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: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded

 
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: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/18/2007 9:03:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We have data washed leader, ship class and ship files for all scenarios. [Thanks to Alvrmartin]

We have a new cam file for CVO - because the old one caused spurrious trports. [Reported by Dili]

We have a revised location file re eratta (various reports in the Forum).

We have a revised device file (report of path error by Nemo and probably technical stuff from me)

We may need to revise the HQ file again - it needs cross checking vs EOS - but it is close to perfect.

EOS ship and class files need checking. Same for aircraft and air group files. But the big deal is the location file - of which there are three forms at each level (CVO, BBO and EOS).

This version should run well.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/18/2007 9:15:39 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 751
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/18/2007 9:29:34 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Just played 5.41 EOS came with error too, see in last line:

MSW Robin scuttled at Johnston I [USA] to prevent capture!
31st Sentai [BMR] converting to Ki-48-I Lily at Siem Reap [CMB]
51 Ind. Chutai [BMR] converting to Ki-21-II Sally at Phnom Penh [CMB]
52 Ind. Chutai [BMR] converting to Ki-21-II Sally at Taichu [Formosa]
6th Sentai [BMR] converting to Ki-48-I Lily at Kiamusze [Manchukuo]
32nd Sentai [BMR] converting to Ki-48-I Lily at Mukden [Manchukuo]
65th Sentai [BMR] converting to B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate at Mukden [Manchukuo]
IMAF 3 Chutai [BMR] converting to Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann at Tsitsihar [MNCHKO]
MKKK Unit [CIVIL] converting to Ki-56/LO Thalia at Harbin [Manchukuo]
67th Sentai [BMR] converting to B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate at Tientsin [N China]
66 Ind. Chutai [BMR] converting to B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate at Hankow/Wuhan
R2 Shotai/61 Sentai converting to G4M1/Ki-50 Betty at Kalgan [Cent China]
DNKKK I Unit [CIVIL] converting to Ki-34/59/L1N1 Thora at Osaka/Kobe [Honshu]
Katori Shotai converting to E13A1 Jake aboard LST-889

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 752
RE: RHSEOS 5 and 6 .60 uploaded - 1/19/2007 4:31:18 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is parallel to the other scenarios. However, some specific data washing is required because there are so many unique records. This is a release to get eratta spotted during the data washing process. Also - I expect devices, aircraft, pilots and locations for all scenarios to be washed soon. We are in the wrap up phase. UNLESS there is interest in expanding Allied aircraft - using a unified art scheme - we are done with development.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 753
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/19/2007 4:33:58 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

Just played 5.41 EOS came with error too, see in last line:

MSW Robin scuttled at Johnston I [USA] to prevent capture!

REPLY: This is not an error: Johnston I was just captured - always happens - and the message means what it says.

31st Sentai [BMR] converting to Ki-48-I Lily at Siem Reap [CMB]
51 Ind. Chutai [BMR] converting to Ki-21-II Sally at Phnom Penh [CMB]
52 Ind. Chutai [BMR] converting to Ki-21-II Sally at Taichu [Formosa]
6th Sentai [BMR] converting to Ki-48-I Lily at Kiamusze [Manchukuo]
32nd Sentai [BMR] converting to Ki-48-I Lily at Mukden [Manchukuo]
65th Sentai [BMR] converting to B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate at Mukden [Manchukuo]
IMAF 3 Chutai [BMR] converting to Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann at Tsitsihar [MNCHKO]
MKKK Unit [CIVIL] converting to Ki-56/LO Thalia at Harbin [Manchukuo]
67th Sentai [BMR] converting to B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate at Tientsin [N China]
66 Ind. Chutai [BMR] converting to B5M/B5N/Ki-47 Kate at Hankow/Wuhan
R2 Shotai/61 Sentai converting to G4M1/Ki-50 Betty at Kalgan [Cent China]
DNKKK I Unit [CIVIL] converting to Ki-34/59/L1N1 Thora at Osaka/Kobe [Honshu]
Katori Shotai converting to E13A1 Jake aboard LST-889


Except for the last line - NONE of these are errors. AI can upgrade what it wants to when it runs things.
And will upgrade the values programmed if the pools and supplies permit.

Now as for LST-889 - which is not even in play - it is spurrious. The air unit is OK.
The ship is OK. I will do what I can - but this is just a junk message - probably.
There are others - in all mods/scenarios - if you pay close attention.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 754
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/19/2007 2:10:59 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline 		cid,

Which editor or you using? The one that came with WitP or War in the Pacific Editor X if you are using the later the symbol field is here:

[image][/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

All well and good - except you cannot see this field in the editor! I get at it via WITP Excel. And that is very dangerous - we believe WITP Excel messes up the location file EVERY time you use it! So we prefer to copy a record - and then modify it to the new form.








