RE: CHS version 3.0 (Full Version)

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



Message

JWE -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/8/2007 2:09:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's something that I'm finding out about the current CHS.

The extra bitmap slots that show upgrades DO change as the upgrades progress.

Mostly Allied BB's, CA's, CL's, and DD's.

My own personal bitmaps now refect this.[;)]



Yes.
I've noticed the upgrade bms are in the 400 range. I've kept all those and opened up the whole number range from 400 - 499 to accommodate the 30 or so upgrades and have 70 more available for paint job mods.



Halsey -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/8/2007 4:25:22 AM)

Cool, the hardest part will be finding corresponding graphics to represent the changes.

But then, you are the master.[&o][;)]



Blackhorse -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/13/2007 8:03:19 PM)

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).
2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.
3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.



herwin -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/14/2007 12:42:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).

Even CHS 2.0.8 scenario 159 has problems with queuing up of damaged fighters for repair. The Nik Mod is worse. This may help.
quote:


2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.

Agree, but the resulting base sizes need to be checked.
quote:


3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.



Sounds good. I do have software skills.



el cid again -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/14/2007 1:27:09 PM)

Note that Matrix formally proposed a uniform standard for art (not just ship art but also plane art if I am not confused) for CHS, RHS and stock. I referred the matter to Cobra - who does all RHS art and sometimes contributes to CHS art -
and he said that the proposal was approved. For reasons of waiting on the details from others, this work has taken some time. But it is formally planned to implement the new standard when it is wholly developed. Independently, just before the proposal was made, I had proposed and Cobra had agreed to revert to the Matrix art system where a bitmap number corresponds to a data slot number insofar as is feasible. We have already implemented this for aircraft.

RHS is a creature of CHS first of all, and all the art (and data) developed for RHS is always available for CHS - or any other forum user. Aside from downloading it from the RHS site or Sendspace addresses posted by Cobra, it is also possible to get anything of interest from me (data) or Cobra (art).



m10bob -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/14/2007 5:56:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).
2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.
3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.



I have the names of all the American divisional commanders, if needed.??(Groundpounders only, not AAF)..



treespider -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/14/2007 10:29:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).
2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.
3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.




Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.



Blackhorse -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 5:17:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
I have the names of all the American divisional commanders, if needed.??(Groundpounders only, not AAF)..


Thanks. The database for USA division commanders (and above) was scrubbed by yours truly and should be mostly accurate in CHS. There are still some anomalies I would like to correct -- for example, "General" Van Fleet is available at start. IRL, he was a Colonel in 1941, did all his fighting in Europe, and was eventually promoted to Major General and commanded the III Corps in 1945. He would have been available in late 1945 commanding ETO troops earmarked to participate in the invasion of Japan.

LCU leaders and HQ leaders are mutually exclusive in WitP. A workaround I used for division commanders who eventually commanded corps HQs was to designate them as HQ commanders, but start them in command of a division. Two drawbacks: 1. Once the general is removed from the LCU he can only ever command HQs. 2. Unless the player searches the database he has no easy way of telling which potenial corps commanders are currently commanding divisions.

Ideally, CHS would have an on-line manual tipping would-be players off to the effects of mods such as this -- or Andrew's rework of industry so India needs to import oil and supply at start.



Blackhorse -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 5:27:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.


All to the good. Additionally, I am skeptical but willing to be convinced of the benefits of the additional bases you've added on Mainland Asia, and especially the 5,000 AV guerilla bases and the airborne Chinese guerillas. The bases and airborne designation are clever workarounds to game engine limitations, but I'm concerned that they'll require even more house rules to prevent abuse (not to mention explanations for the first-time CHS player wondering how China developed the world's largest airborne army).




Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 6:28:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Ideally, CHS would have an on-line manual tipping would-be players off to the effects of mods such as this -- or Andrew's rework of industry so India needs to import oil and supply at start.


Mea culpa. There are a LOT of things that should be in the CHS docs but are not, such as the Allied industry changes.

Just to provide a small update. I am still getting my next map update prepared. I have completed the map art, but have yet to do the map data changes. Once that is done I can release the next map update (which will be version 6.5).

Then it will be back to the next CHS version, which is partly completed already as I have stated.

Andrew



m10bob -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 1:57:59 PM)

I wonder if every unit in the game will ever be given uniform speed measurement, and if it would be workable?(Knots, MPH,KPH,etc.)



treespider -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 2:11:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.


All to the good. Additionally, I am skeptical but willing to be convinced of the benefits of the additional bases you've added on Mainland Asia, and especially the 5,000 AV guerilla bases and the airborne Chinese guerillas. The bases and airborne designation are clever workarounds to game engine limitations, but I'm concerned that they'll require even more house rules to prevent abuse (not to mention explanations for the first-time CHS player wondering how China developed the world's largest airborne army).




