RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading

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: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading

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: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/1/2006 7:08:09 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

another issue
is it possible to get auto upgrades path for plane factories?

not a problem i will do it for myself by databese editor

Actually, this happens. I run tests continuously - and I have had some trouble with getting it right.

There are a number of considerations.

First, auto-upgrade is not always realistic - it can be very gamey. Imaging converting a line from a 1 engine plane to a 4 engine plane at full capacity! It is not much better to convert from building a Ki-36 to building a Ki-44. Some auto-upgrades are gamey and should not occur. In general, however, an upgrade to the next in a series is always realistic, and often IRL occurs SIMULTANEOUSLY (that is, BOTH versions produce for a while) - with no loss in efficiency. The view that auto-upgrades are ALWAYS wrong is itself wrong!

Second, once you upgrade, you cannot go back. If you try it will auto upgrade again. So IF a plane is a type that we need to keep in production - I tend to skip one level - and upgrade the line when the SECOND in the series occurs.
That way we won't run out of the older plane if it is required for a large number of groups.

Third, the upgrade path impacts the upgrade logic of hard code. Some auto upgrade settings are meaningless in terms of production - since there is zero production - but important anyway - so the player gets the choice to upgrade this type to that type. Crossing type lines particularly is helpful here. The code logic is not wholly understood - both the manual and what programmers at Matrix say is incomplete - but clearly this matters - and is a factor (along with aircraft type and nation) in the code upgrade options players see.

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 451

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/1/2006 7:15:53 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

A complicating factor is that you can affect your losses by your operational tactics. For example, a 3 inch AA gun of the classic type normal in 1941 has a ceiling of 22,000 feet (due to fuse limitations) - and you can elect to come in above that level. Similarly, you can avoid all MMG if you are above 2000 feet, all HMG if you are above 4000 feet,
and all medium AAA if you are above about 12000 feet. Losses can run from 30 to 120, depending on the tactics you select. The statistical normal case is 2 battleships sunk IF you permit the Kates to go in with 800 KG bombs - and that is right. [We only admit 2 losses at PH - both still there. Technically there was a third - although the ship didn't sink until 1946 - and then not at Pearl! But she was never useful again and did ultimately sink.]

i know that but to make any comparison you have to freeze everything what is possible
initial altitudes and air groups targets are same as in stock / i did not change that/
so ceteris paribus we can compare that with stock which is close to historical result

i think that lower durabilities are good ideas - i like penalties to over-active players
maybe effect of AAA guns should be lowered ???
i know it is difficult as some of them are DP guns
but certainly we can influance smaller guns

Difficult. The smallest guns have a value of 1 - going below that is not meaningful. The ratio of guns firepower is also important. And below a certain value effect often has a test in code (I don't know what that limit is for AA either - but for artillery it is 5). As well, AAA was grossly understated before - and if it is NOT higher - we have got it wrong - and we didn't accomplish what we set out to do. PH as a benchmark is plain wrong - things are not normal there -
and in fact the FIRST raid was UNOPPOSED by AAA (the ammo lockers were locked, no one had keys, the shore establishment was on a peacetime basis and many batteries had no ready crews, etc; the ships lacked warning - the first attack was amid them before people realized there was an attack, so guns were not manned, and no fire control stations were manned - but at least ready ammunition was not locked up! ). Yet if I damaged every AAA gun at PH players would scream. What we can do is damage more of them. What we cannot do is mess with things like durability or AAA because of a non-standard single moment. The charge is get it right in general - and tweek Pearl if need be. Otherwise we would be getting PH right and spend the rest of the war wrong!

Also, you appear to be confusing AA losses and total losses. The losses to US fighters varies wildly with the tactics of both sides. What fraction of your 50-60 is being lost to AA? And what is happening at other places in more normal conditions?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/1/2006 7:19:12 PM >

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 452

RE: Dutch Bombers - 12/1/2006 7:21:34 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

few questions

1.how snorkel works in game ? it is 0 range radar ??? does anything with zero value actually work ?

REPLY: Apparently. It was invented and tested by Andrew Brown, and it is said to matter significantly. A surprise to me, I just copied it.

2. YU class subs are without weaponery - i think they should carry kaitens basing on artwork - or they are transport subs ?

REPLY: Correct. They are ARMY transport subs - to resupply isolated posts. Useful for raids - more so in RHS as we have reduced values for support units and more special ops folks - and for evacuations - and nothing much else. They might spot something though.

