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 Thread: Release 6.30 update link w description

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.30 update link w description Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.30 update link w description - 12/12/2014 1:43:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Level I Update Link 2.51
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg-8ZqLaG9QbsVHAolg



The primary change in this file set is that the Fall seasonal series of pwhexe.dat files is included. ALL strictly historical RHS Fall files (1942 to 1946) are included - meaning we have issued no less than 20 pwhexe.dat files for standard RHS. Strictly historical RHS scenarios (101 to 104 and 106) feature changes to infrastructure as actually build by both Axis and Allied powers.

In addition, the Japan Enhanced Scenario (JES) Fall 1945 pwhexe file is included. The only pwhexe files left to issue are out year Monsoon and Fall ones - and these are built on the 1942 files - so they are not particularly difficult to generate. These will be included in updates in future.

Apart from changes to the pwhexe.dat files, and slight revisions to RHS documentation (e.g. a page number duplication in the Economic Theory document was corrected), this update revises location files in four respects.

One) Perhaps 50 minor locations - virtually all in NEI or the area near New Caledonia - were revised. Many small islands had no actual data - and no one ever looked up their potential for airfields or ports - or what was produced there in 1941? Some of these were very significant: e.g. Lingga Roads was the major IJN late war fleet base. When missing data was found, it was folded in.

Two) Perhaps 150 bases were updated to insure they are consistent with their formations and/or with the actual armament of the organization. The main change was that numbers of Japanese naval bases defense forces replaced 81 mm mortars with WWI era 70 mm mortars.

Three) Rather larger numbers of files were changed in Scenario 106 because the data for them differs in 1945 than in 1941 scenarios. Almost every KNIL unit was 9999ed out - because they no longer exist in 1945. Many locations changed commands - usually to Japanese - sometimes to a different Allied command (because they were conquered by Japan, then conquered again by a different ally). Many units get different sensors in 1945 than in 1945 - mainly sound detectors replaced by radars - or for mid war units - radars replaced by late war radars. A few units got different commanders - when that applies.

Four) Scenario 99 changed locations and/or units when they differed from 105 and when this was a problem. Bases, in particular, should be the same - and should point at the same formations. Scenario 99 is now substantially up to standard except with respect to some unique ship art I need to find.

I now plan to initiate test series ten. Some of these are automated (to learn what happens to the economy over time?). There will also be a manual tag team test game. During the testing phase, I plan to revise some aircraft art, work on some Scenario 99 ship art, and issue the missing out year JES pwhexe files. After than we will investigate changing the files required to change off map movement (now editors have been released permitting that). A number of technical matters may be able to be addressed by this means.

After that I will investigate how to make map panels with a view to changing them seasonally in the North - visually making it easier to see how navigation is affected. Another option is to show railroad and road construction changes over time.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/23/2016 6:15:31 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 421
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.2 important update link - 12/12/2014 1:49:31 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Vipersp


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Be sure to put the 41WINTERpwhexe.dat file - also called pwhexe.dat in the
RHS pwhexe folder - in the top level AE folder.

Read the documentation in the RHS folder, at least re economics.

You may pm me for questions




quote:

ORIGINAL: Vipersp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

1. Create manually C:\RHS\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
2. Install WITP:AE into the C:\RHS\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
3. Install RHS installer in C:\RHS\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition



It worked!!!



Thanks Sire!
Just a weird thing I noticed by running 2 turns in both 105 and the one intended for AI;
December 7th surprise ON and historical first turn ON and then OFF
KB Kates set to port attack and not a single torp was launched at BB row in Pearl
Even the Vals just dropped 4x100Kg bombs over the US ships with no bigger effect than some AA guns nocked out..is there a way to return the 250kg ordenance for vals and fire torpedoes from the Kates??

Cheers


It appears you might not be using the beta. RHS uses specified weapons loadouts that only work properly
with the beta releases. From time to time weapons issues do appear - notably in re torpedoes -
but since the latest update from Matrix all seem to be working. The new test series will pay attention to this
matter and, if it is present, we will try to address it.

(in reply to Vipersp)
Post #: 422
RE: RHS: RHS Design Thread: RHS and Stock Economic T... - 12/12/2014 2:04:12 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I saw this thread and thought haven't I looked at this years ago? This started over two years previously. Wow.



Because Mifune is a fan of RA, he recommended I look at some of its features - and I did. Apart from
that, there is no relationship between the two mods that I am aware of. All mods and stock are in some
sense related - and borrow ideas and data to a greater or lesser degree. RHS is an old WITP mod that
"pioneered" things we take for granted today - implementing drop tanks for example (which existed in
code but not in stock data) - demonstrating player interest in Russian ships, blimps, midget subs (etc)
which were nominally "impossible" in WITP - and introducing the concept of a map edge movement track
for the Allies. Never mind these and many other ideas now part of stock and all mods, RHS owes MORE to
Matrix and other mods than it was able to introduce. Jim Dunnigan wrote in one of his books that game
designers and modders "shamelessly borrow ideas" - and he is correct. But the final mix in any given mod
is the responsibility of the modder - or in the case of a group effort - of the mod coordinator. The real
thing that sets RHS apart is that it is an OPEN mod - ANYBODY can suggest changes. In fact it is a set of mods -
both historical and modified history - so an idea may be used in some but not all scenarios. But we don't
close the doors to ideas and actually try to use constructive suggestions whenever possible. To such an
extent I estimate half the content is NOT by the team, but merely responses to forum and private suggestions.
Another feature is that RHS believes in testing to an extent impossible for a commercial company. Not only do
we try to put in all the units, we worry about how to feed them when the number increases over time - by
actually measuring how much will be needed? It is testing as well as suggestions which drives RHS changes
to the game system.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 423
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.31 update link w description - 12/16/2014 8:10:59 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Revised below.

This was an unplanned, comprehensive microupdate of some significance.
It was supposed to come out yesterday, and it was supposed to complete
the data files, but it did not. There will be a 9.40 later today or, if things
go badly, tomorrow. THAT will be the "final" data update for the Test Ten
series - and THAT will leave only some art and out year FALL and Monsoon
Japan Enhanced Scenarios (99 & 105) pwhexe files to update.

Our Polish eratta hunter found three cases where Dutch militia units
had a typo - using a Japanese engine for support squads - and of course
that does not work well. These and other eratta found in the process of working
are folded in.

I myself tried to "complete" location work - and came up with a method to detect
locations not worked on for a long time. This worked too well and I found over
a hundred - probably 150-200 - and reworked them. Mainly in NEI, but also
other parts of the SRA, including the Philippines, French Indochina and Burma.
But it is in NEI some important changes were made - now too dim in memory to
detail. I also added several locations because Japan developed those places
and the game should permit airfields where they existed. One location - Brunei -
is too "new" and lost oil production. Others gained some. All were made consistent
with new standards - including a way of determining airfield build and port build levels.

What bogged me down was a suggestion and link to discussion of Aussie armor.
Curiously it is the ONLY thing that two and a half days of hard work did NOT get addressed! I found numbers of issues and reworked Aussie and NZ infantry first,
added two devices (Pattern No 1 Bren Carriers, and Pattern No 2 - for Aus and NZ respectively). And then reworked numbers of units to use them instead of incorrect vehicles. AUS built 5400 carriers - NZ 1400 - DURING the war - and these are at on map locations subject to being damaged or even captured.

I reworked NZ motorized infantry (to become armor) formations as mobile formations. I found technical issues with the upgrade paths and resolved them at device, formation and unit levels. I found 3rd division was present but so were all of its elements- and reworked at formation and unit levels with pointers so they can combine properly.

