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: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report

 
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: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 1:07:10 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

where heavy resistence is at least a possibility



In some places yes. But not in Kendari or every other similar place. In first place there werent enough weapons. Second the colonial culture. Third A quick search tels me that Kendari had a population of 40000 persons in 1970. You can guess how many they were in 1940's.

If you are matching supply production to supply sinks you will end up with completely irrealistic population demographics affecting the whole war.

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 1021
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 1:17:31 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Latest version RHS-CVO playing against Japanese AI..I moved the USAAF 28th BG flying B 17d's to Australia and on 08Jan42 was given the option to upgrade to B 29's!..I hit the upgrade button to see what would happen. I was told not enough supply. I flew them to Sydney and hit the "upgrade" button, and on 8January42, I now have B 29's!!..(Historically, the first flight was in September '42..)

_____________________________




(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1022
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 1:55:34 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Thank's Brum and Sid. I think I resolved the River Boat issue. It has to do with the port size. When I send the formed River Boat TF to a larger port it will disband. Now if I could only figure out where the River Boats can go to. I like these they facilitate the movement of supply.


It takes a size 3 port to disband. Probably works that way for "river" craft as well as computer sees no difference between them and ships in the ocean.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1023
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:00:16 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Latest version RHS-CVO playing against Japanese AI..I moved the USAAF 28th BG flying B 17d's to Australia and on 08Jan42 was given the option to upgrade to B 29's!..I hit the upgrade button to see what would happen. I was told not enough supply. I flew them to Sydney and hit the "upgrade" button, and on 8January42, I now have B 29's!!..(Historically, the first flight was in September '42..)


I think it is because the 28th upgrade path is to class 119, the b-29, instead of 109, the B-17E. Also, there is a pool of 14 B-29s to start, and a pool amount is always in the game and not dependent on the delay of the aircraft class.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1024
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:58:20 AM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline 		In RHSCVO, scen 50 - At the end of Japanese turn 1, 8 Dec 1941, Naga (PI) had 502/1 supplies and 0 fuel at the base, and 450 resourses with 1 empty AK there. I left the AK there to load fuel.

After Japanese turn 2, Naga base had 40/1 supplies, 5,940 fuel at the base, 500 resourses, and had loaded 95 fuel on the AK.

Somehow it had swapped about 400 supplies for 6,000 fuel during the turn. That's bad - I left the AK there to reduce fuel to be captured.


_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1025
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:01:15 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Thank's Brum and Sid. I think I resolved the River Boat issue. It has to do with the port size. When I send the formed River Boat TF to a larger port it will disband. Now if I could only figure out where the River Boats can go to. I like these they facilitate the movement of supply.


This is true - and I should have said so. You can never disband any TF in a small port - and small ports on rivers are common. But there is always one you can disband in.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1026
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:04:33 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: drw61


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61

Has anyone else had this problem? 
My computer locks up every time I have a land unit march to San Francisco or Sacramento.  This is happening in EOS v5.654, v6.654 and CVO 6.654.   It is not occurring with my CHS or original version of the game.


I will test.

Unable to confirm issue. Works for me. Need more data.



This happened to me one time before in ver 6.5??? and then went away.
If I try to "Set Destination Hex" of the USMC 2 Para or the USMC 2Div (actualy any land unit) to SanFran, LA, Long Beach, Sacramento or United States my computer will go into "not responding" mode. It happens in normal mode and window mode.

I may need to reload my WitP RHS games



Since it does not happen at source - and since testers are not reporting it - likely something isn't right file wise. It might be bad downloads, local corruption, or even a problem caused by some virus. Start with new downloads. And start with the new pwhex files. This might be pwhex. Next try the cam file. Indeed - do you have the RHS cam file?

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 1027
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:08:31 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

where heavy resistence is at least a possibility



In some places yes. But not in Kendari or every other similar place. In first place there werent enough weapons. Second the colonial culture. Third A quick search tels me that Kendari had a population of 40000 persons in 1970. You can guess how many they were in 1940's.

If you are matching supply production to supply sinks you will end up with completely irrealistic population demographics affecting the whole war.



This isn't my design. If it was, we would not have this discussion. [We would, no doubt, have different ones. There are always trade offs - and no design can ever satisfy everyone]. I am indeed matching supply sinks to production - and production is indeed defined (or should be defined) in tons in this system. Worse, sinks need 30 squads to eat the supply production of just one resource center. The problem is structural in the basic facts of the system itself - that resource centers generate supplies - or anyway excessive supplies - in many cases. We cannot simulate without eating them. You got a better way - I am all ears. Not eating them is for some mod where they do not consider the economics king. I consider it the point of the campaign - so it will take priority when a compromise needs to be made.

