Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/5/2006 2:27:55 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.02 all scenarios + PWHEX 4.02 posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 361
RE: The Main RHS thread at this time (renamed) - 7/5/2006 6:36:32 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks Herrbear

I will evaluate and incorporate any corrections in 4.03 - but I have no idea when that may come out. I may release it as an optoinal non-critical update. Particularly if other tihngs come up.


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 362
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/5/2006 6:40:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		OL DOG:

I understand the problem with the AO Kaskaskia - it is too large a number in the field - this is interpreted as a negative number. Someone gave it a value over 16,000 - the binary just above that - a no no.

But I never found the ship. If someone finds a slot number I will fix it.


(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 363
RE: AO Kennebec Class - 7/5/2006 9:39:26 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

OL DOG:

I understand the problem with the AO Kaskaskia - it is too large a number in the field - this is interpreted as a negative number. Someone gave it a value over 16,000 - the binary just above that - a no no.

But I never found the ship. If someone finds a slot number I will fix it.




Ship class 349 - Kennebec. Endurance is entered as -11072.

In my game it seems that it does get corrected in an upgrade, but it's a long time to wait for that! The upgrade is to class 1483, with endurance entered as 15000.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 7/5/2006 10:34:32 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 364
RE: AO Kennebec Class - 7/5/2006 11:55:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The upgrade is correct - range should be 15000 nm - and I have set it to this value for the original class. I will issue a micro update with this - and a lower speed LAGG-3 - and a few other things - but not just yet. I am sure some other things will come out. I have just got some dates to test for carrier air groups - maybe I can get a handle on the multiple squadron thing? And I always do a little cosmetic work - making lables more consistent - etc. It is already fixed in my file set - so I can send it to anyone who wants it who cannot run the editor for themselves.


The RCAF has its squadron names in front in RHS format now.
The IJN AMCs are redefined into four different classes - because of four different sets of armament and characteristics. They will all convert to APs if you want later in the war. This is historical - except that the EOS APs have better AA armament. In AMC form these ships are now all classified as CLs - as are cruiser minelayers on both sides.
Some eratta also corrected related to land units and supply depots, or reinterpreted to make it easier on AI at startup.
AI is getting good - but you still must load 18 division - it won't do it right.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/7/2006 12:04:21 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 365
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/6/2006 11:38:15 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.03 all scenarios posted on download page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 366
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/7/2006 2:45:59 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We are going to try "one more time" for a "final" RHS 4.0 release -

4.04

This one will do away with trying to make code happy re resizing carrier squadrons.

Cobra confirms the art changes for planes - so they will be in there too.

I have secretly figured out how to make AI happy in several respects,
and snuck it into 02 and 03 already - mostly - and may fold in more for 04. Testers indicate it is working very well.

Unless someone WANTS a version to work with resize code, RHS is going to tell everyone 'don't disband in a major port with a major HQ' after 1943 begins. And it will keep four squadrons in RN and IJN as well as USN - and USS Midway will revert to four squadrons again.
Seems NOTHING works in RHS because the issue is squadron names - and probably EVERYTHING would work if only we were willing to call No 801 Squadron "VBF" - stuff like that. I am not willing.




(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 367
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/7/2006 3:37:02 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		arn't we forgetting the DISBAN to REPAIR if you have carrier you have to repair 43 and later
you would normally take it the nearest large port and disband to repair it
what happens now if you dont dispand it will take forever to fix

Cobra Aus

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 368
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/7/2006 7:12:04 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am not forgetting that. In fact, you ALSO need to disband to upgrade the ship. Just don't do it at the wrong place. I think the US should not have a Pacific Fleet HQ at PH after 1943 begins in the first place - or the Japanese are playing improperly (and violating what Adm Yamamoto concluded on Dec 10, 1941 - US time - two days after Pearl Harbor: Japan should take Hawaii - something staff pointed out long before). If the US has PH in 1943, Japan will never get it - and the US has a base halfway to Japan. Stupid. If Japan has it - the US probably will waste energy fighting over something Japan does NOT need - smart - crash those waves on the rocks. Do it right, you can offer to neutralize Hawaii (under the restored monarchy - a Japanese plan since 1910) to end the war. Or even give it back. An exit strategy. Or keep it - if the US is weakly playing its hand.