I reworked AIF infantry divisions and added 9th Division. I plan to add the First Tank Division and the First Army Tank Brigade - but that will take hours because these are built from other units - and they must be reorganized to combine. Many units set to combine in stock were done properly - others were not - and so when combined give false squad counts. I have learned to go through a tedious process to insure that never happens - every unit must be integrated with its parent - and the formation of the parent as well. Sub units no longer can have formations.

Along the way we added a leader (I forget who) and checked several others. We added two and changed devices and pointers for 10-12 devices -- mainly AUS and NZ and CW armored vehicles. The Allies to NOT produce anything - ONLY get squads if replacements - so replacement numbers were revised upward in several cases - because the numbers were not realistic or even playable.

This amounts to an important update and most of it will fold into existing games. What remains is the AUS Tank formations - and their elements - which I have documented but not implemented just yet. The process involved a lot of research and I sympathize with previous OB workers - whatever you do must be a simplification of a complex reality in the context of limited slots and ability to change units. I DID change AIF divisions - they exist in two forms - "early" and "late" - the late one absent the "armor" formation - but they do so by clever means - not an update per se. 6 & 7 are essentially early but evolve to late - 8 & 9 are essentially late - and the Downfall Scenario forces players to use late - with NO daughter units (in part because there are vast numbers of units in 1945 - and 8 does not exist by 1945 - having died in four parts).


< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/18/2014 10:56:40 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 424
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.40 update (and limiting of d... - 12/18/2014 9:54:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi

This version is "stable" in several respects. I do not plan to add locations,
aircraft, ships, leaders, or even land units. Except for eratta I also do not
plan to change them.

Development will now focus on "pwhexing" - completing the set - and perfecting
it. Also on air art issues (missing art). After that on Scenario 99 ship art issues (missing art). Also on giving this file set a good test in terms of seeing the economy run, and support units, over an extended period of time.

The main changes from 9.31 are related to Australian and New Zealand land units.
Unfortunately, virtually all the Aussie militia needed to be reworked. As well, I added armored units. These turn out to be a significant simplification: The AUS First Armored Division consumed many other units, and got rid of the need for some formations. I was able to develop this for strictly historical scenarios such that it will REFORM into the First Army Tank Brigade. Something of a misnomer, that formation is almost identical with the division! [Two armored regiments were detached.] The later formation, achieved by renaming combined with upgrading to a different formation, remains able to split into three parts - like a division! So it becomes the first Allied brigade to divide (I think). [IJA has "brigade divisions" permitting brigades with three regiments - imagine that - to split]. Scenario 106, which has vastly more units, is supposed to be simplified anyway, and little need for small armor formations given the larger and more dense opposition - has the Tank Brigade as a standard brigade, and it starts at a weaker size - not needing time to "shed" squads. Actually, this model is a simplification of reality - British, Indian and Aussie organization is extremely complicated and changes over time. Even so, I made real progress toward having game units change.

For example, the 7th Division is renamed the 11th Division at a certain point. This is approximately what happened. I considered adding the 10th and 12th divisions as well. Turns out 12th is merely a name for Northern Command and involves no elements appropriate to a division. And 10th only existed for a brief period in 1942,
and had only two brigades, one of them already part of a different division. So I added its 32nd Brigade instead. This is NOT a normal brigade, and it starts as a mere militia battalion, and then "grows" into a brigade. The unit also picks up a peculiar armored car regiment - which has no actual armored cars at first (just improvised ones).

The tanks had to be reworked at device level because they DID exist before stock says they did. The First Armored Division (official history) had 8 Stuarts and 10 Grants in December 1941 (as well as 30 Bren Carriers Local Pattern #1 which I just added last time). One regiment is retained - because it formed later - but the unit lost its formation and pointer - and had to be delayed in time (it does not appear at start as stock and most mods have it). I also had to modify the leader of the armored division. He WAS in the list, but at the wrong rank.

New Zealand 3rd Division needed to have its formation defined. I considered adding 3 Divisional HQ - but rejected it for now. I have to figure out if it is better to form divisions or to have them be regional HQ (which in fact they were)? I will think about this for a while.

After reworking these two armies, I checked locations in Papua New Guinea (actually two territories then but that is the present name of the area), the Bismarck Archipellego and the Soloman Islands. These have not been reviewed in general for some time and are often important - and there is a lot more information available to me today than there used to be. A number of port and airfield builds were revised, and industry added (or deleted in a couple of cases). Most interesting was Buka, which is a port AND airfield at start AND has an Aussie engineer unit (construction/demolition type) on it. I didn't know that (and neither, apparently did anyone else doing an AE OB). Woodlark Island also is a significant Gold field, and for that reason has a port and airfield - previously represented as level 0s. I also learned WHY the Kokoda Trail (spelled with a d instead of a k) was important? It was also the site of a pre war Gold Rush, and for that reason, had an airfield. Otherwise, locations in the more Northern part of this area tended to pick up industry and infrastructure (ports and airfields) - mainly due to the high value of trade - Gold in particular. The Southern Solomans remain substantially a logistical desert - but several places have development potential. In particular, if the US built airfields and ports, I put in the correct data - and start Scenario 106 (1945 Downfall) with them in place.

Now to install and use tracker for this set of locations. One eratta hunter was able to find eratta using tracker - so perhaps I can as well?



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:01:01 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 425
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.40 update (and limiting of d... - 12/18/2014 10:22:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I strongly recommend reading this MS Word document BEFORE you attempt to play RHS.
It explains, within the limits of my understanding, how economics works in BOTH
stock and in RHS. Of necessity, and also because many aspects of the stock system
are worthy of respect, they are similar. But there are significant differences it
behooves you to understand.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2311&authkey=!ABThfW53ZocPeHk&ithint=file%2cdocx

Fundamentally RHS seeks to force players to move things (except where land lines of
communication or adjacent ports level 3 and above do it automatically) by ship. The
"free resources" in Japan are gone, and the highly developed industrial locations -
Tokyo and Yokohama most of all (partly because they are next to each other) - must
be fed resources or, when starting pools are depleted, they will simply shut down -
not only costing supply points but also vital HI points that are used to make things
of value. Free resources, if they exist, tend to be at the map edge, and tend to
be in "trainloads" (multiples of 2000 tons) - at least if there is a major rail line
at that point. Thus San Diego, being near such an entry point, probably does not
need a lot of ships bringing in resources. But San Francisco - a major consumer not
so close - probably needs some help. Tokyo - near the center of the map - needs
large quantities every day: game mechanics do not permit roads and railroads to move
unlimited amounts. This is a problem in Australia - where even a rail link cannot
entirely replace the need to move resources to SE Australia. This is a deliberate
part of the RHS package.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/18/2014 11:22:29 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 426
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.41 microupdate (eratta fixes) - 12/22/2014 10:41:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi

The bad news is that the law of information theory remains true:
for any significant sized data set, there WILL be errors.

The good news is that many of them are astonishingly minor.
But some are quite irritating. 5 or 6 locations had the wrong
starting flag - very visible - and not nice in terms of giving stuff
to the enemy for "free." This happens because the recommended
editor procedure is to copy records, and RHS has locations that
start on different sides in different scenarios - depending on date.
So if the wrong record is copied, I need to notice and fix the command.

Two semi-important locations are revised by a combination of
location file and pwhexe file reforms. These issues date from stock
and I have been ignoring them since location research brought them
to my attention. Changing them required some work involving several
hexes. But I decided I don't want to do a long term test without the
map being "right" - and why not have things work in the game the way
they do IRL?