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 755
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/19/2007 11:32:30 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		Playing EOS v6.6
 
We are having the unit upgrade problem again.  (Don't you just love the editor! )
2381 – IA Assam Rifles upgrade to (2005) USA Lt Tank Bat.
2715- USA 56th Cst Art reg …… (2047) ANZAC Lt AA Rgt
2714 -  San Francisco Fort …….(2002) USA 1942 Div
2651 - Pp Provisional AintTank ……….(2005) USA Lt Tank Bat.
2667 - USMC Samoan Marine…….. (2009) USA Eng Rgt
 
All the forts I looked at were upgrading wrong.
There are more that these, if you need a more complete list let me know.

(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 756
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/20/2007 3:41:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Editor X didn't exist when we began - so it was not an option. For a while the professionals said "don't use it until it is confirmed safe" - so that slowed its adoption by me. But now the big problem is the number of scenarios I manage (18) - and the way one switches between them in Editor X makes keeping the same record in so many scenarios cumbersome. I have also a couple of technical problems - but today Editor X is one of the tools I use - and I didn't know about that field. That is an easier way and safer way to monitor and modify the symbol than using WITPExcel - which requires a slow import of data and which seems to mess up the location file when it is exported. Thanks.

(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 757
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/20/2007 3:44:22 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		ALL: I have 60 pages of ship field error reports to work in. I have a couple of behaviors that may imply cam file corruption - so I am searching for older versions to use to get around them. I have the pointer issues above - and when data washing does location files I am sure many others. We will be issuing x.61 and probably later updates as this material is folded in. This process should take a few days - and possibly last until Tuesday. When it ends Mifune and I will create the Tag Team first turn - and I will start working on Level 7 (with Cobra and Mifune - the RHS Level 7 committee).

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/20/2007 3:56:40 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 758
RE: RHSEOS 6.61 comprehensive and 5.62 micro - 1/21/2007 12:56:34 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am uploading 6.61 comprehensive and
a few files at the same level for 5. The difference is I need to do the ships for 5 - and will issue
a 5.51 comprehensive tomorrow.

Other than MASSIVE data corrections in 6,

this includes a handful of eratta in leader, air group and location files.

We are data washing now - and will be for a few more days.

We WILL do new plane art - and apparently ship art will be revised in some sense -
and we WILL add some Allied plane slots. We MIGHT add some Allied planes in the course of this -
or leave empty slots. Plane art slots will now generally = the plane slot - just like the original stock!
But this is FUTURE tense - not at this level. Cobra writes work in progress.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 759
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/22/2007 4:07:59 AM   
shawn118aw

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline 		As far as USMC Aviation records go ...

On 31 Aug 1939 there were 323 Pilots (aircrew), On 2 Sept 1945, there were 10,049 Pilots

During that time 1,527 (Officers and Enlisted) Pilots were either killed or listed as missing. So a stright line average of 33 (33.2) per month (7 Dec 41 to 7 Sept 45, 46 months)

So that makes 11,576 Pilots Trained and Reached Operational Status. Again a stight line average of 251 per month, but the chart below shows the build up and level off of the USMC "Pilots" during the war.

Under the Personnel records it lists: date--Pilots, Officer and Enlisted (Operational--not Students in the pipe line)

31 Aug 39--232 Pilots
30 Jun 40--245, 13 new / 6 months (2 per month)
31 Dec 40--425, 180 new (30 per m)
30 Jun 41--505, 80 new (13 per m)
31 Dec 41--659, 154 new (25 per m)
30 Jun 42--1369, 710 new (118 per m)
31 Dec 42--2371, 1002 new (167 per m)
30 Jun 43--5030, 2659 new (443 per m)
31 Dec 43--8359, 3329 new (554 per m) *High mark for the number Trained per month
30 Jun 44--10457, 2098 new (350 per m) **High mark for the war for Total Pilots
31 Dec 44--10441, -16 new ***Here it flat lines so assume about 350 per month
30 Jun 45--10041, -400 new **** Drops from 350 to 283 per month
31 Aug 45--10121, 80 new (13 per m) *****Increase from 283 to 296 (or about 300)

I hope this helps,

Shawn
LtCol, USAF, C130 Pilot


(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 760
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/22/2007 10:22:05 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I don't think you understand the model. A game like WITP is a gross simplification of reality - so we have only a small fraction of the pilots "on the map" that were in the USMC (or any other service). Having exhaustive data (by both MFG number and military "tail number") for B-17s and B-24s, I did a study: about 30% of US production was sent to PTO - but only about 40% of that - which is to day 12% of total production - of these vital machines went to PTO in the sense of being assigned to units we have in the game. Whole categories of units are actually IN PTO AND MISSING from the game in the player management sense: for example USAAF air sea rescue bombers. [Mike Wood informed us on the Forum that they ARE in the game - abstractly - and matter to US loss rates when a plane must ditch].