Japan has its choice of several ports to disband in. So do US and UK.
I see no big issue in any case. Only a US damaged ship in the central Pacific might want to go to Pearl. Well - if she goes - you will resize - and need to beach a squadron. You can live with that.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/7/2006 7:14:24 PM >

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 369
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/8/2006 12:32:12 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Actually Sid, it's a bigger deal than that (as far as ports go). The rule isn't that it has to be their command HQ, it only has to be any command HQ. So, for example, San Francisco has Western US HQ. It also has the biggest shipyard, the one most useful for upgrading carriers. But under this scheme it would be out of bounds for fear of a re-sizing.

On the other hand, beaching a squadron is not too big a deal.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 370
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/8/2006 12:37:47 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		You are sort of right. My thinking is that only at Pearl Harbor is it kind of "there are no other reasonable options close by" so it might matter.
At San Francisco you can go to Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Los Angelus, San Diego or Long Beach (in RHS - slightly fewer in other scenarios). In Australia go to Brisbane or Sydney. In Ceylon, go up to Bombay or Vizapatnam or Calcutta. But in the Central Pacific there is only Pearl Harbor.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 371
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/8/2006 2:33:49 PM   
bbbf

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline 		Cid,

Does the command radius of a Naval HQ affect this?

Actually, do any have ranges greater than 1? I've never really taken much notice.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 372
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/8/2006 10:21:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There is some controversy about this question. Some Matrix programmers think ONLY units in the same hex are affected by command radius. The only clear exception I am sure about is air ops. Air strikes can be coordinated out to the command radius of an Air HQ. But - wierdly - the air units need not belong to the command! ANY air unit on the same side will (sometimes) coordinate!

(in reply to bbbf)
Post #: 373
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/9/2006 12:31:53 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:


ANY air unit on the same side will (sometimes) coordinate!


That's true, as far as I know.

As far as command radius range in general, the point often tripped over is how the range is defined. A range of '1' means 'in the same hex'. A range of '3' means 'in the same hex and up to 2 hexes away', a range of 5 means 'in the same hex and up to 4 hexes away'. It's weird, but that's how they did it. Subtract 1 from the command radius given, and that's how many hexes away it has effect.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 374
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/9/2006 3:05:36 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.04 now posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 375
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/11/2006 7:14:18 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Regretfully, there will be an RHS 4.05.

I have found by playtesting 7 devices which do not fully work.
I have found by updating ship records a few cases where ship class records are wrong (although the ships are right) - and a few other issues.

I am incorporating a day and night experience rating into RHSESO and RHSPPO for widespread testing to see if this is better than the existing built in table system?

I found a Japanese AV improperly defined in RHSEOS.

EDIT: Nope - the art is fine! There appears to be a need to generate another planetop file - referred this to Cobra - for four planes.

There will be another pwhex file - to turn sea into land (and sync with art) on Sakhalin island - and make Ilagan impossible to approach by sea - because it is - and probably a couple of other things. For those of you not intimately familiar with the geography of Northern Luzon - Ilagan is a city in the Ilagan Valley NE of Baguio City - a moderately rich area in resources - and a path between Aparri and points south on the Eastern side of the island. But the path is inland, and there are no ports or useful beaches to seaward - just undeveloped mountains. In the present age it is the last stronghold of the NPA - a communist organization that actually controls territory right on Luzon. Don't travel there in a first class automobile with only white people in party - or you will be held for ransom!

EDIT: I also am working on making AI work better. The use of day and night ratings may contribute to this - putting Combat Proficiency Ratings into the system.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/11/2006 10:39:55 AM >

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 376
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/12/2006 3:10:51 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am reprogramming RHS Empire Of the Sun for AI purposes -

originally just changing what was built - and slightly what is assigned to a few units-

the present focus is on changing where things start. Turns out this helps a lot. Playing a real game I see lots of ways to do it better than history.

Otherwise, I am working on seven devices with issues - and when they work - 4.05 will release.

I keep finding little eratta too. One SNLF "disappeared" because of 9999 code - I have no clue why - things like that. A repair ship appears years too soon - a ship that never existed - but was authorized - and is in CHS from day one - is in RHS only in the alternative scenarios (BBO type) - and then you still need time to build it! [Or cancel it and get other things faster]. But I never had corrected the CHS date - so it was appearing on day one! Stuff like that.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 377
Some very good news - 7/14/2006 1:25:33 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have made all seven device slots with issues function inside units.
Now it is just a bit of art - moulding them to have the values I want - or as close as works.