First, Biak is in the "wrong" hex. Well - not exactly - Biak is an island,
and the Biak hex indeed is where most of the island is. But there is only
one port and airfield on the island, only one economically significant point:
the Dutch called it Bosnik. A bit of a pest hole, it is a district capital,
and it was significantly developed during the war, and subject to battles -
so the ranges to and from it should be modeled correctly. Bosnik is on the
SE coast of the island. And you CAN "walk" from there to the main part
of the island - the block was removed. Yes - yes - it does make it appear
the city is on a different island - and you can walk around both islands.
Not very far actually - but it is more or less true - this is a place with a lot
of coastal traffic - and everyone who matters has small boats to get around.

Second, Maumera on the island of Flores is on the NORTH side of the island -
so it should not be blocked to ships entering port from that direction. The
city did not move, but no less than seven hexes had to change to show this.

There was one half a hexside block at Kratie Cambodia cutting a significant road.
Fixed.

There is one new leader: a Laotian who led the Free Laos field unit - and the unit
itself is added - under Free Thai command (because it was) and using Thai
rifles (because it did). I discovered him and his unit researching questionable
infrastructure data for Vientiane. 4 or 5 locations got revised infrastructure.
The sum of changing sides for some locations, and changing what was at for others,
changed the ratio of assets from 1:1.48 to 1:1.47 - that is very little. But now things
look a bit better and are more correct.

I found a number of LCU out of sync with their formation or with their parent unit in
terms of slot order. This messes up things when those units are involved in operations - just what depends on the device change? But I prefer to fix such issues when detected. So if you see something that seems wrong, let me know and it may
get corrected.

There is a new pwhexe standard here - mainly involving hex-side changes for Biak and Maumera described above. But there is one other change - Tulagi is now non-malarial. This is WHY it was the district capital.





< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:01:32 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 427
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.50 microupdate (eratta fixes) - 12/27/2014 5:50:53 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		see link above or below

Having failed to get tracker to run properly (so far), I began to devise my own
tools for analysis of the databases. The first of these was to get Scenario 106
to run in 1945. That because it makes it easier to look up units by name - particularly
since I have added prefixes to names (for nation or service) making all units of each category group together (instead of all the units beginning with the same number for example). To do that, I had to define when the scenario should begin? I settled on 27 January 1945 because at midnight January 6, two major Allied admirals assumed commands. At that moment all significant elements of the Pacific Fleet are in port, and we know what they are (including three new Essex class carriers) and where they are? The scenario will last only 249 days - which makes it the first RHS mini-scenario. It also is simplified - missing a lot of very minor naval vessels (coastal and riverine transports) and features that confuse AI. As well, it is the first RHS scenario with kamakaze's possible - similar to the stock downfall scenario. Unlike stock, however, it does not omit much of the map and ignore major Japanese commands.

Having got this to run, I was able to resolve some "what are the daughters of this parent unit" questions more easily. I found one significant problem - if a division is significant and if appearing in 1942 (affecting most games) is significant. The 94th Division (- recon regiment) is a formation dating from stock. It is composed, unusually, of Occupation Regiments, as well as artillery and engineer formations. But not one of the daughters was in the same device order as the parent. They also had other technical issues. I revised the parent, its formation, and all the daughters. One of the daughters was entirely missing - a three regiment division with only two regiments - so I added that. The regiments were, in fact, RCT so I renamed them.

The daughter regiments above were sandwiched around two other occupation regiments which were themselves daughters of independent infantry brigades (mortar type). These were shown as identical to the independent infantry regiments of the division, but that isn't quite correct: a mortar brigade daughter regiment lacks all forms of field guns, including regimental guns - substituting for them more 70 mm gun howitzers. To form up the brigade, a battalion of 24 90 mm Mortars is combined with the occupation regiment. Curiously, both these "regiments" and the "brigades" they form have four line battalions vice the usual three (and occasional two) of IJA infantry regiments. You get infantry heavy units that are slightly more combined arms than an infantry group would be (it has no heavy weapons above machine guns and the ultra light 50 mm "knee" mortar). Easy as it sounds to describe these issues, there is a lot of work involved in correcting them because every unit and every formation needed to be rebuilt at the device level in all RHS scenarios (multiplying the work times seven if you understand that I am doing two not yet issued scenarios side by side with the issued ones).

This tool led me to another discovery: many units never appear! It seems that if a daughter is 9999ed out in the editor, but still points at the parent, the pointer is still active. The parent then will never appear at all (if all the daughters never do). Or if one of the daughters does appear, it can "combine" with nothing to form the parent!
For this reason I went through all 5,000 (!) land unit slots for both sides! Remarkably only a tiny number were affected - but the time to check was not short.

In the process of working with units in the location files, I found some device issues. Mostly dates and upgrade paths. Defining the 1945 scenario means I check the upgrade devices for that unit, and also change its pointer (saving the computer having to do that some unknown time after the scenario begins). I found several issues,
and corrected them, in particular re radar and AA guns. I also revised how some units upgrade - changing pointers - and in at least one case - adding a new formation. There are not enough slots to put in the mid and late war Japanese AAA units - so stock made a partial attempt to address that by having formations upgrade to better formations. I took that further, although still not as far as history (due to a lack of slots). In general, in RHS, a battalion will become a regiment mid war,
and it will gain radar equipment in many cases late in the war.

This work, and attempts to simplify Scenario 106, led me to eliminate daughter units. There are many units by 1945 - and IF all the daughters are on the map - there is no need to have them appear in different places at different times. A division can still split into three packages if you want, but it is more powerful as a division, and fewer units are easier to manage as a player. This led me to realize that Scenario 102 - designed for AI - and 104, which at least one player uses vs AI in spite of AI not being entirely compatible with it - would benefit from this in some cases: bigger packages are more combat effective and AI is not smart enough to combine units in most circumstances a human player would do. So I made some revisions along these lines - even numbered scenarios have somewhat fewer units than before - having lost their daughters in favor of parent units when it is practical in technical terms (that is, when there is no need for separate daughters for some reason - either to serve historical starting deployment or historical appear on the map dates).

There will be at least a 9.51 update - likely tomorrow - adding some revised pwhexe files. In particular Monsoon files will be revised to come into sync with the slight changes in the current standard, and to deal with a reported blocked hex-side issue.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:01:53 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 428
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.51 microupdate (pwhex files) - 12/30/2014 3:19:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi


My intention - to issue an update bringing later season pwhex files up to date -
was delayed by several factors - including a fall on the ice which resulted in significant disability for a while. Here I have updated both monsoon and fall seasons and the pwhex updates probably are the most important component. These updates have corrected a number of map issues dating from the very earliest days: Ternate was not accessible from the Coral Sea side of the island of Flores - never mind it is on the North side of the island - and "Biak" (which is an island vice a town) - was both in the correct place - but misleading in terms of not being where the only port or airfield are - and blocked from marching overland where one really could march. Fusan (Pusan) is now a minor urban hex. Certain hex side eratta have been corrected.

There are a number of eratta folded into the aircraft, device and location files. The most important of these undoubtedly is the correction of Australian I corps in multiple respects. 1) It starts too soon and in the wrong place (it is in North Africa in December 1941 and was not ordered to return to PTO until January 1942, and didn't start embarking before the 27th - meaning it cannot arrive at Aden until early February); 2) It has the wrong commander; 3) It is restricted and apparently cannot be changed - but even if it could be changed - it was actually intended for operations in Malaya and then actually used for operations in the SW Pacific Area - and it was not restricted to operations in Australia by any means, nor at any time.