Now statistical analysis of the pilot rates IS a good idea. But the question cannot properly be addressed in terms of "how many pilots were trained" - since only a tiny fraction get to our units. The question is "how many pilots get to our units?"
Different question. And answers to it are of interest. We actually did review this specific value a few months ago - and we did increase it - on the basis of information submitted. Different numbers require different information. And one must consider that pilots are not all from - or always in - the pools. It is the total you need to figure out - compared to what it should be. The designers intent is that it be a problem - not that it be unlimited - or there would be no pools. Players who are too aggressive are supposed to suffer problems building back - and that is realistic. On the other hand, if we are too restrictive - they don't get the real power they should have mid and late war. What values work need to be estimated, then tested, and determined. We don't want to just go with aggregate numbers - and make the Allies never care about losses. And many do just that - since they have never seen what will happen when they run out?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/22/2007 10:36:09 AM >

(in reply to shawn118aw)
Post #: 761
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/22/2007 2:32:36 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Sid sez: "We don't want to just go with aggregate numbers - and make the Allies never care about losses. And many do just that - since they have never seen what will happen when they run out? "



I wonder if there IS any way to penalize a player who abuses his replacement expectations, in-game?

If the "replacements" come into the game at specific points on the map, maybe they could be placed in more forward areas so if those points are captured, part of the replacement pool is lost??..Just thinking out loud....


_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 762
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/22/2007 10:30:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Someone posted "never mind if (American) carrier planes are carrier qualified - you can afford the attrition - you will never notice it." This is a scary attitude - and not one I would respect in a real commander.

When PTO erupted into war, IJN had more pilots and planes than USN did! The campaign turned around numbers wise by mid 1942. But if we are not careful - we could turn it around by early 1942 - and distort things badly.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/22/2007 10:44:11 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 763
RE: RHSEOS development and update plan - 1/23/2007 4:12:57 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Between people finding things for me to add/modify

and my brain thinking of new concepts

and some serious data washing being done by a volunteer

and a whole new set of plane art and ship art being done by Cobra -

we are going to be in development about another week (for Levels 5 and 6).

I am combining very minor craft into "divisions" (a naval term for non sailors - a division
is the smallest unit of ships or boats - smaller than a squadron or flotilla; a squadron has
all identical craft; a flotilla has mixed types of craft) and this is time consuming - but pays
off in slots. We had no ship slots to speak of - virtually none for the Axis - so now that is
changing.

I am (with help from Cobra) redoing some map art (I do the part you cannot see - pwhex
and location stuff; he does the art) - in the Amur area: we found an error and some omissions.
I am going to add "interior" river systems in several places - places that do not connect to the sea
so ocean ships cannot get there - but players can use what vessels are there - mainly to move units
and supplies - but in at least the case of the Amur system even to fight mineature naval campaigns.
This will create opportunities and threats more like IRL - and probably the Chinese will greatly benefit from the Yellow River system - which really was isolated from the sea for navigation (due to deliberate destruction of the
dykes by ROC during the part of the war before PTO "starts" from a US point of view). I would like to do this
to the Pearl River (South China) and Yangtze - but the Yangze is so far eluding me. I would like to do this on the Mekong too - and maybe we close the Ganges at Calcutta - ocean ships use the port next door just like in stock - river vessels use the interior route. No battles - but wonderful transport for the Allies.

I am working on a better plane system for EOS for the Allies - and Cobra found a problem with the PBJ - which I will fix for all. It works - but you can never see it! He also wants to have Matrix fix the code so the slot works.

Otherwise Cobra wants to have standard facings for ship art - and Mike Wood has called for the same thing (I think - art is not my thing) for CHS - and now for us all to coordinate. Maybe ALL in caps - Matrix, CHS, RHS and maybe everyone else too - able to draw on a library. And I think such a library may exist in not entirely standardized form (see AKDreemers site). Anyway - we are going to end Level 5 and 6 development with a nicer art set - map, plane and ship.

And Mifune is working on a new edition of the RHS Manual. I added a long essay in 10 parts about 2nd Edtion EOS - and he has updated parts out of date now we have different 'levels' or invented other things.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/23/2007 4:26:17 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 764
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/23/2007 5:27:32 AM   
shawn118aw

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline
I guess I don't understand what you need (if you need any data at all). I have attached a list of the Combat Squadron created for the USMC and what they did. I can get more details on each of these (dates activated, deployed, and final status) if you need.