As I see it more places in China = more places that need to be garrisoned= more places the Japanese have to commit trrops to. Currently in any form of the game the Japanese player is able to create a sizable offensive army right from the very beginning that is not tied down because of the anemic garrison requirements.

The 5000 AV guerilla bases represent "relative" safe havens for the guerillas to retreat to should they choose to. Likewise the Guerilla bases will require a very substantial investment of time and resources to reduce by the Japanese should they choose to try and reduce the base.

In the current version of CHS 2.08 once the At-start Guerilla units are eliminated from the rear area in the first 1-3 months of the game they have no way of re-entering the areas where they historically operated. So yes the Chinese airborne units are a workaround given the limitations of the game....CHS already has a whole page of recommended house rules. How difficult would it be to say - Chinese airborne units may only operate in China.

If I had my preference the Chinese garrison values would be editable in the editor which would eliminate the need for the guerilla units altogether. I would keep all of the added bases however as they would then need to be garrisoned or the Japanese start to have supplies destroyed.



argaur -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 3:47:39 PM)

i´m going to start a new chs game.... some release date? should i wait? for how long?



Andrew Brown -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 4:56:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beren

i´m going to start a new chs game.... some release date? should i wait? for how long?


Don't wait, unless you are very very very patient, because the pace I am moving at is currently very slow indeed.

Andrew



argaur -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 5:15:58 PM)

OK, thanks ;)



Halsey -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/16/2007 10:51:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.


All to the good. Additionally, I am skeptical but willing to be convinced of the benefits of the additional bases you've added on Mainland Asia, and especially the 5,000 AV guerilla bases and the airborne Chinese guerillas. The bases and airborne designation are clever workarounds to game engine limitations, but I'm concerned that they'll require even more house rules to prevent abuse (not to mention explanations for the first-time CHS player wondering how China developed the world's largest airborne army).




As I see it more places in China = more places that need to be garrisoned= more places the Japanese have to commit trrops to. Currently in any form of the game the Japanese player is able to create a sizable offensive army right from the very beginning that is not tied down because of the anemic garrison requirements.

The 5000 AV guerilla bases represent "relative" safe havens for the guerillas to retreat to should they choose to. Likewise the Guerilla bases will require a very substantial investment of time and resources to reduce by the Japanese should they choose to try and reduce the base.

In the current version of CHS 2.08 once the At-start Guerilla units are eliminated from the rear area in the first 1-3 months of the game they have no way of re-entering the areas where they historically operated. So yes the Chinese airborne units are a workaround given the limitations of the game....CHS already has a whole page of recommended house rules. How difficult would it be to say - Chinese airborne units may only operate in China.

If I had my preference the Chinese garrison values would be editable in the editor which would eliminate the need for the guerilla units altogether. I would keep all of the added bases however as they would then need to be garrisoned or the Japanese start to have supplies destroyed.



You're forcing the Japanese to garrison bases that they don't have troops for?
Have the IJA forces been compensated so they can do it?

You should try the scenario yourself as the Japanese.
Not against the AI.
Anyone with either side can win against the AI.[;)]

I'm an AFB but, I don't want to play a scenario that isn't a challenge.

As it stands now, the old CHS scenario should have a majority of the India Command LCU's as static also.

The UK forces are as overpowering as the Chinese are.
They can retake Burma in 12/42 by shoving in the India Command units.

While the Chinese can stomp the IJA in China by 9/42, driving them back to the coast.

It makes the Japanese player reinforce Burma and China to unhistoric levels, just to stalemate these two areas.
Is your update going to alleviate this outcome?



JWE -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/17/2007 12:40:22 AM)

Well, the CHS art is done (except for about 4 or 5 little bits); there are some various Aux minelayers, minesweepers, and coastal patrol boats, that I haven’t quite decided on yet, but once I get some good, ‘terminal’ (arrh arrh arrh) input from Kristian, Don, Joe, and Justin, these will take minutes to finalize. There ought to be enuf to satisfy any AFB.

The art is organized in accord with a J mod proposal, sent to Andrew, and numbered accordingly. The basis CHS 2.08 has some anomalous bit map pointers as well as some anomalous ship class characteristics, so I did not feel comfortable developing an art set for CHS per se. The CHS Pros From Dover can take what they need from the blank panels and renumber accordingly. A background panel will be included, so that the art will play with the Stock set and the CHS JP set.

I’m sending them to Andrew for hosting; don’t know if that will fly. If not, I’ll send to Monsieur le Spook. Anyway, enjoy. Panel 1 follows, other panels on subsequent posts.