The aircraft change is only related to JES scenarios 99 & 105: New Zealand picked up some B-24s. These were promised but never sent - and in a Japan enhanced scenario perhaps the priority of reinforcing an ally would have been higher. Documentation files were revised to include this change.

The device updates - apart from date changes to sync properly with other devices - are cosmetic. In particular Cart w Spt Section is now simply Support Section. A couple of Scenario 99 devices were renamed for consistency with other RHS scenarios.

The biggest changes in the location files relate to land combat units. Mainly these are brought into sync with formations, or with parent units and their formations. Some cases were found where the component units used a different device order than the parent unit. While they still will combine, it generates false data - code is stupid and you MUST use the same device order to get the right device counts - it will not change slots for you. Otherwise, some units lacked the devices of the formation - and never mind a unit "updates" to its formation - it will NOT update if the slot was not in the original unit.

I think the database is suitable for starting new games. I am going to have the Japanese test team start Test Ten. This should reveal if there are any more issues that need to be dealt with other than those that appear dynamically during tests.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:02:08 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 429
RE: RHS Thread: Release 5.52 microupdate (pwhex files) - 1/2/2015 9:49:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		see link above or below

This is a comprehensive update affecting numbers of files in mainly minor ways.

Pwhexe files are updated with respect to eratta. Some of them had an "extra"
half hex of RR on Ceylon. Others had "ocean" half hex sides blocking a port's
land access in Indochina.

Location files were updated with respect to integrating land units and formations by changing or adding pointers, or in some cases by changing some devices. As well, locations not reviewed for a couple of years were checked, and some were changed. Stewart Island - which had been determined to have 0 port or airfield potential due to a reef and topography - were changed for the new Chilan Ceylon. This minor fishing port (famous for crabs and prawns) was also the birthplace of Ceylonese nationalism, visited by Ghandi in 1923 because two brothers there wanted to start the Ceylon National Congress. In game terms, it matters because it is the best landing point for an assault on Columbo - and defining it as a location permits the defenders to fortify the beach.

The most significant location change, apart from exchanging Stewart Island for Chilan, is that Singora and the adjacent Patani have been revised. For technical reasons their port values have been increased - in part to permit automatic movement of supplies (etc) between them - in part because of port potential not yet modeled - and in part so Patani can export resources (which it must do without a railroad, and with roads to virtually nowhere). SIngora is now Singora and Hat Yai - an important RR junction and boom town in the same hex - while Patani is now Patani Province - to account for its population and resourses/industry (which merely the town is not sufficient to do).

I found an error in the name of a location on Etorofu Island - Koshibiwara is on Paramushiro - so it and its airfields were defined in the former Paramushiro hex (the island has two locations defined, this is the town - the other is a potential place for
significant airfields not built when the war began but built later). The Northern End of Etorofu reverted to its correct name and infrastructure - Toshiruri.

Other places simply needed definitions of starting inventories under current RHS standards - generally 10 days of production plus stocks of fuel and supplies related to port and/or airfield size.

Location research disclosed that an airfield on Paramushiro operated a kind of Ki-45 I never heard of - an ASW variant with MAD. I was able to define it. But doing so disclosed some technical data issues with some of the existing (6) kinds of Ki-45s - incorrect extended loads, slight range errors, slight date meshing errors, etc (so planes stop production about the same time the replacement model starts). And the Ki-45 and Ki-91 fighter bomber variants were redefined as fighters - for the same reason most fighter bombers are defined as fighters (for code technical reasons and for mission availability). These changes resulted in corresponding updates to aircraft documentation.

Some changes were made to device files. Five ASW devices were found to have improper alternate devices and so lost them. I think there were cosmetic changes (meaning name changes) for clarity and to minimize display clutter as well as replacement device designations. Device changes always update into ongoing games and take effect AFTER the next Japanese turn (unless it is a game vs AI as Japan - in which case AFTER the next Allied turn) IF you say "yes" to update files.
Similarly, aircraft data changes after an update. But existing air units do NOT get changes until they change plane types. No new locations are added, but old ones do update the device name IF it isn't in a slow lower than already defined when the game began (which is generally not an issue because I attempt not to change device order for locations at all - only when compelled by necessity).

I have a new eratta report to check out - but otherwise - plan only to revise more pwhexe files in the near term. I will always fix reported or detected eratta.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:02:26 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 430
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.52 microupdate (pwhex files) - 1/4/2015 1:20:56 PM   
hernanyork

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/10/2011
Status: offline 		The mod is amazing, iam playing the 102 in side japan, and after a few turns i cant modify the airplane production levels, its normal o its an error?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 431
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.52 microupdate (pwhex files) - 1/4/2015 1:37:21 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 862
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hernanyork

The mod is amazing, iam playing the 102 in side japan, and after a few turns i cant modify the airplane production levels, its normal o its an error?

assuming you are japan.....
not 100% sure but this may be intentional - i think that R&D of airframes is not allowed at all (so no getting planes early) and you are not supposed to repair any factories until the "available date" - i don't know though if these are house rules or if something has been changed in the game mechanics. it does seem odd though that you can't change production levels, though he has added in extra Japanese airplane replacements so that may be why - again not really sure

sorry i can't be of anymore help but i expect sid will be along tomorrow to clarify things


thinking about it some more - do you have enough supply at the base?

< Message edited by sanderz -- 1/4/2015 2:39:19 PM >

(in reply to hernanyork)
Post #: 432
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.52 microupdate (pwhex files) - 1/4/2015 2:03:10 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline 		hernanyork, check if you have installed the RHS mod in the correct way.

1. Create manually C:\RHS\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
2. Install WITP:AE into the C:\RHS\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
3. Install RHS installer in C:\RHS\War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition
4. Apply the latest beta patch.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 1/4/2015 3:16:46 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 433
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.52 microupdate (pwhex files) - 1/4/2015 2:12:39 PM   
hernanyork

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/10/2011
Status: offline 		thanks for the reply friends, i will do your recomendations yaab!

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 434
RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.53 microupdate (chrome) - 1/5/2015 3:16:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi


This is a comprehensive update but only scenario files and pwhexe files
have been edited. The pwhexe files for Monsoon were edited to permit
navigation to Dacca - which still was not working for them - and to get
rid of a mismatched hexside on Guadalcanal.

The location files were edited because of three eratta reports - each leading
to several other issues. These are minor matters - an NKVD unit had
device 80 - a naval gun - vice 807 - trucks. But it led me to learn all NKVD
units had too much support - and so I fixed them all. That kind of thing.

Then I decided to do a visual inspection of the package. This led me to play
with the strategic map. That caused me to notice some locations or units
were not blinking when the right command was clicked - leading to corrections.
That led me to the idea of making Portugese units be displayable in the same
sense - never mind there is no way to add a nation to code. That led me
to looking at command units, and their relationships. I edited the British
Home Fleet and the British South Atlantic Command - so the devices "look
better" - as well as to creating a single unit representing French and Portugese
commands. That led me to change "Great Britain" to "Western Europe" - it just
looks better and is more universally true.

