a version with a different approach to supply sinks.

My question is simple... Would AKDreemer host these continuing refinements ( and/or slight variations) on the RHS site?

Mini-mod= small mod to a mod.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/13/2006 9:45:18 PM)

5.11 and 6.11 scenario files will release tomorrow. The totally revised location files won't be available before Monday (off site report) - that will generate 6.12 - but 5.11/6.11 include most of the 6.12 material (hand updated).

Have fixed Tokyo Bay Fort and Fort Drum.

Have added one leader - commander of Fort Drum.

Cobra had a good day - first pass art levels 7 and 8 uploaded to RHS site. I expect 7.12 to release Tuesday -
with Madagascar/extended west side shipping channel and Allied air options from South Africa. At that time 5/6 and 7
will ALL be the same except they work with different map art/pwhex sets. We will continue to prosecute any issues that arise in all versions until we get to 8 - when we will go back to one set of files - but leave a 5.xx/6.xx/7.xx set in debugged form in our wake.




CobraAus -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (10/13/2006 10:14:07 PM)

For those who want a level 5.x map set (no Atlantic access but at version 6.00 art update) there is now a set posted on the RHS Web Site in the Entry Level Map panels folder

Cobra Aus



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release (10/13/2006 11:21:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Mini-mods... Simple, you have a mod. many errors in that mod which I've reported haven't been fixed and there are some differences of opinion as to how EOS should progress.

I amn't interested in map 6.x etc but would be interested in getting the last iteration of 5.1x and continuing to fix any errors as they are reported +/- offering a version with a different approach to supply sinks.

My question is simple... Would AKDreemer host these continuing refinements ( and/or slight variations) on the RHS site?

Mini-mod= small mod to a mod.



As Cobra indicated, he actually manages the RHS site - which AK Dreemer hosts but does not need to spend time managing. RHS has always offered to facilitate branches for private use - but never to host them - and I fear if we do that we may run out of graciously donated space.

Wether or not there are "many errors which have been reported but not fixed" is an exercise in language which I do not propose to reiterate: I am reducing my "Nemo management time" so I can do more work - and do tests - which I am not doing because I spend too much time in useless debate with Nemo (on and off the record). Not all errors matter, not all errors are errors at all, and the process of coordinating official RHS scenarios is not one I will surrender. Your problem is a desire to be in total control - and not to coordinate at all - except as a secondary priority to what you want (e.g. "clean up EOS first, then work on other scenarios"). It does not and can not work that way: things change over time - particularly in RHS; it is inefficient, impractical and probably impossible to deal with the other scenarios later. Further - not understanding the differences between them in a detail technical sense - I am skeptical how well you could understand what should be the same - what different - among them?

What works for most people - including you - is to report an issue on a case by case basis. I can then review the matter and implement any approprate changes - wether or not it was an "error" in some sense. The problem is that requires waiting for me to get to it - and arguing only delays that hour/day. What does not work is for you to modify the files. This is how they got dirty I think: files got handed around and both "too many cooks" and possibly technical problems in various machines/tools messed up fields that started out just fine - or were not really wrong but someone didn't understand why they looked wrong. You returned a number of files - but somehow you had not got them all in the same batch: location was not the same version as all the others for example. Further - this critical file is not identical in all scenarios - so each change must be moved to the others as appropriate: it was unlikely your work could be used properly - that all differences between it and current could be identified - that all changes between it and other scenarios could be identified - and if I did that it would take weeks - preventing addressing significant errors testing has revealed. It isn't how to run a railroad - and so we won't run it that way.