Total is:
Combat Squadrons deployed--117
Pacific (only Made it to Pearl)--10
Activated then Decommissioned--6
Deployed to Atlantic Command--3
Training Squadron Only (US)--16

Marine Observation Squadron c-8 p-0 x-1 a-0 t-0
VMO-1 VMO-2 VMO-3 VMO-4 VMO-5 VMO-6 VMO-7 VMO-8 VMO-951


Marine Utility Squadron (Target Towing Units) c-3 p-0 x-1 a-0 t-0
VMJ-1 VMJ-2 VMJ-3


Marine Scouting Squadron c-1 p-0 x-0 a-0 t-0
VMS-3


Marine Fighter Squadron c-45 p-2 x-4 a-0 t-8
VMF-111 VMF-112 VMF-113 VMF-114 VMF-115 VMF-121 VMF-122 VMF-123 VMF-124
VMF-155 VMF-211 VMF-212 VMF-213 VMF-214 VMF-215 VMF-216 VMF-217 VMF-218
VMF-221 VMF-222 VMF-223 VMF-224 VMF-225 VMF-251 VMF-311 VMF-312 VMF-313
VMF-314 VMF-321 VMF-322 VMF-323 VMF-324 VMF-351 VMF-422 VMF-441 VMF-451
VMF-452 VMF-461 VMF-462 VMF-471 VMF-472 VMF-481 VMF-482 VMF-511 VMF-512
VMF-513 VMF-514 VMF-521 VMF-522 VMF-523 VMF-524 VMF-911 VMF-912 VMF-913
VMF-914 VMF-921 VMF-922 VMF-923 VMF-924


Marine Night Fighter Squadron c-8 p-0 x-0 a-0 t-1
VMF(N)-524 VMF(N)-531 VMF(N)-532 VMF(N)-533 VMF(N)-534 VMF(N)-541
VMF(N)-542 VMF(N)-543 VMF(N)-544


Marine Torpedo Bomber Squadron c-18 p-0 x-0 a-2 t-3
VMTB-131 VMTB-132 VMTB-134 VMTB-141 VMTB-143 VMTB-144 VMTB-151 VMTB-231 VMTB-232
VMTB-233 VMTB-234 VMTB-242 VMTB-332 VMTB-453 VMTB-454 VMTB-463 VMTB-464 VMTB-473
VMTB-621 VMTB-622 VMTB-623 VMTB-624 VMTB-943


Marine Scout / Dive Bomber Squadron c-11 p-1 x-8 a-1 t-3
VMSB-133 VMSB-142 VMSB-235 VMSB-236 VMSB-241 VMSB-243 VMSB-244 VMSB-245 VMSB-331
VMSB-333 VMSB-334 VMSB-341 VMSB-342 VMSB-343 VMSB-344 VMSB-474 VMSB-484 VMSB-931
VMSB-932 VMSB-933 VMSB-934 VMSB-941 VMSB-942 VMSB-944


Marine Transport Squadron c-8 p-0 x-0 a-0 t-0
VMR-152 VMR-153 VMR-252 VMR-253 VMR-352 VMR-353 VMR-952 VMR-953


Marine Photographic Squadron c-4 p-0 x-0 a-0 t-0
VMD-154 VMD-254 VMD-354 VMD-954


Marine Bomber Squadron c-11 p-0 x-0 a-0 t-1
VMB-413 VMB-423 VMB-433 VMB-443 VMB-453 VMB-463 VMB-473 VMB-483 VMB-611
VMB-612 VMB-613 VMB-614


Marine Glider Squadron (US Only) c-0 p-0 x-0 a-0 t-1
VML-711


c--Combat Squadron / deployment Pacific
p--Made it to Pearl Harbor (no further by end of war)
x--Decommissioned or split up after formed
a--Atlantic Duty only
t--US Only (for Training)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 765
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/23/2007 5:46:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		A list of combat squadrons is fine - for checking to see if we have them (or even want them)?
It is more useful combined with dates and locations of entry to theater - and primary equipment - and changes to that.

But it does not help with pilot count - or only crudely so. How many pilots were in these units? Not on any given day - but total? And how many transferred out? [My father left ETO air combat - and eventually almost everyone did that - after a season. Yet in WITP you get em you have em for the duration - or until they die or are captured. We have to subtract those who left from those who appear as repalcements or our pools are way too big.]

(in reply to shawn118aw)
Post #: 766
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/24/2007 4:31:15 AM   
shawn118aw

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline 		I can answer some of your questions by reference to several USMC and USN books and reports to the CNO I have collected for the past 35 years of studying the Pacific War, one being the History of VMF-214 (not written by Boyington).