3. RTN Sri Ayuthia should be CA like Soerabaya - PG can't bombard

REPLY: Well - it is a thought. It really is a PG - and I don't have any information suggesting RTN did bombardment from gunboats. If we did that, many PG in many navies should be classed as CL. Presumably the WITP design had PG the way they are on purpose. But I call for comments on this - and I will consider reclassifying ALL gunboats of ANY navy that DID bombard with them. [RN and USN probably could]

4. why h2s/mk6 radar has 9999/unlimited range ??

REPLY: They are Navigation radars and you must ask Matrix. No data. But look at stock nav radar. These are identical except I modified the name to show the Japanese version as well as the Allied one.

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 453

RE: Dutch Bombers - 12/1/2006 7:25:01 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them

This is entirely correct. The historical outcome of PH was ALL battleships unfit for combat for various periods.
The number sunk is not the only factor. Further - we actually used weapons from sunk BB! [Two batteries of 14 inch triples were constructed on Oahu - too late for action - one was proof fired in Aug 1945 - and the other would have been ready about September]. There were other casualties as well - and planes are the ammunition of carrier warfare. Sinking cruisers, destroyers and auxiliaries all counts. Neither is the plane loss trivial: how many planes are dieing on the Allied side in your tests? One of the few things clear in AI vs AI is that Japan wins in terms of planes destroyed on the ground early on.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 454

RE: Dutch Bombers - 12/1/2006 7:30:06 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sneer

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them

damaging BBs is not worth effort only sinking them is ok

REPLY: Cleary you are in league with Sun Tzu! [An ancient Chinese military theorist - and IMHO the best of all time - he says "cutting off one finger matters more than injuring five"]. However - that was neither the historical object nor the historical result of the PH attack. The object was to prevent War Plan Orange from being implemented immediately - the fleet sets sail to mess up Japanse ops in the Western Pacific. It was achieved.

you can check my PBEM with Raverdave - KB in dei speeds up everything a lot + paralyses enemy + offers him opportunity to loose BB in open waters

REPLY: You can do this at PH too. In fact - it is why I permit the enemy to sail on turn one. It is probably stupid to leave port and get sunk rather than stay in port and get damaged. The BB are too slow to escape KB.

it is not only losses ratio but also gives you better position

REPLY: This is probably wrong. The reason the fleet went to Hawaii was and remains valid. And DEI permits naval air power from land bases sufficient to control the seas. Players NOT controlling the sea from land are simply not playing well.

not counting that i prefer one timezone port attack surprise that allows mauling manila/singapore/clark in opening hours

REPLY: You can maul Manila all you want and benefit from without KB. And there is no one timezone rule in RHS.
It didn't happen that way IRL and it does not matter as much as players think. The invasion went in AT NIGHT at Kota Bahru because dawn was not the only thing.

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 455

RE: Dutch Bombers - 12/1/2006 7:32:52 PM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I must agree with Tulius..If a BB is damaged sufficiently, it is not only out of action for a time, it is also cluttering a repair yard somewhere..Ships in repair yards are immobile potential targets..
If AA is now a bit too effective,maybe it or plane durability can be tweaked a degree further?
I appreciate Sid's thought on limiting the effective altitude of the AA guns.
As in real-life maybe very high flying planes will be near invulnerable, with a trade-off in the damage they cause..?

And there is ONE day in the game that high flying planes should be effective in bombing: the first day. NO raid of the war had the effect of the one at Manila - and it came in at 25,000 feet! The fraction of bombs that hit their targets was better even than a US raid in 1944 from much lower altitudes.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 456

RE: Dutch Bombers - 12/1/2006 7:33:04 PM

Monter_Trismegistos

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline

Tullius, you cannot base battleships in enemy base. Soerabaya will be Jabanese before those slooow BBs will arrive, they will became easy points if used.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Mifune)

Post #: 457

RE: ALL RHS 6.371 Soviet Ship update and 5.371 uploaded - 12/1/2006 7:35:34 PM

el cid again

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

There were problems reflagging the Soviets in Level 6. Some dates got zeroed out and that resulted in one submarine and a number of minor Lend Lease vessels appearing early. Some ships remained French (except in EOS).
So ship files are reissued for Level 6.