In the end this led me to develop Portugal - which was a peculiar "neutral" in active cooperation with the Allies (the British in particular). We already had two Portugese units - garrisons at Macao and Timor - but they looked funny. I created four devices to make them look better. I added two larger units - the Goa garrision and the Timor intervention force. Seems Japan invaded Timor just days before it was to arrive - either 19 or 20 February 1942. It ALSO came back on Sept 26 or 27 of 1945! [The second time it brought a battalion of engineers to back up the infantry] So I created this force - at Goa, capital of the East Asian colonies - just in time to sail to Timor if you want to try - and it will exist later if you want to try the 1945 op. And two ships - an AP named Angola which actually delivered the unit in 1945 - and a first class escort ship (something like Alfonso du Albuquerque) - which actually did escort the Angola in 1945 - and rescued some Allied and Axis sailors in an incident midwar as well. To facilitate these ships and LCU I added four more Portugese officers. Doing that, I added 5 RIN officers - which is chronically short of small vessel commanders.
Integrating all that, several locations were changed to report to Portugese command - they show the French flag which we already had at Macao and Dili anyway. And I learned about how undeveloped East Timor was - and downgraded its locations. Technically Dili is not even a level 1 port - but it needs to be for technical reasons. Also there is no Allied unit in East Timor at the start of the war - ALL Allied units came later and ALL are already duplicated in the Allied OB - so the former detachment at Lautem is now the intervention unit. All these locations and units now display properly on the strategic map as well - the mechanism is the combined French and Portugese Commands (plural) - each with a very small number of things assigned - are treated as one. Goa (technically Pangim) is no longer shown as British. If India is invaded, the presence of a significant garrison might matter - they should not get the good port and industrial center for free - and the British should not be there either. In fact, I moved a base force from Goa to its real Indian Air Force location - which I had to look up.

Along the way I found a few other very minor things. The three ex banana boats turned into blockade runners (too late to save the Philippines - but they were useful later) - modeled as basically unarmed APDs - now can convert back to their form as Wikes destroyers - at least to later versions that were converted in wartime (simply by putting the code used by Wikes and checking "convert from class"). Stuff like that.

I plan at least one more round of minor updates - there are always more pwhexe files to update - and I want to check out other command units and their relationships to locations and units - to insure all are displaying correctly - and none are improperly assigned. And to make them "look better" in terms of devices assigned.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:02:43 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 435
RE: RHS Thread: Modificatoin of Airplane Factories - 1/5/2015 3:35:52 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: sanderz

quote:

ORIGINAL: hernanyork

The mod is amazing, iam playing the 102 in side japan, and after a few turns i cant modify the airplane production levels, its normal o its an error?

assuming you are japan.....
not 100% sure but this may be intentional - i think that R&D of airframes is not allowed at all (so no getting planes early) and you are not supposed to repair any factories until the "available date" - i don't know though if these are house rules or if something has been changed in the game mechanics. it does seem odd though that you can't change production levels, though he has added in extra Japanese airplane replacements so that may be why - again not really sure

sorry i can't be of anymore help but i expect sid will be along tomorrow to clarify things


thinking about it some more - do you have enough supply at the base?


There are important conditions which apply to updating factories. These are built into the game as well as
existing in terms of house rules and theory. Generally you CAN change what a factory is set to build - within
the limits

1) A plant NOW assigned to produce a CURRENT aircraft (or engine) may be assigned a different aircraft
provided that aircraft is defined as an upgrade of the current one OR at least is defined as assigned
to the same service (called "nation" technically).

2) A plant for FUTURE aircraft NOT available CAN be changed to produce a DIFFERENT kind of plane - but
ONLY ANOTHER FUTURE TYPE - and probably also only if it is assigned to the same service (or is a specifically
designated successor to the currently assigned type).

In RHS (only) theory, you should not REPAIR a factory for a type not currently in production. This is
because RHS intends to have production ramp up - which is poorly modeled by repairing damaged factories -
but at least you don't get max production on day one. [The repair rate is generally too fast, sometimes
too slow, but at least it isn't 100% on day one] To that add that it is hard to afford to repair a lot
of factories in the same place on the same day - and the Allies will run into big supply issues if they
do not honor this rule - it isn't generally practical to repair everything at once.

A completely different issue is EXPANDING factories. This is generally possible on the first day of the game -
because there is a pool of HI points and code requires HI points to expand industry. As a general rule, all forms
of AE give you too many units and aircraft which require HI points - and if you just let things alone you will
NEVER AGAIN be able to expand! I have done a careful inventory of HI production vs requirements and found
the AE design did NOT provide even half of what is needed to duplicate history. So I generated more HI points
(each HI center makes 6 HI points every day) AND I added more places with HI centers - where they really existed.
At the end of years of work I found the number at game start is just about exactly what is needed to make
what is in the pipeline - and for a few days it will work. AFTER that two problems actually reduce HI points -
and you will never produce as much as you theoretically can and should again (as Japan - the Allies are free from
this problem - even if HI points are used for aircraft - which some things indicate is the case - they Allied HI
centers make several times more than are needed for just aircraft).

Problem 1: A major production area - Tokyo and Yokohama are the worst case - will RUN OUT OF RESOURCES.
Then it will wait until it has more than the minimum number - and start up again for just one day -
with a gap of several days in between. This because 1000 HI centers demand a LOT of resources!
And the RR and roads of Japan can't bring enough in - even if they existed to send somewhere else in Japan.
You MUST use SHIPPING to move resources in RHS. Essentially every day for places like Tokyo, Yokohama
and Osaka.

[Note in theory you also can shut down HI centers for lack of fuel. This is rare - but pay attention to fuel
levels - if you let them go to zero you WILL shut down ALL HI production the next day at any location.]

Problem 2: Expanding aircraft plants or other kinds of industry requires HI points IN THE POOL. This NEVER
HAPPENS UNLESS you have insured actual demand (yesterday) was LESS than actual production (yesterday). This
is very tricky - few industry produces 100% for a host of reasons. [A factory able to make 30 aircraft a month
is lucky to get 10-15 in most versions of AE] The best procedure is to SHUT DOWN industry that is not vital
to your plan in the near term. Arms plants, engine plants, aircraft plants, vehicle plants, naval shipyards
and merchant shipyards ALL use HI points (repair shipyards do NOT). And the long list of ships "in the pipeline"
is NOT realistic - it is there because it is true - but many were never built. Take the initiative and shut
off production of ships you don't need (this may NOT be merchant ships in RHS - you NEED them to move HI points
and oil and fuel much more than in stock or other mods).

I have mitigated this issue by giving Japan some things "free." I do not trust players to buy "junk aircraft" -
even if historical or even if vital. So trainers generally are "free" - as are a host of minor transports -
and some other things. You get them without producing them. You also get a minimal number of engines - those
not actually from production lines actually - to insure at least some aircraft can be built every month even
in the absence of properly "fed" undamaged factories. These measures help insure you get at least a handful of
planes to play with - no matter how badly you managed the economy and/or the enemy messed it up. Some aircraft
and engines are actually repaired - and this simulates that - although mainly the Allies get "repair centers"
of great size and significance. [There is one in India for example - the former China Aircraft Corporation moved
from Canton to India just before the Pacific War began and eventually became Hindustan Aircraft Coropration Ltd,
which still builds military aircraft. But DURING the war - after it built kits of Hawk 75s - it mostly
repaired in theater types. Similarly, Karachi had a major remanufacturing center for aircraft - because most
arrived disassembled and sometimes damaged.] But if you want a LOT of aircraft - then manage your HI demand
and production. Insure you feed major industrial areas enough resources and have fuel every day (3 times the
number of HI centers ON TOP OF whatever you use for shipping or load on tankers). Go to the Industry tab
and ADD UP all the needs of industry in terms of HI demand - and compare that to ACTUAL production - and
allow a reasonable margin. SHUT OFF plants UNTIL you have such a balance OR ELSE you WILL run out of HI points
and NOT be able to expand production of anything.






< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/5/2015 4:48:53 AM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 436
RE: RHS Thread: Expanding Production & a new link - 1/5/2015 4:00:23 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I strongly recommend reading this MS Word document BEFORE you attempt to play RHS.
It explains, within the limits of my understanding, how economics works in BOTH
stock and in RHS. Of necessity, and also because many aspects of the stock system
are worthy of respect, they are similar. But there are significant differences it
behooves you to understand.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2311&authkey=!ABThfW53ZocPeHk&ithint=file%2cdocx

Fundamentally RHS seeks to force players to move things (except where land lines of
communication or adjacent ports level 3 and above do it automatically) by ship. The
"free resources" in Japan are gone, and the highly developed industrial locations -
Tokyo and Yokohama most of all (partly because they are next to each other) - must
be fed resources or, when starting pools are depleted, they will simply shut down -
not only costing supply points but also vital HI points that are used to make things
of value. Free resources, if they exist, tend to be at the map edge, and tend to
be in "trainloads" (multiples of 2000 tons) - at least if there is a major rail line
at that point. Thus San Diego, being near such an entry point, probably does not
need a lot of ships bringing in resources. But San Francisco - a major consumer not
so close - probably needs some help. Tokyo - near the center of the map - needs
large quantities every day: game mechanics do not permit roads and railroads to move
unlimited amounts. This is a problem in Australia - where even a rail link cannot
entirely replace the need to move resources to SE Australia. This is a deliberate
part of the RHS package.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/7/2015 7:31:21 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 437
RE: RHS Thread: Fixing an oops 6.531 link - 1/5/2015 11:09:51 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		See link above or below


My last link was to just a single pwhexe file - the start of game one. This because
I selected the wrong file to create a link for.

This is a very slightly modified file set. Here I worked on Allied Commands -
US West Coast - US Pacific Fleet - the North Pacific - the South Pacific
and the SW Pacific - the UK Far East Command (ABDA) - and UK SE Asia
Command.

I also identified the Dutch First Fuisiler Company - it was able to join the Merauke Force when it formed in December 1941 for operations on New Guinea.

I also learned the details of an obscure company of the Azhad Hind (Tiger of India)
which actually managed to parachute into India in January 1942. Ashad Hind was
a German brigade formed originally when they planned to invade India (!!). Most of
it served entirely in ETO. But a 100 man unit did participate in an independent operation. I decided to add that unit only to Japan Enhanced Scenarios 99 & 105.
It will arrive with the Raider Thor late in 1942 in the SW corner of the map - note there is an almost invisible dot location there (Amsterdam Island) - a place so volcanic it can't have a port or an airfield - and development (or Allied invasion) is not allowed.
It serves as the entry point for German submarines - and two raiders. And now - in JES scenarios - for a tiny company. This unit is airborne - and it arrives just after the first serious unit of the INA (Indian National Army) does - and reports to the same HQ (INA Command).

Adding these units require adding two officers - so the H (leader) files were revised.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:05:11 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 438
RE: RHS Thread: 6.60 line (AA & HQ Reforms) - 1/7/2015 6:25:15 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi


This is a comprehensive update but it is limited to pwhexe files and a few
data files: aei (for technical reasons), devices (major changes), locations
(significant changes) and leaders (adding back in a 9999ed out general,
adding in the missing commander of AIF 6th Division). The pwhexe changes
are mere eratta fixes. It is my intent to see if this file set is relatively
issue free enough to start Test Ten?

Analysis of game results vs ETO and PTO historical data indicated a significant
problem with low level air attacks. One attempt to mitigate this using effect data
re just light guns failed to significantly impact the issue. So I did an analysis of stock
and determined that accuracy would affect the issue. So would changing aircraft
durability, but that would adversely impact air to air combat, which works remarkably
well with the current RHS data, and operational attrition - which is never high enough -
although decreasing durability did help that (and make AAA effects worse). As well,
RHS has added thousands of machine guns as AA devices, also making the problem worse. I concluded that a comprehensive device revision was required involving all
designated AA guns. The peculiar case of the DP gun remains a compromise, and
was not revised at this time. [DP guns are restricted in some respects for surface actions: the horizontal range of the gun is limited to its effective AA ceiling - which is to say - divided by 3 because range is in yards while altitude is in feet. Apart from having less range in a surface action than they really have to a modest degree,
the missing part is extreme range for the gun and would not account for most hits. But to restrict accuracy significantly would affect a DP gun at all ranges, and significantly degrade its surface value. I left them alone.] In RHS ALL AA guns have LESS than the absolute ceiling of the weapon - except in old cases where this is determined by fuse duration - and instead they have effective ceilings. As well, AA guns, when used vs non aircraft targets, are limited in horizontal range to the equal of their effective vertical range - just as DP guns are. This means it is slightly easier to fly too high to be shot at, and that AA guns are slightly restricted to horizontal ranges in which they would be significantly effective - the extreme ranges simply cannot be used. Even this is something of an exaggeration - AAA really has a half sphere of coverage - and does not engage at maximum altitude at maximum range. This is why we somewhat reduce both - we are crudely modeling "effective" range as well as ceiling - and by that means cover the space that most targets would be damaged in. But these restrictions along are not enough: large concentrations of land units and ships more or less are treated the same as point targets rather than spread over 1257 square (nautical) miles - where many are out of range. These can wipe out most or even all of an attacking force - while real world air operations of the period had loss rates on the order of much less than 1%. Degrading the impact of AAA also means that ground combat and naval combat will be more influenced by artillery (and on land, by non-AA units) than it is now - but that is probably a good thing: the impact of AAA was probably too high in respect to them just as it was on aircraft.

This involved a comprehensive review of 1800 devices, changing a couple of hundred in all scenarios. A few eratta were detected and corrected at the same time. For example, stock 1.1 inch data, never revised, was five times too high: effective rate of fire was very low due to small magazines. Similarly, stock data for 25mm AA was three times too high, for similar reasons - using maximum rate of fire rather than practical rate of fire. These reductions will also help reduce AAA effects.

I reviewed Allied land HQ again - in particular in re Australia. Just as with other Allied HQ already folded in, I found major problems. Duplicated units, missing units, misnamed units, missing or incorrect commanders, incorrect dates and/or point of entry. I also found that the capital of the entire North New Guinea and Solomans area - Lae - had no base force - just a New Guinea Rifles garrison. The aircraft added which operated from there had no support either. Nor were there naval support squads at Lae, Rabaul or Tulagi (which, granted, were in tiny numbers). Probably there should be a naval support unit at Salamua as well, but I have not been able to identify it. Many Allied HQ were not fully developed and now have a full range of appropriate devices - and their attendant logistical cost to feed and lift. RHS tries to make players use ships to feed their units as well as their economies, so that players will come to value almost every ship (instead of having "AKs to burn" as the saying used to be). As well, many HQs grow over time (unless you turn "replacements off" -
so they reflect the real changes over time that really occurred.