From Jul 42 to Mar 45:

Squadron Size for single seat aircraft at that time was: 249 total personnel of which 220 were ground troops and 29 Pilots for 24 aircraft (one for one pilot to aircraft, +5...One Commander, One XO, One Flying Engineering Officer, One Supply Officer, and One Intel Officer)

In June 1944, the Marine Corp established the manning requirements of 150% of pilots to assigned aircraft thru the end of the war.

More data on VMF-214,

In 32 months they had 70 aircraft assigned, 18 shot down or lost to enemy action, 52 lost due to accidents.

VMF-214 had 4 Combat Tours of 6 weeks each (between Apr 43 and Feb 44) then rotated to rear area and to US for retraining to Carrier Qualification. By Jan 1945, the squadron was assinged to the USS Franklin and assinged 18 aircarft and 27 Pilots and departed the San Fran, CA. VMF-214 was still assigned to the USS Franklin when it was hit by a Kamikaze in Mar 45 and lost 7 Aircraft and returned to the US to become a training squadron until the end of the war.

They had 132 Pilots assigned to them in 32 Months, of which 27 were KIA or Missing in Action or POW. So that means for a 29 Pilot Squadron, each pilot would served an average of 7-8 months of combat duty, or 3 combat tours of 6 weeks each. All Squadon Commanders were limited to 2 Combat tours and then sent home to the US to train new pilots.

Aircraft Assigned to VMF-214:
Aug 42 to Dec 42: F4F3-3
Jan 43 to Jul 43: F4F-4
Jul 43 to Mar 45: F4U-1, F4U-1A, FG-1A, F4U-1D

So what can be taken from this?

1. For each squadron assign 120% Pilots to each aircraft until Jun 44 then 150% (Pilots to aircraft)
2. Each VMF-squadron assigned 24 aircraft (Ground based, 18 for Carrier based Squadrons)
3. If you never rotate squadrons back for R & R, then you only need half (50%) of the squadrons listed.
4. As for the pilot pool, reduce the 1,501 Pilots KIA'd and Missing during the war by 1/2 (to 750 as replacements) and distribute that number over the 45 months with the peek in Sept 1944.

Is this the kind of details you need for every Squadron?

Marine Corp Air Ops is not really my area, I am more into Logistic--both US and Japanese. But what ever I can do to make the game accurate and the best it can be I will do.

Shawn



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 767
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/24/2007 11:14:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well - it is useful - but a staistician would say the sample is too small. UNLESS this unit is typical - the real averages are very likely to be somewhat different. Nevertheless - it is an indicator.

However, our problem is much more severe than it might seem. We do not get to change the rate at which pilots become available to units. So we take the total number and divide it by 42 months - and assume that average applies if the war lasts longer than Aug 1945. We don't care about losses - the game calculates those for us - and if you lose more or less - so you have more or fewer in units or in the pools. We cannot cut the number of squadrons by half! Aside from the ahistorical nature of that - it is not operationally feasible to - say - have half the carriers without air groups - or any other specialty. PLAYERS decide if they can afford the luxury of not using all their air power - not us - and if pressed we IRL would have put them all in the line.

More useful is the data on pilot tours - if a pilot is limited to a certain number of tours of a certain length - we can compare that with 42 months - and then THAT becomes the fraction (of the fraction - see below) that we use.

If we know the fraction of a service committed to PTO operations and to our squadrons (we don't count search and rescue squadrons even if PTO for example) - we apply that fraction first. THEN we take the effective time per pilot and reduce it by that fraction. Because a "game" pilot serves without ending.

We also do not count the five "extra" pilots per squadron - unless they actually fly (in some services the commander does fly). Nor do we count co-pilots or relief pilots. Nor can we assign 20 or 50 per cent extras - that is not up to us. We don't get to allocate pilots per unit!

This unit served 42 months - 25 months = 17 months. But apparently it was no available for the first 12 months of the war. So it served 17 months of a potential 26 months = 65% of the time. If the unit had 24 one pilot planes - that is 408 pilot months of service. The loss rate IRL is not germane to a fictional game world - it might be higher or lower - machts nichts. What we need to do is figure out what can reasonably simulate the pool to support this unit? They cannot lose 24 pilots per day! The IRL pilot loss rate was only 1.6 (1.588) p[ilots per month of combat. You can see that if the game starts the unit with 24 pilots - never takes them back - it won't require a lot of replacements to keep it in service. For the real 26 months of war from the time the unit entered service one needs draw only 41 pilots to handle the historical loss rate. Give the pool vastly more than that - and you will make players ignore pilot losses - a waste of processing time then. If we knew the total number of Marine squadrons in our game - I don't - and the sum of their sizes - I don't know that either - we could multiply that times about 7% (1.588 / 24 = 6.6%) to see what a historical loss rate for that total number of pilots might be? But it would not be correct. Likely this one unit data is not dead on the statistical mean. It may not be far from it - but we don't know how far - or wether higher or lower?