In addition, Level 5 BBO, RPO, PPO and EOS are uploaded at 5.371 level - with completely correct Soviet ships.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 458

RE: ALL RHS 6.371 Soviet Ship update and 5.371 uploaded - 12/1/2006 7:55:59 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

Monter, who knows

It's part of the uncertainty. You can't affirm "they won't hurt the Japanese". You may say it, but you may be wrong.

Because after all:

1st hypothesis: the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. They manage to damage the BB's. The cost? Very experienced pilots, true.

2nd hypothesis: the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbor. The allied player may try to create a big mess in the Southern Area. Alright, they will be massacred... but hey, what will be the cost?

Japanese Carriers or land-based planes attack TFx (with 2 BB's) in (example) Java Sea... They are sunk. Ok... and what about the losses due to AA? The Japanese will have to repeat these attacks 1 or 2 or 3 times. More planes losses. You must count these losses too and compare them with the losses in PH. And I still insist, in the process, these BB's will damage, hurt the Japanese. Or we have to assume that the allied player will be 100% incompetent? Why?

In other words, you will lose these planes the same, in PH or in the Dutch East Indies. But your transports (and troops) will have to face obsolete monsters. Don't forget to add damaged Japanese BB's, CA's, etc. (I'm being optimistic. I am assuming they won't manage to sink any important Japanese ship).

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 459

RE: ALL RHS 6.371 Soviet Ship update and 5.371 uploaded - 12/1/2006 8:04:48 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Monter, who knows It's part of the uncertainty. You can't affirm "they won't hurt the Japanese". You may say it, but you may be wrong.

Because after all:

1st hypothesis: the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. They manage to damage the BB's. The cost? Very experienced pilots, true.

2nd hypothesis: the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbor. The allied player may try to create a big mess in the Southern Area. Alright, they will be massacred... but hey, what will be the cost? Japanese Carriers or land-based planes attack TFx (with 2 BB's) in (example) Java Sea... They are sunk. Ok... and what about the losses due to AA? The Japanese will have to repeat these attacks 1 or 2 or 3 times. More planes losses. You must count these losses too and compare them with the losses in PH. And I still insist, in the process, these BB's will damage, hurt the Japanese. Or we have to assume that the allied player will be 100% incompetent? Why?

In other words, you will lose these planes the same, in PH or in the Dutch East Indies. But your transports (and troops) will have to face obsolete monsters. Don't forget to add damaged Japanese BB's, CA's, etc. (I'm being optimistic. I am assuming they won't manage to sink any important Japanese ship).

That's right...What if the Americans had tried to implement "Plan Orange" after the Phillipines attack of 1941, with a fleet of undamaged Pearl Harbor-based battle wagons?
Likely they would have been slaughtered in open ocean with no ability to seek cover in a dry dock, (or shallow harbor water to be re-floated from)..
Three (or so) American flattops would have had a hard time protecting that line of ships, IF they were free to do so!

_____________________________

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 460

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/2/2006 12:14:53 AM

el cid again

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

Turns out the AA regiments are 100% overstrength! At one time I thought that disabled referred to the number disabled of the total - so when I said "24 guns 24 disabled" I thought it meant 0 working. I fixed that almost everywhere - but not here. So this will certainly help. AI fixes disabled too fast anyway - and going to twice the total cannot be good - for three regiments!

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 461

RE: Dutch Bombers - 12/2/2006 12:17:32 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Tullius, you cannot base battleships in enemy base. Soerabaya will be Jabanese before those slooow BBs will arrive, they will became easy points if used.

Not so. As Allies I always send a division of 4 to Australia immediately - and concentrate British units at Soerabaja. But if I want to, I can easily beat the Japanese to Singapore from Hawaii. It is a week sailing time.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)

Post #: 462

RE: ALL RHS 6.371 Soviet Ship update and 5.371 uploaded - 12/2/2006 12:19:39 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Monter, who knows It's part of the uncertainty. You can't affirm "they won't hurt the Japanese". You may say it, but you may be wrong.

Because after all:

1st hypothesis: the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. They manage to damage the BB's. The cost? Very experienced pilots, true.

2nd hypothesis: the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbor. The allied player may try to create a big mess in the Southern Area. Alright, they will be massacred... but hey, what will be the cost? Japanese Carriers or land-based planes attack TFx (with 2 BB's) in (example) Java Sea... They are sunk. Ok... and what about the losses due to AA? The Japanese will have to repeat these attacks 1 or 2 or 3 times. More planes losses. You must count these losses too and compare them with the losses in PH. And I still insist, in the process, these BB's will damage, hurt the Japanese. Or we have to assume that the allied player will be 100% incompetent? Why?