RHS has revised commands with a view to how they actually work in game terms. You cannot transfer a unit to a command that does not exist yet. Yet you may need to do that before the main command formed up. But there WAS a commander in each area very early. In particular, we get start of game commands at Samoa and Kodiak, and a few days later, one in Australia - all of which grow over time and rename to become major commands. The British Far East Command had its disbanding date changed - in two ways: strictly historical scenarios disband when the commander resigned (420225) - Japan enhanced scenarios have no forced disband date (just as stock's KNIL command has no forced disband date - what is the difference)? UK SE Asia does not come into play until 1943 - so Far East Command (renamed ABDA) is important for players. In fact - it disbanded in 1946! In strictly historical games players have a command problem re British areas for much of 1942 and early 1943 - which more or less is correct. A major change - involving hundreds of locations - is that Australian offshore possessions are now unrestricted. There are pros and cons related to this - the biggest con from my point of view was the time to change them in all the scenarios. As well, several units starting offshore are unrestricted, or restricted temporary so you can buy them out, to make moving them as was possible a game option.

In general, RHS development is working up Scenario 106 - not playable yet - by defining locations, units, commanders and relationships for 1945. It is starting to look very different from 1941 scenarios - and it now actually starts in 1945. This slows down work because there is research to figure out the changes. At the same time, Scenario 99 is being converted to RHS standards so that, when I get a bit of ship art, it will be fully functional (it is present now FYI - but some unique ships are "invisible").

This week I have dreamed up a possible new scenario which involves minimal effort: the quest to "balance" an inherently unbalanced situation might be better served (and we might get more people willing to play Japan) IF we give them a way to win. I would call it "The Short Victorious War" - the name Japanese give to the Russo-Japanese War. In this case, the premise is one actually believed by many Japanese officers at the time - that only a short war could be won. The mechanism would be auto-victory - except translated by a house rule. I am not absolutely sure auto-victory works anyway - but it seems peculiar the only test for it is on one day each year. Instead, I propose that on ANY day the required victory point ratio is achieved, it is presumed to have happened. For this scenario, the ratio would be 4:1 any time up to 1 January, 1943. That is possible now - except that the game has all the economic weight of building ships for later - and that means much - most - of the HI points cannot buy airplanes and devices for LCU in 1942 - the critical year. By merely 9999 ing out these ships - we can make the engine work far better. The situation is so lopsided it is still likely the Japanese will fail - and in that case - they are in deeper trouble - as there will be no 1943 ships! Players can do this on their own - but must turn off all ships and then must spend hours turning some back on. And it appears that the ships not being present at all works much better in terms of releasing HI points into pools so players can invest in things like factories. If created, this would be Scenario 107 - odd because it is "full RHS" - and also because 107 is the next number in sequence.
This would be a variation of Scenario 105 and it assumes things like Yamashita's report on return from the Eastern Front (about organizing larger armored formations from existing units) is implemented immediately (instead of in mid 1942) - and similar things.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:04:50 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 439
RE: RHS Thread: 6.61 line (Adding B-29D, some HQ eratta) - 1/9/2015 11:25:03 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
See link above or below

This is a comprehensive update (meaning everything is included), but
only some data files were changed (device, aircraft, leader and location).

The most visible change is the addition of the B-29D (aka B-50A and B-44).
Working with the National Air and Space Museum, I determined that both their
and my previous data was flawed - and ALL B-29 family aircraft were revised
in the data set (B-29, B-29A, B-29B, B-29A with IR guided bombs, B-29A with
Loon ASMs, B-39 (similar to the B-29D it is a re-engined B-29 with better
performance), two kinds of B-29B atomic bombers and the B-29B "Pumpkin"
bomber and adding the B-29D. [B-39 is ONLY found in JES scenarios
because it was not put into production. It might have been better if it had
been, and there was no controversy about that: the problem was the turbo-superchargers were wanted for a different program. I assume with some time
more could have been produced in the JES scenarios, under the "pressure"
of more enemy developments.]

One universal change is that the standard bomb load was redefined. RHS uses
the typical bomb loadout for normal and extended range - and (unless maximum =
normal - which rarely is the case - NEVER uses maximum bombload - because
code does not know how to use it). There is some controversy here: the official
standard load is 10,000 bombs associated with a given range: review of actual
mission data however indicates 12,000 bombs were more typical over similar or slightly greater ranges! So I increased the standard load to 12,000 pounds. This
may reflect a difference between spec and actual field performance.

Another change affecting many of the sub-types is that the B-29B is redefined with
data not previously available. The aircraft was significantly lightened, then overloaded
- it could now lift more over more range!! But this dogged down the laden aircraft
so - never mind it picked up 5 knots top speed - it was 2 knows slower cruising! B-29s (until the D model) were underpowered and could not achieve their potential performance. Anyway - the B-29B models have a standard load no less than
18,000 pounds! Except for the atomic bombers - as atom bombs don't weigh that much. The atom bombers actually lost their "bomb bay tanks" (reported in game terms as "drop tanks" which are actually "internal"). Never mind, they now can carry the atom bomb to extended range, and even the normal range is 9 hexes more than it used to be - because of the redefinition of the B-29B itself. It was almost stripped
of armament, and otherwise significantly lightened, making it more efficient.

The B-29D is more along the same lines but writ large. IT is significantly lighter - and uses only 25% of B-29 components - because they use a different kind of aluminum which is both stronger and lighter! It also has vastly more power - 3500 hp vs 2200 hp engines - which combined with less weight causes a dramatic improvement in performance. Speed and ROC are up. When the empty and loaded weights are factored in with speed and ROC into the RHS maneuverability formula, it comes in 50% greater than early B-29s (6 vs 4 - while the B-39 - itself with somewhat more power - is a 5). Operational ceiling (in the case of turbosupercharged piston engines this is 90% of service ceiling) is also slightly improved. This results in a bomber with all the armament of a B-29A, much greater cruising speed (that matters in game terms - code uses it), and virtually the same range. [It does not have as much range as the B-29B however.] It returns to the loadout of the B-29 and B-29A - rather than the incendiary loads of the B-29B.

Otherwise, review of unreviewed HQ in India and the Soviet Union and China resulted in technical changes. I found the usual problems: appearing at the wrong time and/or place, with no or the wrong commander, etc. Working on that resulted in adding one important Soviet and one important Chinese general.

You might not think so, but looking at the Ceylon HQ I figured out there is a missing de facto brigade - one able to deploy outside India! The Ceylon Light Infantry "regiment" is a peculiar formation, as is the Ceylon HQ itself. Originally militia,
the HQ quickly became regular army, and did not report to India HQ as you might expect. The "regiment" had multiple battalions, although some of these no longer were battalions by WW2. Thus the former Ceylon Mounted Rifles was reduced to a small, motorized recon outfit. And while most of the artillery was assigned to coast defenses (CGA = Ceylon Garrison Artillery - so I renamed units with them adding the prefix CGA) - there was ALSO a field artillery battery attached to the Ceylon Light Infantry "regiment." Similarly engineer and medical battalions - which sent detachments lots of places - also had company slices in the "infantry" unit. A unit with multiple battalions, recon, artillery, engineer and medical detachments should be classified as a brigade. It was stationed at Columbo - and by WW2 was active duty. Elements of it were detached to the Seychelles Islands and Cocos Islands - and this might have continued but for the mutiny (by a platoon of 30) on the latter island group (resulting in the only executions for treason and mutiny for Commownealth Forces in the entire war). This "brigade" is called the Ceylon Light Infantry. The somewhat related (and already in RHS) reserve regiment (battalion) at Kandy is renamed Ceylon Tea Planters Rifle Regiment - losing its ISF prefix and more clearly disclosing
its remarkable name. The Cocos Island, Columbo and Trincomalee CD units now
all have the CGA prefix. We had all the units, but did not know the name of the commander of the Cosos Island garrison before - so he was added.

