El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (Full Version)

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



Message

ChickenOfTheSea -> El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/14/2008 6:35:29 AM)

El Cid,
I was checking the changes to Allied destroyers, DMS, DM, PC ships in RHS EBO 7.91 files that came with the installer. There appears to be a lot of mismatches between the class file and the ship file with regard to DC's (e.g. Porters, Farraguts, DM Gambles, DMS Dorseys, British E' Class, J' class. A quick glance shows that these issues don't appear in the EOS file (at least the ones I checked). It looks like an older file ended up in the EBO version somehow. You might want to check on that before the upcoming test games to make sure the correct database files are used.

edit: typo



el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/14/2008 6:51:48 AM)

Well - no harm in checking - except maybe 3 days lost if we need to change things.


Note that many ship types are NOT used in any given scenario - but the class definitions for them in other forms still exist. Since I mainly updated each class as a whole from the right record - it should be right.

But I updated a quarter of a million fields - there MUST be errors - according to information theory. Just for 7.9 -





el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/14/2008 6:55:33 AM)

Preliminary check: data looks right. Detail check in plus five hours.



el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/14/2008 1:22:12 PM)

Secondary investigation: still no issue detected AT SOURCE.

However - it is possible that the indirect way you got the files - via the installer - has a problem.
The most likely way that could happen is if I failed to upload all the modified files - in which case no
one has the right files but me.

So - instead of investigating farther - installing from scratch and then looking yet again at the data -
I uploaded the scenario files again. ALL of them - not just class and ship files. Simply redownload -
and put these in the SCEN folder - and any possible issue is gone. In due course - when our programmer returns
and can fix any issues - we will do that in the installer - if it is found to be necessary.

I will issue Test Series 10 game turns for EBO tomorrow.



ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/14/2008 2:52:10 PM)

A quick check shows that the files from the installer have defective ship class files for EBO and EEO only. The other scenarios are all fine with respect to this. The files that were mistakenly included were created after switching to DC patterns but before removing DC's from several early war ships based on the historical review. The ship files got updated in this regard, but not the ship class files.

For those of you using the new installer, all but EBO and EBO are fine and those will be fixed soon. I wanted to get a quick test of the revised ASW before getting schooled by El Cid.



el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/15/2008 12:55:16 AM)

I have a message - we will have a new installer in due course. I already uploaded the EBO files as a quick fix - I will do EEO now as well





Nemesis III -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/16/2008 3:53:19 PM)

Hi Cid. I am long time fan of your work. Referring to RHSEEO 7.91 scenario, I would like to ask the following questions:

1.Why the upgrade paths of the KB carriers stop at 4-1942 (one upgrade per carrier)? Is it intended to be like that? Please note that it is the same in previous versions.

2.Reviewing the info screen of all Japanese dedicated ASW aircraft (such as B5N2-Q Kate); I have noticed that depth charges are treated as electronics instead of aircraft ordinance load out. I believe this might impact the intended function of the aircraft but I am not sure.

Thanks,

Max



el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/16/2008 8:10:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemesis III

Hi Cid. I am long time fan of your work. Referring to RHSEEO 7.91 scenario, I would like to ask the following questions:

1.Why the upgrade paths of the KB carriers stop at 4-1942 (one upgrade per carrier)? Is it intended to be like that? Please note that it is the same in previous versions.

2.Reviewing the info screen of all Japanese dedicated ASW aircraft (such as B5N2-Q Kate); I have noticed that depth charges are treated as electronics instead of aircraft ordinance load out. I believe this might impact the intended function of the aircraft but I am not sure.

Thanks,

Max



1. This is a mysterious question: it isn't so. The carriers go through a series of upgrades - ending up with much better AAA and radar. And yes - that is the same as in previous editions - no change was made. See for example Shokaku - upgrades to 543 - in turn to 544 - in turn to 545 and finally to 546.