In other words, you will lose these planes the same, in PH or in the Dutch East Indies. But your transports (and troops) will have to face obsolete monsters. Don't forget to add damaged Japanese BB's, CA's, etc. (I'm being optimistic. I am assuming they won't manage to sink any important Japanese ship).

I never have the slightest problem dealing with Allied ships with land based bombers. KB is not required in SRA early on.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 463

RE: ALL RHS 6.371 Soviet Ship update and 5.371 uploaded - 12/2/2006 12:21:03 AM

el cid again

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

All 5.371 files are uploaded - including CVO and RAO

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 464

RE: UNOFFICIAL RHS x.372 micro update for AA testing - 12/3/2006 12:30:14 AM

el cid again

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

I am uploading ONLY location files for the RHS scenario set - which turns them into x.372 -
to address Sneer's concerns about first turn AA losses at PH.

Turns out some units had too many AA guns (due to a technical misunderstanding on my part)
and others had non-disabled AA guns (Army AA ammo lockers were locked and inaccessable for the
first wave) - and many units wholly unmanned. I modified Manila, Singapore, Clark and Pearl for this test.
It may or may not fold in to the official x.4 scenario when I get the files back - but except for this it is virtually
the same.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 465

RE: UNOFFICIAL RHS x.372 micro update for AA testing - 12/3/2006 5:18:17 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am uploading ONLY location files for the RHS scenario set - which turns them into x.372 -
to address Sneer's concerns about first turn AA losses at PH.

Turns out some units had too many AA guns (due to a technical misunderstanding on my part)
and others had non-disabled AA guns (Army AA ammo lockers were locked and inaccessable for the
first wave) - and many units wholly unmanned. I modified Manila, Singapore, Clark and Pearl for this test.
It may or may not fold in to the official x.4 scenario when I get the files back - but except for this it is virtually
the same.

Sid,,Will this only affect the AA at those "first turn locations", or will this bleed over into later dates,places??

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 466

RE: UNOFFICIAL RHS x.372 micro update for AA testing - 12/3/2006 6:57:02 AM

el cid again

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

1) The AA regiments 100% overstrength will now be normal forever

2) The disabled devices should restore at all these locations

3) Nothing at any other location will be affected in any way

What happened to turn 1 PH strikes?

Sid

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 467

RE: UNOFFICIAL RHS x.372 micro update for AA testing - 12/3/2006 10:38:51 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Just for kicks, here is the offical USN history of the PH raid. Near the bottom, you can see the amount of American AA expended, by calibre!

http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/wwii/pearl/CinCPac.htm

To me this report is a fascinating read with details on deployment,(including extra dive-bombers which were being transported to Midway!)

Here is the ammo report..

(a) 5"/51 cal. 150 rounds
(b) 5"/38 cal. 1,665 rounds
(c) 5"/25 cal. 1,523 rounds
(d) 4"/50 cal. 4 rounds
(e) 3"/50 cal. 1,741 rounds
(f) 3"/23 cal. 1,060 rounds
(A) CASUALTY REPORT (a) Own (b) Enemy (a) Own Casualties. On 9, 18, and 24 December, 1941 (Cincpac serials 02016, 02054, and 02108, respectively), reports were forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy listing all dead and wounded, by ships and stations, resulting from the Pearl Harbor Raid. (b) Enemy Casualties. Deduced from reports available to the Commander-in-Chief, it is estimated that the enemy lost, due solely to Navy action, a minimum of 68 killed, about one-quarter of whom were undoubtedly officer pilots. An estimate of wounded cannot be made. One officer (Ensign) was taken prisoner. He abandoned his small submarine after it struck a reef off the north shore of Oahu. (B) DAMAGE REPORT (a) Own (b) Enemy (a) Own Damage. A current recapitulation of all ship damage received on 7 December, 1941, as a result of the Pearl Harbor Raid, is set forth in detail in Enclosure (C). Damage to aircraft is covered in Enclosure (D). (b) Enemy Damage. Based upon a careful study of reports received from the various units involved, including plots by individual ships of enemy planes actually shot down, believed to have been shot down, and seen in flames, it is conservatively estimated that the enemy lost a total of 28 planes due to Navy action, as indicated in enclosed plot (enclosure (A-6)). Three enemy submarines of 45 tons each and carrying 2 torpedoes were accounted for; two were destroyed by Navy action and one grounded off Bellows Field and was recovered. (C) AMMUNITION REPORT The following is a recapitulation of reports, by ships, of total ammunition expended on 7 December, 1941, incident to the Pearl Harbor attack: (g) 1.1" 5,770 rounds
(h) .50 cal. 221,368 rounds
(i) .30 cal. 48,669 rounds
(j) .45 cal. 2,519 rounds
(k) Depth Charges 8
NOTE: This includes only reports received to date.