[image]local://upfiles/17451/DA21B2FBF1D54990B2A96889A3E66CE2.jpg[/image]



JWE -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/17/2007 12:41:10 AM)

Panel 2,


[image]local://upfiles/17451/BF39554EAED14FF5AA3580FC1D605262.jpg[/image]



JWE -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/17/2007 12:42:25 AM)

And, panel 3; oh, did I mention that the rest is generally compatible with the Stock Art Set?



[image]local://upfiles/17451/8ED52A23559B4C11A6986FCA4A566D91.jpg[/image]



treespider -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/17/2007 1:09:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey



You're forcing the Japanese to garrison bases that they don't have troops for?
Have the IJA forces been compensated so they can do it?


Why?? They couldn't garrison everything IRL...and we currently see in evry game that i am aware of the japanese forming an offensive in china right from the start...instead of waiting for their forces to build as they did IRL. China needs to be a quagmire until 1944 when after having fought for three more years the Chinese are without supplies a sizable portion have defected to the Nanking side...then facing a Japanese offensive they crumble.

quote:


You should try the scenario yourself as the Japanese.
Not against the AI.
Anyone with either side can win against the AI.[;)]...

....I'm an AFB but, I don't want to play a scenario that isn't a challenge....

...While the Chinese can stomp the IJA in China by 9/42, driving them back to the coast....



In current version of CHS 2.08 I think I'm doing quite well with the Japanese against Spence in China...unrealistically so. And I don't think Dixon is in much danger from my Chinese in my game with him...

In the new China - Yes the Japanese have more bases to defend but the Chinese units have been stripped of engineers and Chinese support has been reduced. In addition the Japanese have received/ will receive some Nanking Army Units although they are very weak...

quote:


As it stands now, the old CHS scenario should have a majority of the India Command LCU's as static also.

The UK forces are as overpowering as the Chinese are.
They can retake Burma in 12/42 by shoving in the India Command units.

It makes the Japanese player reinforce Burma and China to unhistoric levels, just to stalemate these two areas.

Is your update going to alleviate this outcome?


Haven't really looked at the Indian Command units yet...



wdolson -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/17/2007 1:49:50 PM)

I've been out of town for most of the last week. I'm catching up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.


I think that is a very good thing to put some work into. I've noticed that too and it's irritating.

quote:


Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).


In the past, CHS came in different "flavors" with different models. I personally disagree that the A2A model is horribly off in the stock game. If you have combat on the scale it was actually seen in the real war, you get something close to historical results. IMO, the extreme results you get in the game are more a function of the huge numbers you're able to focus on one spot, which is ahistorical.

However, since opinions differ and CHS has had different air models in the past, that can be continued.

quote:


2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.


This should be relatively easy to incorporate.

quote:


3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.


I've done a fair bit of this, as well as done some work on the Allied air OOB. From playing against the AI, I have found several aircraft that need range tweaks.

I didn't change the durability or maneuverability numbers and the new aircraft I added were modeled in line with the stock maneuver and durability numbers. The "experimental" version can change these to reflect whatever A2A and flak mod people want.

quote:


4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.


I'm not completely sure what you mean here by disconnecting the supply/resource production. Personally, I am not a fan of the supply sinks in RHS. I agree with you that it introduces more problems trying to solve another.

Anyway, good thoughts here.

Bill



wdolson -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/17/2007 2:05:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Thanks. The database for USA division commanders (and above) was scrubbed by yours truly and should be mostly accurate in CHS. There are still some anomalies I would like to correct -- for example, "General" Van Fleet is available at start. IRL, he was a Colonel in 1941, did all his fighting in Europe, and was eventually promoted to Major General and commanded the III Corps in 1945. He would have been available in late 1945 commanding ETO troops earmarked to participate in the invasion of Japan.

LCU leaders and HQ leaders are mutually exclusive in WitP. A workaround I used for division commanders who eventually commanded corps HQs was to designate them as HQ commanders, but start them in command of a division. Two drawbacks: 1. Once the general is removed from the LCU he can only ever command HQs. 2. Unless the player searches the database he has no easy way of telling which potenial corps commanders are currently commanding divisions.

Ideally, CHS would have an on-line manual tipping would-be players off to the effects of mods such as this -- or Andrew's rework of industry so India needs to import oil and supply at start.



Just FYI, there were two Van Fleets. The more famous Van Fleet was a member of the famous West Point class of 1915 (I think it was that year) that produced many of the notable generals from World War II.

When General Marshall became chief of the Army, he started carrying around a notebook with him and made notes on the officers he met. When the war started, he fast tracked all the promising officers in his book and ensured those who did not impress him were blocked from promotion. It is how Eisenhower went from a colonel to chief of Allied ground forces in Europe in such a short time and Hub Zempke went from a 1st lieutenant pilot to commanding a bird colonel commanding a fighter group in a little over a year.