RHS 4.05

with all devices working

with revised Command locations

with all attempts to humor AI re carriers with 4 squadrons removed

with some Russian air groups reassigned planes and

with the usual eratta (particularly in EOS where a AV was playing CVL)

with EOS and PPO revised for ship ratings to an RHS scheme (thousands of fields)

and with AI enhansed first turn for EOS

should issue tomorrow - 14 July.

I now need to play a game as Allies to be forced to look at things simple tests and utilities don't.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/14/2006 7:38:27 PM >

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 378
RE: Some very good news - 7/14/2006 1:44:54 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RH v4.05 PWHEX file posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 379
RE: RHS 4.05 to release 15 July (updated) - 7/15/2006 1:40:50 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The good news is that I fixed all artillery devices which should bombard so they will

and STILL have proper RHS firepower values (although that required a bit
of a trick)

The bad news is there are still hundreds of DEs and PTs and other Allied
vessels that need to be rerated for day and night - for EOS. I expect these ratings to help the simulation get combat more correct, year by year - on an average basis. Oddly - I have INCREASED US night ratings at the start by 20% - over stock - in most major warship cases - a bit of a surprise - it was awfully low - but from 1943 the Allied advantages at night appear in this system - and are wholly absent as it was.

So I need a day to get this data in. And I am running a control test - just because. It is my 100th game AI vs AI - not counting a similar number of brief tests with special test beds.

I tentatively plan to complete revision of RHSEOS - and to correct any eratta detected or reported in all versions - and then release all scenerios EXCEPT RHSPPO in one batch. Since PPO ALSO needs to have many ships revised - it will probably be delayed a day or so. ONLY EOS and PPO will have the new day and night experience ratings. Other scenarios will preserve the existing experience regime.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/15/2006 11:31:54 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 380
RE: RHS 4.05 to release (really - doing landing craft) - 7/16/2006 1:23:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Since I intend this to be a difinitve release for RHS

I have addressed some minor issues

including the landing craft problem caused when CHS moved their slots
from stock positions

Along the way I came up with a new naming convention -
and relocating and renaming ALL landing craft for ALL scenarios
takes a few minutes (understatement)

These landing craft come in two series - one that will respawn and one
- like CHS - up in high slots that will not respawn. They are of three types (in my view) - although CODE thinks they are of four types -
it classifies the Sea Truck as a landing craft!!! [Boy are they confused - Sea Trucks are small but proper seagoing ships - they have no ability to beach - and they are not big enough, nor configured for handling vehicles]
I am toying with the idea of adding a few 19 meter landing craft as well - but I have not figured out how to represent them? [They are very strange craft - fast unlike other landing craft - and able to cross swamp and other forms of low laying land - the origin of what are called "swamp boats" in the present era]

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 381
RE: RHS 4.05 to released (after enhansements and final ... - 7/17/2006 4:41:46 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am uploading all RHS scenarios in set 4.05.

This set has addressed some old technical issues:

Landing craft will appear as in stock - on command -

Landing craft may respawn

18 Division will invade Singora automatically

Kure 1st SNLF will invade Legaspi automatically

16 Army 17 meter LC, 3 Navy 13 meter LC, 4 Type SD Sea Trucks,
and 1 missing Army 14 meter LC added

EOS and PPO have an experimental system for day and night combat ratings of ships - to help the code understand how this evolved over time by nation.

EOS has four more Army and one more Navy light tank companies. All (non-reserve) EOS independent tank companies have a platoon (3 squads) of mechanized troops. The three reserve tank companies should get them eventually if they are in supply.

EOS has some units in different starting positions, another raider task group at sea, and raiders ready for sea at Truk and Kwajalein. [Note - the raiders now WILL carry troops and supplies - I missed that when I redefined them]. Raiders will convert to proper APs after certain dates (historical dates in all but EOS) too. EOS raiders have enhansed AAA in many cases.

There was a misdefined supply sink, a class of six small AKs with a missing machine gun, and other eratta, all fixed.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 382
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/17/2006 6:47:15 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.05 posted for download on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 383
RE: RHS 4.051 (micro update - chrome and armament facto... - 7/17/2006 11:10:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I will release a mini-update in a few hours (to insure any reported eratta are fixed) for the purpose of

making more names in Japanese (e.g. Hikodan instead of Air Division,
Chosen Command instead of Korean Command);

adding munitions factories.

Mogami reported "the largest armament factory in Japan" was in the Osaka hex. Yet CHS (and therefore RHS) gives it only 1 point! I looked into this - I have even got US Army targeting maps of ammunition plants -
and decided to make it 200 points. I myself added Muroran - almost purely a munitions town - with zero points - so I changed it to 100. And I upgraded Hiroshima to 75 points and Nagasaki to 50 points.