< Message edited by m10bob -- 12/3/2006 10:53:59 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 468

RE: UNOFFICIAL RHS x.372 micro update for AA testing - 12/3/2006 1:02:49 PM

el cid again

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

Too bad we don't have a similar Army report. And too bad we don't have reports divided by attack. The first attack encountered a lot less opposition than the second. The Army also got a lot less than the Navy did - but there were casualties to Army fighters - and probably to AA in the second wave attacks.

And a full accounting should also list the US planes shot down by AAA - that day - and a few days thereafter!
It was not safe to fly near there. One unit flying in from a carrier got hurt pretty bad. In a sense these aircraft were lost due to the enemy attack - and properly should be classed as casualties of the battle in a grand sense. [Had there been no attack, they would not have been shot down.]

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 469

RE: RHS AA testing (Turn 1) - 12/5/2006 9:16:48 AM

el cid again

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

Since no one reported any results for the revised AA effects, I ran a few micro games: pure AI vs AI no modifications of anything.

The Japanese typically sink 2 or 3 battleships - but sometimes only 1 and once none at all. Nevertheless, many hits are always scored and the fleet is always out of action.

Typical first turn air strike losses are 13 at Pearl Harbor for the morning - and it is not attacking in the afternoon.
Add to that 13 damaged. Note that this was due to BOTH AA and fighters.

At Clark rather more attacks come in: typically 3. Usually there are no losses: occasionally 1.

Singapore is usually hit by bombers without escort - and they usually lose 7. Again - BOTH AA and fighters caused these casualties. Oddly - there were no damaged planes. I guess they can't make it back over the great distance?

These losses seemed too light. So I examined the units. The units usually failed to repair up - but SOME units repaired up half their AA guns. Most units had 0 or 1 repaired guns of any given type.

Since the intent is to simulate both the first wave (which was substantially unopposed) and later waves (which were significantly opposed) I am revising the AA values back upward.

Previously we were running 200-300 % too high at PH - now we are running just below 50% too low. So it appears that a median value may be about right. Running the guns at Hong Kong was a mistake: it went from nasty to nothing done ever. It is also hard to believe there could be much surprise at Hong Kong or Singapore - so these units should probably be better than at PH or Clark.

Instead of messing with aircraft durability - a massive undertaking with 245 types to change - or AA device values - which involve careful relative firepower work relative to other things in more than just AA combat -
I am calibrating so that the existing system yields results in the right range for turn 1. It will take a great deal more data to have a sense of the unit ratings - and to decode what is affecting them? That will be for a post game review.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 470

RE: RHS AA testing (Turn 1) - 12/5/2006 1:47:23 PM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

idea looks good
i change my computer so i have no opportunity to play witp in last few days

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 471

RE: RHS x.40 plan (on time) - 12/6/2006 1:39:14 AM

el cid again

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

RHS files have been returned to me. I am incorporating some changes into them - and will issue x.40 files either on time (Dec 7) or a day early.

Changes include a new Japanese aircraft unit ID scheme (requested by real Japanese). They find the mixed system confusing - and indeed it is. The system changed mid war. I have preserved the early war system throughout - and added a code -

a Kokutai number tells you its HQ number if you ignore the last digit. [If only one digit, it is an old unit, and assigned originally to one of the early air flotillas; same if named] But 331st Kokutai is part of 33rd Air Flotilla, etc.

I added more loadouts - including variations of Thai planes for Vichy service- but these only appear in Level 7 in Madagascar. I added a version of Ki-46 III night fighter - just as a loadout - to an early night fighter unit unable to use planes in the set (not yet available). And corrected some errors in loadouts - notably TIV loses its torpedo.
Dutch naval air detachments reshuffeled - and 18th added - to correct minor errors.

For Level 7 I created French land and air units - and 10 locations on Madagascar or nearby islands.
I will add the naval units - only 5 subs might matter - and apparently 4 surface vessels. Plus I know about an AP.