Even if we knew those numbers - we would not know the rate at which pilots could be replaced. We would only know the rate at which they were replaced IRL. The absolute limit is higher - by some unknown multiple. That we must estimate.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/24/2007 11:40:41 AM >

(in reply to shawn118aw)
Post #: 768
RE: RHSEOS 5 and 6 .62 and .63 - 1/24/2007 7:02:52 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We got the location files washed for all scenarios. But one - EOS at level 6 - is messed up - and I have to fix it.

We got many ships field errors washed as well - for all scenarios.

There is a problem with the PBJ - which works fine - but it is "invisible" - and I have fixed this in all scenarios - at the price of the Brits must share the FM-2 Wildcat with the Americans.

For x.62 I have converted AXIS landing craft, MTBs and sea trucks to units - and added some minor landing craft only used in rivers. I also have converted some river ports to port vice airfield status (meaning industry there will now produce fuel). But I am NOT doing pwhex just yet - I want to test the group concept before doing the larger job of the Allies.

For x.63 I will convert Allied minor vessels - add still more river ports - and do a new pwhex creating interior river systems. The Usurri/Amur/Sungari system is growing - as I learn more - and will run from Lake Khanka to the Sea (but not exit to the sea) at Nikolaevsk na Amur - also across the top of Manchukuo - and into its heart at Harbin.
This system has true mini-navies. The Yellow River system is big - and contested - but mainly it is landing craft vs junks - all with machine guns - but some of the landing craft are the fastest in the world before the present era of air cushion vehicles. The Mekong is a Japanese only system with just landing craft. The Ganges will be an Allied only system but with rather larger river steamers. And I want to do the Yangtze - but have technical problems and it may remain only open to all vessels to Hankow/Wuhan - the real point ocean ships always could sail to.

Cobra is unifying the art - and doing an Allied art scheme for EOS only. New ship and plane art will be issued - and apparently it will be standardized for CHS/RHS and Matrix - and indirectly for everyone basing a mod on any of those three. [So at least Mike Wood has proposed - and we were already working on a standardized form for some days - so we sort of pre agreed.]

ETA for x.62: today. ETA for x.63: Friday.

Then on to do level 7 - which is really a question of "can I do the pwhex file - or not?" It is a gigantic task - with about 30,000 changes.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/24/2007 7:26:51 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 769
RE: RHS File Set 4.41 - 1/25/2007 5:19:50 AM   
shawn118aw

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline 		I will work on the questions but it may take some time to pull together,

"If we knew the total number of Marine squadrons in our game - I don't - and the sum of their sizes - I don't know that either - we could multiply that times about 7% (1.588 / 24 = 6.6%) to see what a historical loss rate for that total number of pilots might be?"

but until then, I found this and is a CNO After War report from 1946 ...

Like the Navy, the Marine Corps constantly shuffled men and reorganized squadrons. But there was a general pattern. A squadron would be organized at a stateside Marine Air Base - maybe Ewa, Cherry Point, or El Centro. After spending a few months there learning its equipment and assignment, it would go overseas for its first six-week combat tour. Following a short period of R&R, the squadron (less any casualties or men transferred out) would return to a rear area base, say Efate or Espiritu Santo to integrate the new men and perhaps learn new techniques or equipment. Then it would embark on a second six-week combat tour. After another R&R, replacements would come in, and the squadron would fly a third combat tour. But any one pilot was only obligated to fly two combat tours; fliers on the sick or injured list during the first or second tours would fly the third tour. At the completion of the third combat tour, i.e after about 8 months of front line service, the squadron would be broken up. The combat veterans would return to the Z.I. (Zone of the Interior) for training, staff, or test duty. The free squadron number would be recycled. A new group of men would comprise the new squadron, and they would repeat the process. The basic tactical and administrative unit of Naval aviation is the squadron. The number of aircraft in a squadron vary according to the type and mission. World War II squadrons consisted of as few as six aircraft and as many as thirty-six or more. A standard WWII Carrier Air Group consisted of four - eighteen plane squadrons. But, extra squadrons and added strength squadrons were common. Marine Air Groups (MAG) and Wings (MAW) as well as Navy shore based squadrons varied in strength as tasks demanded. Patrol and Search aircraft formed Fleet Air Wings

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 770
RE: The Wuhan Metroplex (at end) - 1/25/2007 11:31:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Studying the Yangtze basin, I find all versions of WITP have the Central Yangtze wrong.

The river system is correct - and the Han River does indeed meet the Yantze at the right point.

But Hankow (or Wuhan) is not there!

