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: CHS errata

 
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: CHS errata Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CHS errata - 7/29/2006 4:00:09 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		6th and 7th Division AIF arrive in Feb./March in Aden as SWPac Units. They are also scheduled to auto-switch HQ to SWPac several months later. This could cause some major irritation should an Allied player decide to pay lots of PPs in order to change their HQ upon arrival, only to have those units switch back to SWPac later on.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 61
RE: CHS errata - 7/29/2006 7:12:32 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		AK Diamond head?  I don't know for sure, but shouldn't the "h" be capitalized....AK Diamond Head? 

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 62
RE: CHS errata - 7/29/2006 7:47:04 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"AK Diamond head? I don't know for sure, but shouldn't the "h" be capitalized....AK Diamond Head?"

Well, since most diamonds are given as a result of thinking with the little head, perhaps this is appropriate...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 63
RE: CHS errata - 7/29/2006 12:03:37 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

It's a good thing my wife doesn't read these forums. Domestic tranquility might take a hit.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 64
RE: CHS errata - 7/29/2006 3:37:18 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

6th and 7th Division AIF arrive in Feb./March in Aden as SWPac Units. They are also scheduled to auto-switch HQ to SWPac several months later. This could cause some major irritation should an Allied player decide to pay lots of PPs in order to change their HQ upon arrival, only to have those units switch back to SWPac later on.


That does seem a bit odd. I will take a look.

Edit: I just looked - this was inherited from scenario 15. In that scenario the LCUs arrive in Oz, of course, so it is not much of an issue. I think I will remove the auto assignment but leave them assigned to SWPAC. (I also wonder if there are any other LCUs with the same problem?)

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 7/29/2006 3:45:12 PM >

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 65
RE: CHS errata - 7/29/2006 4:51:40 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
(I also wonder if there are any other LCUs with the same problem?)

So far, I've only looked at the Allied entries in the database, as I don't want to gain excessive information on the Japanese military while playing a PBEM game as Allied player. But in this case I made a small exception:

Unit ID 1616, 46th Division, is the only other unit with the same problem: assigned to Southern Area HQ, scheduled to switch to Southern Area HQ.


I have a question regarding these "free" HQ switches: do they only affect units controlled by the AI? This is the relevant paragraph in the editor, I'm not sure how to interpret the bolded parts:

quote:

For many ground units, the AI uses the otherwise unused Port and Airfield fields together to determine
when to change their HQ, as follows:
􀂃 The Port value is the month the change will happen based on the beginning month in the
scenario (e.g., based on January 42 equal to month 1, January 43 to month 13, and so forth).
􀂃 The Airfield value is the Location number of the HQ that the unit will report to after the change
occurs. This allows the scenario designer to set up certain “free” HQ changes at a specific time
in the game for an AI player using these units.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 66
RE: CHS errata - 8/7/2006 3:47:28 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Sub air-search radars might still need some toning down. Snorkel is probably OK, but SD and SV about totally prevent subs to be attacked by aircrafts under 1.801 and CHS 2.07. Have played against AI and not truly tested it yet, though.

And Balao class lacks SD from start but gets SV in 1944 update. 

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 67
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 4:21:31 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Australian HQs:
Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the restricted Australian HQ (Anzac Command HQ) into a static unit at Sydney instead of Australia Command HQ, which is not restricted?

Another question:
Does the anti-Zero bonus still apply to AVG in CHS? The unit is not in its original slot and divided into three squadrons. I searched the documentation and the forums, but couldn't find an answer.

And yes, I'm asking because Zeros just massacred AVG in my PBEM...



(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 68
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 5:27:03 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Sub air-search radars might still need some toning down. Snorkel is probably OK, but SD and SV about totally prevent subs to be attacked by aircrafts under 1.801 and CHS 2.07. Have played against AI and not truly tested it yet, though.

And Balao class lacks SD from start but gets SV in 1944 update.


I might nudge their effectiveness down slightly just as a precaution. I would rather have the radar not effective enough as opposed to being too effective.

Andrew

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 69
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 5:41:03 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Australian HQs:
Wouldn't it make more sense to turn the restricted Australian HQ (Anzac Command HQ) into a static unit at Sydney instead of Australia Command HQ, which is not restricted?


I think it would be best for both of them to be static.

quote:

Another question:
Does the anti-Zero bonus still apply to AVG in CHS? The unit is not in its original slot and divided into three squadrons. I searched the documentation and the forums, but couldn't find an answer.

And yes, I'm asking because Zeros just massacred AVG in my PBEM...


I can't answer that, because I am not certain how the AVG v Zero bonus works. If it is database slot based, then the answer would be that the AVG would NOT get this bonus in CHS. This is because the AVG in CHS is divided into three squadrons, all of which occupy different slot numbers in the air group data.

If this indeed the case, then the only real solution would be to combine the AVG back into a group and restore it to its old slot.

I will have to find out whether this is the case or not.

Andrew

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 8/8/2006 9:48:43 AM >

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 70
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 7:53:22 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		My understanding is that the AVG is slot dependent. It is exempt from Zero Bonus as long as it is in the same slot as showing in the stock scenario. Sid in RHS put 2/3 in the stock slot and 1/3 in a different slot.