The problem is made worse because - as I pointed out above - Kendari is actually used to represent a vast area. The hex itself is something like 2600 sq mi - and it has all the production for several other hexes in it. I think you can and should rationalize this as a point battle representing an area battle. I doubt resistence can really be quelled in this area - and the Atlas of Revolutions indeed shows a fist (resistence unit fighting over years of time) in this portion of Celebes.
I know it is customary in games to let you "capture a hex" - but IRL it does not happen that way very often - and the same Atlas of Revolutions points out in text that no determined resistence movement was ever successfully eliminated in the later 20 th century by a distant colonial power. It might be argued that making it hard (but possible) to gain total control of the hex is still "too easy" compared to real life. For this reason I can live with the present compromise easier than you can - apparently.

That said, I am all ears about a way to eat the supplies that does not result in quite so large a supply sink. Hard code could do this in a wink of an eye. I would regard no supplies as better than too many - and soft control of the ratio as even better. But tolerating this design flaw is beyond my capacity: you want to leave all those supplies - and combine that with no damage to local production of resources and industry - (even if only disruption due to people not going to work for some days production is not going to instantly be at 100%) - you have lost me. I won't play a game that does not work logistics wise. We must abstract many things - and this in the end is going to be one of them. I will do better if a better way is found - but abandoning the concept is not doing better - it is to revert to a system wholly unacceptable to me.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/12/2007 11:17:46 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 1028
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:21:12 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Latest version RHS-CVO playing against Japanese AI..I moved the USAAF 28th BG flying B 17d's to Australia and on 08Jan42 was given the option to upgrade to B 29's!..I hit the upgrade button to see what would happen. I was told not enough supply. I flew them to Sydney and hit the "upgrade" button, and on 8January42, I now have B 29's!!..(Historically, the first flight was in September '42..)


You have somehow got an old aircraft file mixed in. In both level 5 and 6 - I just looked - CVO has 0 pool and 1944 start of production for the B-29. But there used to be a pool - which I used to account for the preproduction planes - which in my games become available for ops when line production begins. But WITP code does not prevent their use early - so I took them out.

If you cannot get this right - give me an address and I will send you the right file. Otherwise you have found an undiscovered bug in the system. And I am not seeing this in tests.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1029
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:22:58 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Latest version RHS-CVO playing against Japanese AI..I moved the USAAF 28th BG flying B 17d's to Australia and on 08Jan42 was given the option to upgrade to B 29's!..I hit the upgrade button to see what would happen. I was told not enough supply. I flew them to Sydney and hit the "upgrade" button, and on 8January42, I now have B 29's!!..(Historically, the first flight was in September '42..)


I think it is because the 28th upgrade path is to class 119, the b-29, instead of 109, the B-17E. Also, there is a pool of 14 B-29s to start, and a pool amount is always in the game and not dependent on the delay of the aircraft class.


There should not be a B-29 pool in any current version of RHS.

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 1030
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:28:09 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

In RHSCVO, scen 50 - At the end of Japanese turn 1, 8 Dec 1941, Naga (PI) had 502/1 supplies and 0 fuel at the base, and 450 resourses with 1 empty AK there. I left the AK there to load fuel.

After Japanese turn 2, Naga base had 40/1 supplies, 5,940 fuel at the base, 500 resourses, and had loaded 95 fuel on the AK.

Somehow it had swapped about 400 supplies for 6,000 fuel during the turn. That's bad - I left the AK there to reduce fuel to be captured.



Welcome to the mysteries of hard code, resources and oil. IF there is any sort of trail, road or rail connection (and an RHS ferry is at least a trail connection) AI can move UNLIMITED amounts of resources and oil ANY distance instantly.
I have seen 175,000 oil move from Salt Lake City (United States) to San Francisco in 12 hours (that is, one supply phase). IRL this is nonsense. I rationalize it as "movement ended at that time". Nothing I can do about it. Supplies and fuel do not move that fast - well - not that much. They also move instantly - but less often - and in lower amounts - depending on the path points - and won't move at all more than 4 hexes along a trail system (unless you use land units to hand them off - which works IRL too). I prefer a more sophisticated system. But note that I think this system works a lot better than I believed it could at first blush. For such a simple system I am astonished how well it works.

One factor - when you put something in a location - it creates "demand" to send supplies TO that location! Again - nothing I can do about that. In general a port will draw fuel toward itself - the bigger the port the more the fuel.
And it may be that putting a ship there is a factor as well. It is for supplies - put land units in a hex you draw supplies to them - so it is quite likely. Naga actually is Naga, Pili and Daet - three different cities - and a number of ports and airfields.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/12/2007 11:30:40 AM >

(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 1031
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 11:33:54 AM   
m10bob


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

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Latest version RHS-CVO playing against Japanese AI..I moved the USAAF 28th BG flying B 17d's to Australia and on 08Jan42 was given the option to upgrade to B 29's!..I hit the upgrade button to see what would happen. I was told not enough supply. I flew them to Sydney and hit the "upgrade" button, and on 8January42, I now have B 29's!!..(Historically, the first flight was in September '42..)