For the moment - and not for your sake but on general principles - I am keeping versions 5 and 6 identical - except where they must differ. That is- up to date - errors fixed - enhancements added - etc. I will continue to address any specific issue you raise as appropriate as fast as I can - just as I do for all issues raised by anyone. They will all be addressed in due course - although that does not mean you are the boss and dictate how they are addressed. At all times you are free to use any version of anything to branch from - and make your own mod. But IF you do - it will NOT be RHS - it will be YOUR mod - and RHS is not going to host it and manage it: we could not because we would not know what was different. You are on the RHS team if you want to be - as long as you want to be - because you want to be; I never refuse volunteers and I never refuse to consider anything. But the operative word is "team" - and a team member may not regard published or standard professional procedures. If you do either you may expect continued frustration. The RHS vision was to address the shortcomings of too few map entry/exit points, too little communication between them, and marginal sideshow areas of some interest to the campaign missing altogether.
This never did include turning marginal sideshow areas in to main theaters of war, nor permitting anything which would not work technically with the shipping channels - an invention of Andrew Brown and the CHS team we are simply extending. We always understood that the map edges are mainly for proper speed/time/distance determination of when Allied units arrive in the main areas of operations. We always understood that Axis foreys into those areas would be limited to light forces - principally submarines - or to brief raids by stronger units. There is the principle "we can do anything but we can not do everything" (Joe Wilkerson axiom): so we MUST focus limited resources on doing well the principle areas of the contest. It is like the tendency to add 1945 vintage aircraft: every one we add is a plane that virtually never will be used - and it displaces something that might be very useful. To which end RHS has focused on adding planes of early and mid war time frames. Adding all the islands of the distant seas - and major and important minor ports of land areas - is beyond possibility; adding appropriate land, air and sea units is also problematical - and the farther we move - the more must be added - or we are wrongly unbalancing the game against the Allies. So we won't be adding most of any of those things. It is reasonable - and I expect some day reason will prevail - or you will move on into your own relm and abandon us. YOU decide if and when you become cooperative and civil - or quit. You do not dictate how we proceed - and if you decide not to work within our framework - you may not use our name or sites - except to say "I based my work on RHS - but fixed all the things I think are wrong with it" or something like that.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 1:48:32 AM)

Having learned a bit about duplicate leaders - we don't have to fix them for supply sinks - so that will speed up things slightly. Other things are coming together well - and we may have all non-duplicate leader issues resolved shortly. I will update both 5 and 6 as stated - so you are able to pick your map art:

Version 5 files will work with Andrew Brown's Extended Map OR the Version 5 RHS Map system;
Version 6 files will work with the Version 6 RHS Map system. Version 7 - extending the map system
to include Madagascar - is way ahead of plan - and still on track for Tuesday.



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 2:37:07 AM)

CobraAus,

Well despite whatever Sid might say here's simply what I'm interested in.... and not at all what he pretends it is...

i) 5.1 map so I can play a game without the shipping routes ( I think NZ is a valid target as do many other Japanese players as can be shown by it being captured in AARs). I thank you for offering to rehost it so I can revert back to it. Tht is most kind.


ii) fixing the datasets, EOS first since that's the one I play but with the others to follow... I don't think that's unreasonable but Sid seems to want me to fix the others before EOS... umm, volunteer dude. I've said I'll fix everything you've asked me to review ( aircraft class, air group, ship class, individual ship, locations, leaders and pilots in all 6 RHS scenarios). My ONLY stipulation was that I wanted to finish EOS first as I am planning to start an EOS PBEM in a week and would like to have it done for then and would then do the other 5 ( which are highly similar) when I got a chance. That seems to be unacceptable since it won't happen in the order wanted.... A pity but there you go... At least I'll have more free time next week [:D]


iii) moving to 6.x whenever air-impassable hex sides get added. I think the shipping routes are a great idea and it is imaginative how they've been added but I don't want to play a game using them until such time as I can take NZ and run air patrols without having to step them down whenever the Allied player runs a resupply convoy past ;). But, unfortunately, even this level of criticism ( which I don't think is excessive and recognises that my choice not to use the 6.x series maps etc is a personal choice ) seems to be treated as wholly unacceptable. Soon enough if the people who disagree with a mechanic implemented in RHS get shot at every time they raise possible issues ( e.g. invasions of NZ DO happen in game and to say "they're logistically impossible" simply doesn't cut it. Even highly unlikely events will happen since the Japanese player will make sacrifices elsewhere to make it happen) people will stop raising any issues. That'll make certain people feel great but it won't result in a better mod.