For RHSEOS - I added some planning to units at Palau - so they will be more effective if used to attack logical points (Davao, Jolo, Tacloban, Cagayan). Nice for players, it really helps the AI, which uses planning as an indication of what to make a unit do.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/17/2006 11:11:04 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 384
RE: RHS 4.06 medium update (for Soviet Air issues) Posted - 7/18/2006 11:02:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This didn't turn out to be totally chrome and AI programming for EOS -
I found problems with "secret code" in air slots

IL-4s that never were right since stock (and were not even present in CHS 155 or RHS - except in China!)

and problems with Soviet air unit plane counts, upgrades, dates of arrival, etc.

The reported LaGG problem was (aside from performance - which was too high) simply a failure to put in the date.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 385
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/18/2006 1:44:01 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHS v4.06 for all scenarios posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 386
RE: RHS 4.051 (micro update - chrome and armament facto... - 7/18/2006 3:19:24 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

adding munitions factories.

Mogami reported "the largest armament factory in Japan" was in the Osaka hex. Yet CHS (and therefore RHS) gives it only 1 point! I looked into this - I have even got US Army targeting maps of ammunition plants -
and decided to make it 200 points. I myself added Muroran - almost purely a munitions town - with zero points - so I changed it to 100. And I upgraded Hiroshima to 75 points and Nagasaki to 50 points.


The Osaka Arsenal was the main producer of Japanese artillery pieces (maybe the only producer?).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 387
RE: RHS 4.051 (micro update - chrome and armament facto... - 7/18/2006 11:20:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		No. Up at Muroran the really big guns were cast - and also tested. There is even a 20 inch tube made for "ships that never were" cancelled by the Washington Treaty - and an earlier generation 18.1 inch - and some 12 inch for new (never built) battlecruisers. Nevertheless, yes, Osaka did most of them - including the Yamato guns - for which a special ship had to be built just to move them! Yet until now Osaka had a single point of armaments industry!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 388
RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO - 7/20/2006 1:44:18 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHSEOS v4.07 update posted on download link page

Cobra Aus

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 389
RE: RHS 4.07 Series (tested case by case) - 7/20/2006 8:20:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		A few hours ago I re-released

RHSEOS as version 4.07 - although it never had a problem as 4.06 -
so it would have the same version number as other working RHS scenarios.

I have since modified the air group file of RHSCVO and RHSRAO - it is the same file - and then run a separate test on each - releasing each one as it completed the test.

I have also modified the air group file for RHSBBO and RHSRPO - and the first of these just completed a long series of tests (because I needed sleep). I will release BBO now - but not RPO - because I am going to run a test - in spite of being confident the fix will apply to it equally well.

I need to modify this air group file slightly for PPO - it is the same except many units are assigned to home commands. And then run a PPO test.

ALL 4.07 files contain a slight revision unrelated to this air group file issue: dozens of Allied units - almost entirely base forces - have larger supply depots inside them to start. These were mostly slightly too small (about 15%) - but in a couple of cases grossly too small - and while the AI fixes it automatically in a day or two after the appearance of the unit - I decided to make the transition smoother. Previously I had said "too much work" - but I finally got around to it.

There is one eratta: there was a duplicated supply sink at Tsinan China.
It is eliminated in 4.07 series files - but was present in 4.06 - and briefly in the original issue of EOS 4.07 - but no more.

There are two art issues:

a) The IL-4 in the game has Chinese markings - but I have given it to the Soviet Air Force (not realizing it is NOT regarded as a Russian plane!)
We may get revised art making it look Russian - or we may duplicate the record and give you both - it is an option - but I have no decision from Cobra yet.

b) RHSEOS uses the nearest art for a number of Japnese planes. Cobra says some day there may be a separate art set for RHSEOS players. Right now your ME-109E looks like a Ki-61 - which actually is not that bad - and the Ki-91 looks like a G8N1 - also which isn't too far off either - because there is no correct art in the set. We have an unarmed recon Kate using regular Kate art, an unarmed recon Judy using regular Judy art, and twin engined Ki-74s and Ki-77s using similar looking twin engine art. The ASW versions of the Ki-49 and G4M use regular Ki-49 and G4M art as well. Same for the ASW version of Kate. All three really should have a MAD boom - and maybe they will some day.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Aircraft Guns in RHSCVO Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.328