You have somehow got an old aircraft file mixed in. In both level 5 and 6 - I just looked - CVO has 0 pool and 1944 start of production for the B-29. But there used to be a pool - which I used to account for the preproduction planes - which in my games become available for ops when line production begins. But WITP code does not prevent their use early - so I took them out.

If you cannot get this right - give me an address and I will send you the right file. Otherwise you have found an undiscovered bug in the system. And I am not seeing this in tests.


Very possible..Since you are a workaholic and have at times issued 3 "updates" in a 24 hour span, I have a couple of times skipped right over some upgrades and just taken the latest as inclusive of all improvements.
I'd be willing to bet I'm not alone.
Very much like the thoughts going into the mod..



_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1032
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 1:31:44 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		Sid,

Playing v6 map as allied vs AI at Kavieng (62,88 ) no allied TF icon appears after converting docked Ak ships into a transport Task Force.

DavidR

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1033
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 1:52:08 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		Sid ,

Re B29 , I also have 14 B29's shown in aircraft replacement pool at start of game when
playng RHSCVO v 6.654

DavidR

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1034
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:24:53 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have verified there are none at source. So somehow you need source aircraft files - with nothing in the pool. If your file is different - other fields likely are different as well. Try redownloading. Or sending an address

to trevethans@aol.com - or mifune - or cobra

Sid

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1035
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:27:27 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: DavidR

Sid,

Playing v6 map as allied vs AI at Kavieng (62,88 ) no allied TF icon appears after converting docked Ak ships into a transport Task Force.

DavidR



I just did it - no problem. So something is wrong with your copy of the files. If you get the right ones - this is not an issue.

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1036
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:32:05 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Once RHS is completed (for the most part), all of these side issues will go away. (One complete download pack will cover all upgrades,etc.)
I wonder what tester has started the scenarios the most times??
I have started maybe 15-20 times, and suspect I'm not even close to the real FANatics..?

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1037
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:35:27 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		Sid ,

re the Tf icon - what files would need to be reloaded . I have been updating files nearly every day from CobraAUs site and have now no idea now which are the correct files and which are incorrect.

DavidR

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1038
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:39:52 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Once RHS is completed (for the most part), all of these side issues will go away. (One complete download pack will cover all upgrades,etc.)
I wonder what tester has started the scenarios the most times??
I have started maybe 15-20 times, and suspect I'm not even close to the real FANatics..?


I am running full scenario test number 220 - not counting a similar number of specilized test bed tests which are very short in duration.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1039
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 2:40:57 PM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: DavidR

Sid ,

re the Tf icon - what files would need to be reloaded . I have been updating files nearly every day from CobraAUs site and have now no idea now which are the correct files and which are incorrect.

DavidR


Actually - Cobra has a special set of Icons. Ask Mifune or Cobra who help with installs. I don't do that much - memory is dim.

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1040
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 7:30:18 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		Sid,

Re B29's in pool at commencement of RHSCVO . I have done a compete new install of RHS over a new install of WITP utilising the latest scenario 6.655, v6 maps and updated icons.
At the end of the AI first Turn as Japan the aircraft replacement pool again shows 14 B29's available. I do not know what other file I require ( your post 1035 refers ).

DavidR

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1041
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 7:30:51 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		Internet problems finally fixed El Cid Again, there is a "minor" problem with CVO 6.553.

I started a game (H2H). On the 2nd turn I tried to load the Japanese 14th Army HQ but it did not work. Same thing with the 16th Army HQ. Since I didn't have internet I was "forced" to open the editor and fix the problem myself (if that was possible). The very first time I do that. Wonder if I can play the accordion too! I checked the Japanese Army HQ's:

The 14th and 16th armies => HQ type = 31
All the other armies => HQ type = 1

I just deleted the "3", saved and it worked.

Well, I think the 17th Amphib Army HQ is wrong too.

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 3/12/2007 7:32:14 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 1042
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 9:46:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It may be wrong, but it is on purpose! I see no reason that Japanese amphib armies should not get the code benefits of these formations - so I did it. Further - I have not noticed any problem. Will test.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 1043
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 9:50:50 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline 		Sid,

Re B29's in pool at start of game. Received your dat file by pm and have just run 1st turn RHSCVO on HTH basis and there are no B29's in pool now.

Is the dat file in the download area faulty as I used this and got the error.