It seems you and Sid differ on the hosting of a mini-mod of EOS ( basically fixing the things I've reported to Sid but which he hasn't fixed yet in the latest release ( a lot of land units have the wrong devices in some weapons slots) and possibly ( although this isn't definite) changing the Chinese and Soviet IJA and IJN units back to Japanese nationality and just fixing other things as players report them). If you're willing to host it, great, I'd be happy to hand it over ( and correct errors as they are spotted), if not then that's fine too... I have no problem with people's opinions differing. I don't demand that there be group conformity and I'm happy to accept that Sid and I differ without rubishing him or his ideas.


Sid,
I really think you choose to purposely misrepresent things... Yeah, we got file batches wrong at the beginning but by the end of the first week we'd got that sorted. To present that as though it was a problem with the last batch is highly disingenuous. It was a problem early on while we were synching up. It wasn't a problem with the last batch.

If it was then how would we have gotten, in 2 weeks, from having slightly over 8,000 errors reported to just over 500 errors reported eh? You really are being disingenuous in not making clear that was an early issue and not one later on Sid. It is a shame that you feel the need to selectively represent what happened but that's your issue, not mine.

Oh and one other thing... I have no idea where this fear of yours that I want to take over comes from. I haven't the slightest interest in running RHS, neither do I have the time nor do I have the motivation to do so. I'm interested in fixing the datasets and getting things as historically accurate as possible whilst getting a few "goodies" into EOS. I will also give feedback WHEN ASKED about game mechanics ( and you did ask for the feedback). I'm not interested in running RHS nor do I have the time so please drop that accusation as it has no basis in objective reality and only has a basis in your own concerns which exist irrespective of my actions. So, I hope you can be re-assured on this point. Don't have the time, don't have the interest.


Now, with all of that said, I'll finish with this:

CobraAus: Thanks for re-hosting the map. I appreciate it.

Sid: I've responded to your mail. Let's continue this discussion off-line. No need to spoil further RHS threads with it. If you have something else to say to me then you can say it to me privately. If you have nothing to say then that'll be its own message.



CobraAus -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 2:45:18 AM)

map now avial on RHS web site - look Entry Level Map panels 2 downloads no hex and hex

its at Version 6.00 art update level no chanels - but at PWHEX 5.x level

Cobra Aus



Nemo121 -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 3:00:31 AM)

CobraAus,

Thank you. D/Ling it now.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 6:50:25 AM)

Thinking about operations near the "barriers" (wide areas protecting the shipping lanes near Aden, Panama - and Madagascar) - if you set carrier planes to a max range of 7 - no problems should arise. The same principle could apply to even Japanese air bases in New Zealand or near the tip of India - so long as you set the range to 2 (or whatever) - so you do not threaten the ship channel - the air base itself could be legitimate. We don't want to put barriers along the entire shipping lane - because we WANT the tip of India and New Zealand on the map. And we are making the barrier smaller by one hex - six hexes wide instead of seven - and getting rid of the entire barrier NW of Panama eventually - plus making the range there right - so ops are unrestricted. I don't believe in a Japanese invasion of Panama - but it is going to be allowed.

It is not hard to add a proper block hex side code - but I see no sign it is coming soon. It will be better when/if it happens. It may never happen. We don't know - and I am not sure if I offered to pay for it if Matrix would accept? But maybe I will ask.



CobraAus -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 7:35:21 AM)

question up between Russia and Alaska the is a huge area not being utilized because its all blocked and has artic ice in it (or used to I just removed it) did any important operations or convoys take place either from the northern coastal ports of Russia or Canada/Alaska that would involve passage down through the Bearing Sea to or from the Artic ocean area coast lines

Cobra Aus



witpqs -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 7:54:59 AM)

I think some lend-lease stuff went that way, but it might have been all by air?