As you said that CHS has them split into 3 groups, unless one of them is in the stock numbered slot, then none of them will be exempt from the Zero Bonus.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 71
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 8:34:47 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		AVG exemption from zero bonus is slot dependent, as is zero bonus. But zero bonus has no direct impact on zero offensive power only defense (zero is less likely to be shot down.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 72
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 9:35:04 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		I can accept the loss of the AVG exemption from the Zero bonus, as they really didn't encounter many (any?) Zeros wile incorporated as the AVG. The real question is which air unit does occupy the slot that gets the exemption?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 73
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 9:47:01 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I can accept the loss of the AVG exemption from the Zero bonus, as they really didn't encounter many (any?) Zeros wile incorporated as the AVG. The real question is which air unit does occupy the slot that gets the exemption?


I looked that up. The lucky "super" air unit in CHS is the 73rd Fighter squadron, starting in PH and equipped with P-40Bs.

Obviously the AVG hard coding wasn't taken into account by whoever reordered the air groups for CHS (was done for CHS 1.0, I think). Now we know better.

I am not sure whether the AVG should be reinstated to its former slot for CHS or not, but if not, then I will move a late-arriving reinforcement group into the special slot (1071) to make sure it is not used.

Andrew

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 74
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 9:52:22 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Your last idea works for me. I'm not keen on rejoining the AVG (few bases in the area can handle that many a/c at once - at least during the Zero Bonus period), and if it's not rejoined then who gets the exemption? The Adam and Eves? The Hell's Angels? ... rats, I can't recall the other squadron's name at the moment...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 75
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 10:05:52 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Your last idea works for me. I'm not keen on rejoining the AVG (few bases in the area can handle that many a/c at once - at least during the Zero Bonus period), and if it's not rejoined then who gets the exemption? The Adam and Eves? The Hell's Angels? ... rats, I can't recall the other squadron's name at the moment...


What would be preferable - remove the bonus entirely? Or give it to one of the AVG squadrons?

Andrew

PS: While looking at this I also took a look at my scenario conversion scripts for CHS, and found a nasty bug in the removal of the Zero bonus for the experimental CHS scenarios. That might prompt me to bring out an updated CHS sooner rather than later.

< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 8/8/2006 10:08:48 AM >

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 76
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 3:57:56 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		When checking the Zero-factories, will you also adjust the sub radars ? Balao and one other older class that get SJ lack SD. They should have it since especially Balao comes in 1943 and other is upgraded to SJ in 1943. Nothing else critical I can think of now.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 77
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 4:15:45 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Your last idea works for me. I'm not keen on rejoining the AVG (few bases in the area can handle that many a/c at once - at least during the Zero Bonus period), and if it's not rejoined then who gets the exemption? The Adam and Eves? The Hell's Angels? ... rats, I can't recall the other squadron's name at the moment...


But you can still divide AVG into three parts when it is rejoined in its old slot. I guess the bonus would apply to all three parts, in contrast to separate squadrons defined in three different slots. If that's the case, I'd vote for rejoining AVG in its old slot. If not, use it for some late Patrol squadron. The bonus should IMO apply to the entire AVG, or not at all.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 78
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 4:34:02 PM   
DD696

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline 		One minor change....ship slots 8096 "Cold Brook" and 8097 "Coldbrook" does appear to be a duplicate of the same ship.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 79
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 8:47:03 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		" What would be preferable - remove the bonus entirely? Or give it to one of the AVG squadrons? "

I'm rather neutral on the Zero bonus. Sometimes it irritates me, other times I feel that it's an okay mass generalization. I like your idea of putting a late war squadron into the AVG slot - or maybe it should be whatever PH P-40 squadron that Ben & Josh flew for in the "movie that shall remain unnamed"!!

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 80
RE: CHS errata - 8/8/2006 8:48:14 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		" But you can still divide AVG into three parts when it is rejoined in its old slot."

I know... I just prefer to not work with seperated air groups. It's one of the reasons I love the CHS...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 81
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 12:04:49 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

When checking the Zero-factories, will you also adjust the sub radars ? Balao and one other older class that get SJ lack SD. They should have it since especially Balao comes in 1943 and other is upgraded to SJ in 1943. Nothing else critical I can think of now.


Fixed.


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 82
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 2:59:28 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Took screenshots about AI Japanese aircraft production since March 23rd 1943. Played against it as Allies:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 83
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:01:24 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		More:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 84
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:05:49 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		More:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 85
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:06:34 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		More:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 86
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:08:43 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		And finally:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 87
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:09:54 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Hope these help if to see if there is something else wrong with aircraft factories than A6M3.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 88
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:27:14 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Hope these help if to see if there is something else wrong with aircraft factories than A6M3.


Well, I am no expert on Japanese production, having never played the Japanese in a game. But the fault is basically that the A6M2 and A6M3 factories were not "swapped" with the A6M3 and A6M5 factories to keep them aligned with the aircraft themselves (which were swapped around to get rid of the Zero bonus). This "removed" the A6M3 factory entirely (it becoming an A6M5 factory instead), as can be seen in your screenshots. Furthermore, the A6M2 production should have expanded.

I am swapping the factories, as they should have originally been, which should fix the problems.

Thanks for the help.

Andrew

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 89
RE: CHS errata - 8/9/2006 3:30:41 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Thanks to you for your great work !!

I'm no expert of IJ economy either...thing horrifies me !! And I agreed to play Aztez as IJ...in my first ever PBEM..

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: CHS errata Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.797