2. Air ASW is indeed a bit of a mystery. No programmer nor general question to the Forum has produced any answer to how this works in technical detail. Probably nobody has looked at it. But tests show airplanes sink subs - and in 7.9 they are far more important since surface ships lost a lot of ASW power - while later on Allied planes gain ASW torpedoes. Just how the planes sink subs I am not sure - and it may be like recon planes "hit" targets even if wholly unarmed. It may be hard code - and there were cases of "kicking the bomb out the door" IRL - so I have no big problem with it. We do have a peculiar device on Japanese planes - a 60 kg bomb which doubles as a 60 kg DC - and this certainly works - it was the main ASW weapon - so that means the main weapon is working at least. I classified the dual weapon as a bomb. It is the only DC not to be revised in 7.9 - due to lack of slots - and it is tiny compared to the rest. It would be nice to know more about what works - and what does not work? But game reports are not always right - and things on planes sometimes work even if they never are reported at all. Some load/attack combinations are hard coded - and there is no manual we can look up the details in (or the manual we have lacks the details if you prefer).




Historiker -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/16/2008 8:20:26 PM)

One question or idea:
Isn't is possible to let FF and FP in (late) 44 or 45 upgrade to usual fighters and bombers/DB/TB?

These two type absolutly have their sense, but in late 44 and 45, one would like to produce usual fighters and bombers rather then this sitting ducks?

If PDU is on, why forbidd a player, to equip his units with the best possible - at least in the E-series?



el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/17/2008 6:41:25 AM)

The Allies don't do FF - except for BBO scenarios. Japan DOES upgrade from FF to fixed wing fighters - on a unit basis rather than a plane basis. If the unit crossed over - most did - it should be an option at some point.

Floatplanes and other aircraft also do this - but far more rarely. Sometimes a unit changes types.

And - because it is true IRL - USMC has numbers of "fighter" units that start out on float observation planes - and convert to fixed wing.



Buck Beach -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/18/2008 5:23:14 AM)

Has anybody been experiencing any issues with 7.91 for the AIO, CAIO and MAIO scenairos? Is any body playing them?



el cid again -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/18/2008 6:30:25 AM)

Probably more people play AI scenarios than all the rest combined. They are used for training by those who understand they are not realistic opponents - and for fun by those who don't care that much (it is apparently fun to kill the enemy kind of thing). There are not yet reports of the Russians being bombed - or a couple of other things we tried to correct.

In RHS the AI scenarios came into existence without my intention - because AI was not compatable with several aspects of RHS - and because there was great demand for most of the RHS system with a computer opponent. In fact, most long testing was done with AIO - because it lacks some of the problems of non AI scenarios on automatic pilot - as it were.

Over time we have been able to make incrimental improvements - and to attempt some things never tried in WITP as such. One such thing - no longer available - is a first turn for the AI. We can do first turns for Japan for the revised editions - but I felt that it might be wise to wait for any eratta or issues to be reported.

In my opinion - speaking technically - MAIO should replace AIO - and be used as practice for EOS, EEO or EBO. CAIO should be used for practice for the CVO and BBO family sceanrios. AIO is not really functional because AI wastes the potential of the units sent to the Central Pacific area - pretty much getting rid of the advantages of the extra power in the scenario. This is useful only in human hands. MAIO is a better choice for AI - although it still is not as good as a human. Anyone who likes passive Russians and no interior river systems might also find MAIO a nice human variant - a very different starting stratgy might be a pleasant change.

In AE - assuming we do a series of RHS scenarios - there probably will be fewer scenarios: we probably will drop BBO, RPO, PPO and AIO. CVO, RAO, EEO, MAIO renamed AIO, and CAIO may remain. Not sure about EOS as such. PPO prooved the concept used now in all EOS family scenarios and is no longer needed. The mission of BBO - which is my personal favorite - only gets praise from the few who try it - the war as it was planned seems not very interesting for most. Battleship admirals probably prefer EBO - with even more of that - albiet less historically likely.



ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: El Cid - RHS EBO 7.91 issue (6/18/2008 4:19:30 PM)

The issues I posted above are not a problem in CAIO, AIO, MAIO. I played a couple of turns of AIO to test some potential countermoves to a Hawaiian invasion in case Sid comes that way. Everything was fine. ASW was harder and we are about to test that in PBEM. Maybe knowing where the AI likes to send subs won't help as much if they are harder to kill.

I agree with El Cid that the AI will be more of a challenge in MAIO than AIO and is probably the toughest AI opponent out there at the moment.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125