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 12:17:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

question up between Russia and Alaska the is a huge area not being utilized because its all blocked and has artic ice in it (or used to I just removed it) did any important operations or convoys take place either from the northern coastal ports of Russia or Canada/Alaska that would involve passage down through the Bearing Sea to or from the Artic ocean area coast lines

Cobra Aus


One and only one - before our campaign proper began. A single German raider made a ROUND TRIP to the Pacific via the Russian high arctic route - while Russia and Germany were still not at war - so of course Japan was also not at war with the US et al. The British WERE at war with Germany however - so were the Dutch - and there were military operations. During this period a British merchant was captured with a copy of Empire defense plans written by a former governor of Malaya - it was named Andremodon - and this report was given to Japan and was a factor in the decision to fight as it exposed the weakness of Imperial defenses in Asia. Once Russia went to war - there were no important operations in this area by sea. However - there was a big scare about a Japanese invasion at Nome - the Nome Airlift was the model used for the Berlin Airlift - it was the Allied response. There was a plan to invade Japan via the Aleutians, Kurials, and Kamchatka - with US/Canadian forces; Stalin was opposed - but it would have been a much shorter war. Japan is much more approachable from the North. And there were late war flights to Japan via this route - by Italian crewed German Ju-290s (3) and a single Ju-390 - most of which returned to Poland (their base of operations) - but one of them apparently stayed in Asia. All other arctic operations were part of the ETO and not in the neighborhood of our map.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 12:19:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think some lend-lease stuff went that way, but it might have been all by air?



Lend Lease to Russia went by three routes: arctic to Murmansk, arctic to Vladavostok; southern route to
Iran - where a US Army RR ran it up to Russia. The majority of lend lease went by the Pacific route to Vladivostok - most by sea but planes by hopping. I would like to put this in the game in some way - first to give Russia the supply - second so it could be interdicted in some circumstances. Haven't figured it out.



m10bob -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 12:53:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

question up between Russia and Alaska the is a huge area not being utilized because its all blocked and has artic ice in it (or used to I just removed it) did any important operations or convoys take place either from the northern coastal ports of Russia or Canada/Alaska that would involve passage down through the Bearing Sea to or from the Artic ocean area coast lines

Cobra Aus


Found this, though it lacks details:

http://hmsbelfast.iwm.org.uk/upload/pdf/atlantic_and_arctic_convoys.pdf



I did also find other referances to Bering convoys, including one in which the IJN warned Germany a convoy was going thru the Bering enroute to Murmansk via the U.S.West Coast.
Several webpages by the USCG using ice breakers for that route..



Bliztk -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 1:33:39 PM)

Hi, why do you put the hexes in the channel as "Himalayan hexes" ??

The manual says that those hexes are impasable to both Land and Air units. So you can make the channel narrower if you want


BTW, Sid, check your email. I have sent you my list of doubts for verification



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 2:00:56 PM)

Where in the manual?

When I asked about the mountains I was told they were passable to planes - and several players said they
routine run air transport over them. I guess I can try it!



Bliztk -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 2:16:10 PM)

Well I dont found it in the manual, but I remember reading it *somewhere*



Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11 coordination and release: scenario file update (10/14/2006 5:51:24 PM)

I concur with Bliztk as to have reading as such somewhere, I too do not remember where. But also it was pointed out on a thread that it was possible to fly over the mountains. Which from judging what attributes are given in pwhex is what is possible.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11: Uploading for review: 5.12 and 6.12 to release notice (10/15/2006 11:50:05 AM)

Six or seven hours ago I began the uploading process for RHS 5.11 and 6.11 with the release of RHSEOS and RHSCVO.
I have now returned from work and will complete the process with the rest of the scenarios.

These are PRELIMINARY releases for the following purposes:

1) So people interested in the Release Six Maps with the map edge entry scheme can have something designed to work with it;

2) So people who for any reason are interested in 5.10 can have a number of improvements and eratta;

3) So people who want to run tests of the new aircraft maneuverability rating system, the new aircraft range system,
or the revised supply sink/support unit scheme have the ability to run those tests - in time to impact the difinitive version - which is 5.12/6.12.