It is 120 miles (2 hexes) farther East!

There are three spurs of land where these rivers meet - Hankow in the NE one, Hanyang in the NW one,
and Wuchang in the Southern one.

The Peiking-Hankow RR does NOT cross the Yangtze where Hankow/Wuhan now is (48,35) - but instead
between Henyang and Wuchang. Further, it crosses the Han between Hankow and Henyang.

All three cities are part of the Wuhan metroplex.

Since I want a point to divide the river between ocean traffic and river traffic - and since shoal waters at Wuhan always made it occur here - even in the 19th Century - we will have Hankow/Wuhan be an ocean port. Connected by Rail to Henyang - supplies and resources will flow. Henyang is a river port. So, for that matter, is Wuchang. And so is Ichang - which is no longer an isolated Japanese outpost on the Yangtze - unable to get supplies. It gets them by trail from Hanyang and also it can get them by river traffic.

These changes require new art and a new pwhex file. So I will issue the pwhex file by morning - and Cobra will work on the map art in the next day or two. But I place the cities in the Location file - so - the cities will appear to "move" - and the supplies will move correctly - but the map art won't be correct until - it is redone.

The former main line on the South bank of the Yangtze (47,36 and 48,36) now becomes road.

And the real main line from Shanghai

46,37, 47,38, 48,38 and 48,39 all converts to main line RR - so the entire length from Shanghai to Hankow to Peking is main line.

I will convert Allied landing craft into groups, use some space to create motor sampan and motor junk units (both civil and military) on the upper Yangtze and Upper Yellow river - and open both rivers in the x.63 release.

I may also open the Mekong (Axis only river) and the Ganges (Allied only river). There are already landing craft at Pnom Penh. I will put some "micro AK" river steamers on the Ganges. So players can see the effects of these river systems.

I will do the Manchukuo river fleet and the Soviet River fleet for x.64 - and I am not working - so ETA = Thursday or Friday. But for now I am going to do x.63 and these minor river systems.

Note there is new map art already done for the NE Manchukuo area - where the river is "wrong" by two hexes.
When the pwhex file changes (x.64) we will issue this art panel.

Sid

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/25/2007 11:55:43 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 771
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/25/2007 1:56:37 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		-




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 772
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/25/2007 4:04:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Got a date for this? Who made it?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 773
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/25/2007 5:52:26 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Got a date for this? Who made it?


This is a cropped image of one map of a series of four compiled by the United States Army that covers all of China. Map data is from 1940's wartime China.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 774
RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded - 1/25/2007 6:49:50 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Well - I was able to compare it with a large scale map - and it is rather good. It is very hard to get this sort of thing right: ROC and Japan both built RR during the war - so what date counts - what does not? If we start the war "right" we then shortchange later ops - and vice versa. But it is pretty clear the main line was the Hankow-Cantonl line in this period - and the laterals were done later. The big problem we have is that the map is a bit too constricted north of this area - and we cannot properly show the Peking-Hankow line as far from the river as I would prefer.

And Kaifeng is on the wrong side of the Yellow river! The RR is right - but Kaifeng is at the rail junction.


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 775
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .62 release plan - 1/26/2007 2:47:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Three tasks are consuming my time in a big way:

1) Comparing EOS Level 6 with 5 - because somehow our data washed file is out of date;

2) Deleting huge numbers of landing craft and PT boats - mostly Japanese but some Allied - creating new slots -
into which I have put some combined units to try. I also had to define some new vessels for the river systems.

3) Changing the map in China - adding locations to make rivers more useful - defining airfields as ports - etc.

But when I have a version that will run - I will release it. I am not going to update everything in China nor all the small craft - just enough to try the interior river system out (at least on the Yangtze, maybe also the Yellow River).

This version has washed location files - ship files forced to look like their class definitions (in thousands of cases - not quite all) - and is set up for new plane and ship art. It fixes the "invisible" nature of the PBJ. The new aircraft art scheme means EOS can add Allied planes - but I have not done that (although I have studied it). I added some neat new river landing craft for IJA. I have added some Soviet armored trains and assigned them historical numbers vice regiment /1 & 2 numbers (where applicable). I have identified (and slightly revised) the IJA garrison units - and begun the process of redoing all eight of those. I put Japanese PT boats in divisions of 3, SD sea trucks in divisions of 3, added SC sea trucks (in divisions of 2), and introduced Japanese landing craft units of 40 or 48 craft. I also introduced river transports, river tankers, tugs and barges, motor sampans used like LCPs, assault junks used like LCMs, and transport junks - and added these vessels on inland waterways - and a couple of ROC coastal ports. I also assigned all Japanese shipping transportation regiments regular landing craft. These won't work on the Amur/Usurri/Sungari system (yet) - because I won't let them until I add the Soviet force. But you can look at them.