Marshall had encountered a Van Fleet before the war who was a drunk and a bad officer. Whenever he saw promotion recommendations for a Colonel Van Fleet, he made sure they died. Finally one of the competent Van Fleet's class mates (migh thave been Eisenhower) asked Marshall why such a top notch officer was not getting promoted. When Marshall was enlightened that there were two Van Fleets, he fast tracked the competent one.

Bill



Don Bowen -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/19/2007 3:50:09 AM)


Damn you do good work!

Ask any questions - ready and available with answers, excuses, and blame deflection.

Don




Blackhorse -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/19/2007 6:15:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
I'm not completely sure what you mean here by disconnecting the supply/resource production. Personally, I am not a fan of the supply sinks in RHS. I agree with you that it introduces more problems trying to solve another.

Anyway, good thoughts here.

Bill


Bill,

WitP has a good, simple concept for an economic model. Japan needs to capture Resources and Oil, ship it back to the Home Islands, where factories will produce new units and supplies. More shipping is needed to move the units/supplies forward.

But the model is subverted by hard-coding every base that produces resources to also produce supplies. IIRC, the ratio is 1:1.25.

The problem with the code is especially apparent in the SRA. In WitP armies can support themselves from locally generated supplies in Malaysia and the DEI. But IRL, most all military supplies had to be imported. The Japanese army was nearly out of supply at the end of the Malaysian/Singapore campaign.

Until supply production is separated from resource production, the Japanese and the Allies will never need to use as many merchant ships as they did historically, or face the logistical challenges of shipping most of their supplies from the home country.




Captain Cruft -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/20/2007 1:13:57 AM)

I agree, Resources generating Supply is IMHO the single biggest problem with this game.

Take that as a "lobby" [:)]



Halsey -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/20/2007 4:49:38 AM)

OK, so you've added 20000+ AV points to the Chinese.
Probably a lot more since you've boosted the corps TO&E's.
With about 200+ more to the Japanese.

What's wrong with this picture?
Historical basis, or pure assumption?

PS:
I don't mind you having your own scenario, but putting it under the CHS title might be a little presumptuous.
Maybe if you remove the H from CHS.[;)][:D]



treespider -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/20/2007 7:43:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

OK, so you've added 20000+ AV points to the Chinese.
Probably a lot more since you've boosted the corps TO&E's.
With about 200+ more to the Japanese.

What's wrong with this picture?
Historical basis, or pure assumption?

PS:
I don't mind you having your own scenario, but putting it under the CHS title might be a little presumptuous.
Maybe if you remove the H from CHS.[;)][:D]





If you would check a little closer you will also realize some other subtle differences between the Chinese in this version and the Chinese in 2.08...

- In 2.08 Chinese Inf corps had 24 Engineers...in my version 3-Div Corps have 8 and 2-Div Corps have 5

- In 2.08 Chinese Inf Corps had 382 Rifle Squads and 341 support...in my version 3 Div Corps have 535 Rifle squads and 273 support, 2-Div Corps have 356 Rifle Squads and 182 support

- In addition to lacking support those corps start significantly understrength...

-In 2.08 17 of the 82 corps are static....in my version 12 of the 30 3-Div corps are static and 18 of 29 2-Div corps are static... or 30 of the 59 corps are static...

-In 2.08 once the Chinese Guerilla Corps are eliminated they return to Chungking and the line is no long fluid...In my version 15,000AV of the 20,000 you complain about are locked into three static base forces that are not located on any transportation network but are behind the lines. For them to become mobile the Japanese player will have to eliminate 20 devices that cause the unit to be static. Otherwise the Japanese player can ignore them because they cannot move...

-In 2.08 in repsonse to complaints that players could bomb Chinese supply away most of the Chinese supply was provided by direct daily supply allocations which could not be bombed or stopped...in my version i have shifted the supply back towards resource generated supply which can be bombed by the japanese player...

Before complaining I would suggest you do some historical research about China...[;)] On the otherhand I was also the author of the Chinese OoB in CHS...



RevRick -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/23/2007 4:44:29 PM)

Okay, maybe I'm dense (don't ask my wife!) but is there a beta or a preliminary download for this? Or is it still in the factory?



DD696 -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/23/2007 4:51:58 PM)

Treespider's version is hosted on Andrew Brown's site as scenario 171, altho I believe he is in the process of doing another update to be released shortly.



treespider -> RE: CHS version 3.0 (5/23/2007 6:03:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Treespider's version is hosted on Andrew Brown's site as scenario 171, altho I believe he is in the process of doing another update to be released shortly.



Correct. Andrew's CHS is the "Official" version...

...my version is based entirely on CHS 2.08 with the changes I've noted...reduction in airbases etc...

...and yes I am in the process of implementing some corrections...but between family, work and another project I'm working on time has been limited...



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75