I shall not sleep until that version is completed. I have to complete folding in eratta and cleaned location files and I must update Japanese supply sinks to the new standard already implemented for the Allies. I will check each hour for feedback and will incorporate anything that is useful on a near real time basis.

New in this release is:

1) Japanese heavy mortars - both WWI 27 cm type and WWII 32 cm type - replacing 81mm or 15cm mortars in 2 regiments each;

2) The new aircraft maneuverability values calculated by Mifune and first released in 5.10 - without changes;

3) The new aircraft range scheme in which operational ranges are the determining factor; this means in effect that fighter anything (fighter, fighter bomber, night fighter) ranges are unchanged, that land transport ranges are decreased, and everything else (including flying boat transports) is increased - so that operational extended ranges for all types except fighters amount to 42% of the PREVIOUS ferry range; Supplimenting this, the A6M2 Zero had 15 minutes added to its transfer range - giving it the 5 minutes radius extension (fighters get 1/3 of transfer range as extended range) needed to do a 10 hex operational mission.

4) RHS Version Six scenarios have had some tankers withheld for SLOC duty returned to player control - appearing at the South Atlantic Entry Hex (Tristan da Cunha) they may go either direction - to Indian Ocean or Pacific Ocean. [Other ships will be returned in 6.12]

5) In all scenarios of both versions CV, CVL and BB which appeared at Panama City now appear at the default Caribbean Entry Hex (Colon Panama for the time being).

6) A new supply sink scheme has been implemented in which large, pure supply sinks are classified as Dutch or Philippine, and are given a 99% fatigue rating. We have learned that once the first supply sink is lost with one of the generic officers, the rest with the same officer will revert to an all zero "staff officer" in command. We have decided this is not only acceptable but desireable and we are not changing it.

7) Japanese units rated as "chinese" are now generally rated as "philippine" - and assigned a generic officer different than the supply sink officer (who is competent only at administration). Each has its own generic officer. This applies mainly to construction battalions of IJA and JAAF and to Mongolian or Manchukuo cavalry units.


This release is for review, familiarization and short term testing: longer term testing should wait for the .12 version which will incorporate things already understood - but which need keying in. This probably happens Sunday.



m10bob -> RE: RHS 5.11 and 6.11: Uploading for review: 5.12 and 6.12 to release notice (10/15/2006 3:12:50 PM)

Excellent..Thank you.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.12/6.12 MICRO update for aircraft/groups (10/17/2006 6:21:44 AM)

I am still working on ships and eratta and supply sinks for the comprehensive version of the new 5/6 level parallel releases. But some people want to see the new planes - changes to Swordfish, TBD, Barracuda and the new G7M1 -
so here they are. There are only aircraft, air group and comment files - you just copy this over a 5.11 or 6.11 set.



Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.12/6.12 MICRO update for aircraft/groups (10/17/2006 6:33:57 AM)

Alright, where are they? Or is this another clever plot of misinformation? [:D]



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.12/6.12 MICRO update for aircraft/groups (10/17/2006 6:43:13 AM)

Did you check your email?



Mifune -> RE: RHS 5.12/6.12 MICRO update for aircraft/groups (10/17/2006 6:53:11 AM)

Looks like the bloody mail server is down for maintence. I will try again in a bit.



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.13/6.13 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE issued (10/18/2006 6:50:25 AM)

It is happening folks - the one with everything integrated.

Only not quite everything - I have some unreviewed eratta to fold in - but that process will never end.

This has it all and is suitable for use in games of some length. We need to find out what problems there
may be.

I will initate tests as well as work on Level 7 over the next three days



el cid again -> RE: RHS 5.14/6.14 micro issued (10/20/2006 1:40:06 AM)

This may be last - or second to last - Level 5/6 update. It mainly folds in eratta plus Japanese replacement units.
It also downgrades Thai morale and experience to normal levels.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625