Looks like pwhex will take until after the New Year for Level 7 -

so we will g o with Level 6 for the test game -

Tentatively you have 7 days from issue to do a first turn: that means we issue x.40 on 7 December and do the turn on 14 December - unless something else is preferred.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/6/2006 1:49:46 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 472

RE: RHS x.40 plan (on time) - 12/6/2006 2:47:56 AM

Mifune

Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline

After a couple of trial first turns I too have noticed similar PH results

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 473

RE: RHS x.40 plan (on time) - 12/6/2006 8:50:33 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

RHSCVO 6.37

Two Kiwi units are in the middle of the ocean

- 2605 NZA 9th Hvy CD Fortress (supposed to be in Auckland)
- 2618 NZA Det 11th CD Fortress (supposed to be in Dunedin)

Both units are west of New Zealand.

P.S.:
sorry if I haven't been active (I mean reporting erratas or doing tests, etc.). My plan: I was waiting for the 7.0 version. Then I would start a H2H game. But I have changed my mind. I'll be playing another game vs the AI. Holidays on the next weeks, and just like in summer (july), I still want to play this RHS game (no internet, etc.). Map and scenario 6.x are fine. That or I will have to wait one month.

EDIT: more errata.

The RAAF No. 106 Base Force (3348 and 3349) is duplicated in Devonport (Island of Tasmania).

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 12/6/2006 9:11:03 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Mifune)

Post #: 474

RE: RHS x.40 plan (on time) - 12/7/2006 1:03:13 AM

el cid again

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

RHSCVO 6.37

Two Kiwi units are in the middle of the ocean

- 2605 NZA 9th Hvy CD Fortress (supposed to be in Auckland)
- 2618 NZA Det 11th CD Fortress (supposed to be in Dunedin)

Both units are west of New Zealand.

P.S.:
sorry if I haven't been active (I mean reporting erratas or doing tests, etc.). My plan: I was waiting for the 7.0 version. Then I would start a H2H game. But I have changed my mind. I'll be playing another game vs the AI. Holidays on the next weeks, and just like in summer (july), I still want to play this RHS game (no internet, etc.). Map and scenario 6.x are fine. That or I will have to wait one month.

EDIT: more errata.

The RAAF No. 106 Base Force (3348 and 3349) is duplicated in Devonport (Island of Tasmania).

3348 is 105th base force - but was wrong in some scenarios - fixed for x.40 level.

The CD units are apparently in their Level 7 locations - need to fix for Level 5 and 6.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/7/2006 1:16:14 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 475

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/7/2006 7:18:44 AM

el cid again

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

Recalibrating the starting AA values for land units on Dec 7/8 1941

I obtained generally better results

HK is running 2 destroyed and 2 damaged,

Manila 1 and 1

Singapore 5 destroyed and 4 damaged

Pearl Harbor 43 destroyed and 29 damaged

History was 25 destroyed at PH

There is no doubt about it - RHS is running higher AA losses than CHS - which is about 30

But this IS what we tried for - and the zero AA guns functional was not producing enough

These values are for 1/2 working at PH and 2/3 working at other points - except Clark AFB zero in the AA unit
and 100% in everything else.

We could try to go 1/3 at PH - but I am inclined to leave it alone for now.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 476

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/7/2006 6:58:59 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

History was 25 destroyed at PH

I thought it was 29?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 477

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/7/2006 7:10:03 PM

Mifune

Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline

I too thought it was 29 with half of those belonging to the Kaga.

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 478

RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading - 12/8/2006 12:26:25 AM

el cid again

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

Quote:

"Japanese losses:

Aircraft: nine fighters, 15 dive ombers, five torpedo planes" <sic>

Which, indeed, = 29.

Osprey No 62, Pearl Harbor 1941

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 479

RE: RHS x.40 plan: Dec 8 - 12/8/2006 6:38:22 AM

el cid again

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

In honor of the real starting date of the War in the Pacific (which is Dec 8, 1941)

and because we have a few loose ends to tie up

we will release x.40 - and associated pwhex files fixing some minor things -

on Dec 8.

[The war began in Malaya, about two hours before Pearl Harbor was attacked, on Dec 8, 1941.
It also began AT Pearl Harbor on Dec 8 Tokyo Time - since the Japanese only have one time zone
and date in use. Further - most of the theater was on Dec 8 at the time of the initial attacks -
even using our system.]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/8/2006 6:47:49 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 480

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHSEOS/CVO/RAO 6.37 uploading