WHEN this is released I must do a location file - or the river ports remain not ports in the functional sense. I have defined every change - 2 pages worth - but I have not executed them in the 4 pwhex files needed for 2 levels of RHS scenarios.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 776
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .62 release plan - 1/26/2007 10:44:33 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		found this 1912 map of the 3 city complex

Cobra




Attachment (1)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 777
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .62 released (ALL SCENARIOS) - 1/27/2007 12:53:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is a combination release:

It includes data washed location and ship files, the usual eratta

and it is an interim release to test combining small vessels into units
and also inland waterways in China.

However, the inland waterways will NOT work UNTIL you get a new pwhex file -
and I now must write it. For now you can just admire the small craft in the inland
waterways of China and Manchuria. IF this works - I will do the Soviet small warships
and rivercraft as well.

Looks like we get four figure slots going this way (for ships). Looks like they work fine.
Looks like we can give players something like the right numbers of landing craft and PT boats,
but it will take time to enter all the data. Just deleting slots of data takes time. If only I trusted
an Excel Editor like WITPExcel not to generate errors...

It appears we may get the data folded in - and errors checked by rewashing - by about Monday or Tuesday.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 778
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .62 pwhex files - 1/27/2007 2:29:32 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		[Note: You may always use any pwhex file - and you may change it at any time. It controls the terrain "under" the art - and the only problem with using the "wrong" one is it does not match the art perfectly. If there are specific issues in a local area in the pwhex file, it does not affect most of the map area.]

I am doing a series of 4 pwhex files to match the released 5.62 and 6.62 RHS scenarios. I will release at least the Level 6 set today - and the Level 5 set today or tomorrow. The art for this is done - and Cobra will release it at the same time. These will correct road/rail/hexside values in the area from Chunking to Hanking/Wuhan. They will open up the upper Yantze basin as an experimental "interior river system". ALL the naval units and ports (including four new ones) for this system are in the files - but won't work until you get this pwhex file. I may or may not open some of the Yellow River at the same time. There are also naval units "frozen" in that area - but while some of the ports are defined - including a new one - not all are.

I will then move on to doing a 5.63 and 6.63 pwhex file series - also four files. This will open the Amur/Usurri/Sungari river system as an interior river system, turn the Ganges from an external river system into an interior one, create an interior river system on the Mekong, and finish whatever is not done with the Hwang Ho (Yellow River). This file set will be released with the data files for x.63 level - and with new art - already done for the Manchuria/Russia area - but probably also not yet done art for China.

MOST of the changes are not related to art - but a few are. However, mostly Cobra is ahead of me - as usual.

There are TWO RHS pwhex files for EACH level: Normal and Panama. You use the normal one normally (logically enough) and the Panama one ONLY if the Panama Canal is closed. The ONLY difference is a single hex side - between Colon and Panama City - which is either permits both land and sea movement - or just land movement.

There are DIFFERENT pwhex files for EACH level - because the shipping track needs a different pwhex file - that is what creates it.

I get to make a THIRD set - for level seven - but that isn't (yet) of interest to players. This is a massively different set - and it isn't totally clear it can be done in sane time frames. Unless and until it is done - there will be no Madagascar mini map, no resized Australia/New Zealand, no complex shipping track version of RHS. Almost everything else needed for Level 7 is done - except this pwhex file set - although doing it will require a few changes in art and locations in the location file.

AFTER I finish the pwhex files for x.62 and x.63 (permitting instant release of x.63 with no delay for the files) - I will fold in any eratta detected (and we are rewashing the files for errors) - and complete the transformation of the minor naval units. If complete is the right term: it appears this can go on for many months. We can gain thousands of units while simpifying play/turn execution - and create many hundreds of empty slots - by this mechanism - if we keep doing it. I find I can ADD many minor craft types - but result in FEWER units to manage!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 779
RE: RHS 5 & 6 .62 released (ALL SCENARIOS) - 1/27/2007 7:09:41 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

This is a combination release:

It includes data washed location and ship files, the usual eratta

It appears we may get the data folded in - and errors checked by rewashing - by about Monday or Tuesday.




El Cid

About errors. I have find the following

1. The TOF 13 Gds Naval Inf (2517) has still the Indian nationality.
2. The Ships of the SN Lekaryev MSW Class (9447-9458) arrive all in Seattle.
3. The Ships of the SN BO901 SC Class (9459-9476) arrive all in Nome.

4. The following ships have no Nationality.
SN Smolinsk (9222)
SN Dzerzhinski (9696)
SN Kirov (9707)
SN Vorovsky (9731)

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 780
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: x.60 data washed (phase 1) uploaded Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   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

0.796