DavidR

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1044
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 10:02:10 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		El Cid Again, it may be on purpose, but you "created" a [non intended] bug. These units cannot be loaded, so they are sort of "static": the 14th Army won't leave Formosa. The 16th will stay in Palau. The Army HQ's give combat bonuses. That's what they are for. The command radius is = 1. If you can't move them to the front they are useless. That is the issue. The "HQ Type = 31" means the ships do not recognize them, I guess. They do not exist, therefore they do not load them.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1045
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/12/2007 10:13:29 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

That said, I am all ears about a way to eat the supplies that does not result in quite so large a supply sink. Hard code could do this in a wink of an eye. I would regard no supplies as better than too many - and soft control of the ratio as even better. But tolerating this design flaw is beyond my capacity: you want to leave all those supplies - and combine that with no damage to local production of resources and industry - (even if only disruption due to people not going to work for some days production is not going to instantly be at 100%) - you have lost me. I won't play a game that does not work logistics wise. We must abstract many things - and this in the end is going to be one of them. I will do better if a better way is found - but abandoning the concept is not doing better - it is to revert to a system wholly unacceptable to me.



Putting a tiny engineer unit in city hex will achieve destruction and a supply sink in a contiguos hex will eat supplies too.

Like i said before my syst works ok for me. All my Japanese Units including ships in DEI  have no replacements/no upgrades ON and only change when a supply from continental Japan or Indochina arrives for 1-2 turns.

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1046
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/13/2007 2:48:33 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, it may be on purpose, but you "created" a [non intended] bug. These units cannot be loaded, so they are sort of "static": the 14th Army won't leave Formosa. The 16th will stay in Palau. The Army HQ's give combat bonuses. That's what they are for. The command radius is = 1. If you can't move them to the front they are useless. That is the issue. The "HQ Type = 31" means the ships do not recognize them, I guess. They do not exist, therefore they do not load them.


The Amphibious Army HQ are correct to be a type 31. They load only on AGPclass ships. Now whether Japan starts with any is another question as they cannot convert an AK to an AGP.

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 3/13/2007 2:51:25 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 1047
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/13/2007 3:40:07 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: DavidR

Sid,

Re B29's in pool at start of game. Received your dat file by pm and have just run 1st turn RHSCVO on HTH basis and there are no B29's in pool now.

Is the dat file in the download area faulty as I used this and got the error.

DavidR


Might be. I don't control that. Even if I did - still might be. Information theory says - if a large data set - there must be errors.

(in reply to davidjruss)
Post #: 1048
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/13/2007 3:41:38 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, it may be on purpose, but you "created" a [non intended] bug. These units cannot be loaded, so they are sort of "static": the 14th Army won't leave Formosa. The 16th will stay in Palau. The Army HQ's give combat bonuses. That's what they are for. The command radius is = 1. If you can't move them to the front they are useless. That is the issue. The "HQ Type = 31" means the ships do not recognize them, I guess. They do not exist, therefore they do not load them.


I find that rediculous and hard to believe. On the other hand, I listen to users. Testing. If true it is one sided code - the Allies can load such units.


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 1049
RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report - 3/13/2007 3:43:07 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, it may be on purpose, but you "created" a [non intended] bug. These units cannot be loaded, so they are sort of "static": the 14th Army won't leave Formosa. The 16th will stay in Palau. The Army HQ's give combat bonuses. That's what they are for. The command radius is = 1. If you can't move them to the front they are useless. That is the issue. The "HQ Type = 31" means the ships do not recognize them, I guess. They do not exist, therefore they do not load them.


The Amphibious Army HQ are correct to be a type 31. They load only on AGPclass ships. Now whether Japan starts with any is another question as they cannot convert an AK to an AGP.


Aha. Thanks. OK - here is the deal - without knowing about this - I reclassified two Japanese ships as AGC - because they really were - among other functions. Yamashita really was aboard one of them for Malaya IRL. She is Akitsu Maru, ship slot 519, starts in TF 3602 in EOS and at Bako [Pescadores] in all other scenarios. The "ferries" from Formosa to Bako mean you can "march" there too. Her sister is Nigitsu Maru and she appears at Tokyo on 430315. Now that does not solve the problem entirely - but this portion of it is "pre solved." Note that the Akitsu Maru converts to a CVE (if you let it upgrade) and gains Army type carrier aircraft late in the war in CVO and RAO.

We have a report of device shifting at industries - checking that. We have got back enhanced location files from Blitzk. And I have found some aircraft/group eratta doing a line by line utility. There will be an update shortly.

I have "converted" the Shinshu Maru to an AGC. She is the very first ship in history to have that function. These ships are hard to classify - they are sort of like modern LHAs - with many functions. But she exists when the war begins -
in TF 3491 in all scenarios.

Since I use USN/joint Allied nomenclature - these ships have the type descriptor [LSH] after their names [Landing Ship Headquarters]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/13/2007 4:28:57 AM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 1050
Page:   <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5 & 6.654 Test Report Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   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

2.813