I will make one more check for eratta and run confirming tests on AAA to insure the revised data works as intended. Then we will start test ten, and I will move over to late war pwhex revisions and to art additions. These latter will permit adding the B-36 to Scenario 106 (Downfall) for example. We HAVE the data - but need art - for about three plane types. 99 needs some ship art.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:04:35 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 440
RE: RHS Thread: US Army IX Corps - 1/11/2015 1:18:40 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is a notice that I am working on completing the HQ review. It basically is
an FYI for anyone who mod's AE - as something you may wish to change. However,
it also explains the delay in the "final" form of the file set: I have found numbers of issues of every sort (even some I my self created) which need review in the area of HQ.

In this case, IX Corps is shown as a permanently restricted unit which must withdraw by 440630. This comes from Stock Scenario 1. Never mind this corps never left the theater and it was a major element in first line for Operation Olympic! Even more curiously, Stock Scenario 14 (Downfall: The End) simply omits it entirely (honoring the withdraw data I guess). This is location slot 153. By the time RHS Scenario 106 starts (27 January 1945) it is on Leyte - almost certainly at Tacloban - planning for Olympic. It DID leave Conus (specifically Fort Lewis, Washington) in 1944 - first for Hawaii - then to Leyte.

quote
IX Corps was a corps of the United States Army. For most of its operational history, IX Corps was headquartered in or around Japan and subordinate to US Army commands in the Far East.

Created following World War I, the corps was not activated for use until just before World War II almost 20 years later. The corps spent most of World War II in charge of defenses on the West Coast of the United States, before moving to Hawaii and Leyte to plan and organize operations for US forces advancing across the Pacific. Following the end of the war, IX Corps participated in the occupation of mainland Japan.
end quote

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 441
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.70 (AA,HQ,Bases) - 1/14/2015 10:19:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi


This is a major (database) update. It includes major changes to device and location files as well as minor changes to class, leader and ship files. It might contain a couple of pwhexe updates (I can't remember but there were some a few days ago).

I was just looking for eratta in HQ - and frustrated by finding so many I had to do a comprehensive review. But I learned a lot and found ways to actually simplify things a bit - and make them both more functional and more correct. But in the process, I checked some Allied bases - and found many small issues as well as many "undeveloped" cases. Still - since people have played AE for years with one device bases - I suppose we can live with the fact a minority of them are still that way for a while. The Allies have an overwhelming number of bases anyway. I will clean up the rest over time. I did clean up many of the existing ones - particularly start of game locations certain to be used in every new game. These changes were mainly along the lines of making the formation consistent with the pointer. I also made new formations - giving more control over units in future (we can change their content IF they have a pointer and IF they have defined something in the slots). Some changes were also cosmetic - to the names - or to the assigned senior HQ, if any.

At the same time, I was testing AA and trying to "calibrate" the values. I found I needed a new way to find AA devices: the names were not 100% reliable indicators. [They are now!] I had to search for devices with a "ceiling" field. That led me to notice many used absolute rather than effective ceilings. And also that ranges were not always tied to ceilings - never mind the RHS "standard" that says they should be. Many inherited devices were never reworked to have effective ceiling and range = 1/3 of ceiling (because range is in yards while ceiling is in feet). This meant I must rework all AA devices - and this time I included DP devices. Reduction in range and ceiling has the net effect of decreasing AA effectiveness. Catching devices missed has the same effect. But I changed the constant in front of effectiveness - and that - where the devices had been reworked already - will increase it. Most of all - using a common standard universally makes relative performance of devices consistent. This involved hundreds of devices spread over about 1500 device slots. However, I believe this will help obtain more pleasing results from the game engine. Some of the changes were cosmetic - to names. In particular now a unit that can perform AA either has DP or AA in its name. A few units picked up SP (single purpose) for clarity.

In the process I identified a stock radar which was first tested in 1948! I exchanged it for a radar common during the war. Presumably someone didn't know when the radar was actually developed. It was called CPS-1 and its daughter - CPS-4 - became widely used in the 1950s. But no, in no variation of WITP should there be a CPS anything!

I am calling it. THIS is the version we will use for test ten. There are ALWAYS more things to do. But we need to test the many changes to insure we find eratta and to insure calibration (that values are in the correct range). So we will do that now.





< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:04:18 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 442
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.70 - Missing No... - 1/14/2015 11:01:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		One location was developed for 9.70.

As issued by stock, and all mods I have examined, Enewetok did not permit
development into the huge port and significant airfield it became when
captured by the USA. As well, no mod, including RHS, had the JAPANESE
units that were sent there.

In late 1942, Japan decided to develop it as a seaplane base. So a small
naval support unit was sent there. In 1943, the First Amphibious Brigade
(modified) was sent to garrison the place. It was used as a transit base
between Truk and Kwajalein, and probably also as a recon base - by floatplanes
and flying boats.

In 1944 the US turned it into a gigantic naval base. Also a significant heavy
bomber base was built there. Neither the engineers nor the base forces
are tasked to show up there in stock or the major mods I have examined.
The base build levels had to be revised upward to permit this development.

I found and assigned two Japanese and US units and arranged for them to appear there in strictly historical scenarios. The anchorage WAS slightly developed - the one thousand islanders had been a colony since Germany took over the place before WWI - and there was a very tiny port with a small amount of copra production. But at the start of the game it should have zero airfield development - it is just suitable for waterplanes - and the port should be level 1.

That this base now has major development potential is of significance in RHS games using it. EITHER SIDE may develop it. Don't forget to consider that when looking at the Central Pacific area.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 443
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.71 - Eratta - 1/16/2015 4:22:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		See link above or below

This was supposed to be a minor update because of eratta detected by the generation of Test Ten's Axis Turn. But it turned into a bit more than that:
certain issues related to air groups turned up. Investigation revealed problems
with missing aircraft in Scenario 101 - seems it was using Scenario 102's aircraft file.
This file set will fix that even for ongoing games. It also turned out that "Simplified RHS" Scenarios (even numbers 102, 104 & 106) had training air groups - which they should not have (so players don't have to manage them) and which they are not set up to support (smaller pilot pool, less production capacity and either no or only 10% of the "free trainers" in full RHS scenarios). If you are playing the Japanese in 102, 104 or 106 and find a training unit - disband it forever - and it will not be a problem.

While I was waiting for the report of issues from the Japanese I updated USAAF (mainly) and USN base forces so they are in sync with their formations and so that they are fully outfitted with RHS devices. So that means, besides aircraft and group files, there also are new location files. And there was one unimportant update to the device files - a cosmetic name change to make display more readable in the USMC/USN 03Rfl Squad: this models either USMC or USN squads armed with 03 Springfield bolt action rifles - often as base security early in the war. But some second line units use it - e.g. the Samoan Marine Battalion. Shorter names make some displays easier to read.

This file set will not change significantly. When it does change, it will be minor eratta fixes. My focus will be, first, on completing updates to pwhexe files, and then on trying to address some ship and air art issues. After that I will explore some map edge issues now possible to address (in theory) because I have editors for certain off map files. This may permit some off map movement not previously permitted for the Allies. The principle problem is that code restricts Russian and other Allied access to each others ports/locations: it doesn't allow it! But the Russians, at least, should be able to move between Russian Arctic locations, and supplies (etc) should be able to move from Europe or the Persian Gulf to Russia (in fact both were important routes) - a contingency for games in which the Russians get heavily involved and need supplies. I also may be able to permit US submarine production to occur in the Midwest - it did - and then move down the Mississippi to be able to move to Panama. This is longer term planning.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:04:04 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 444
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.72 - Eratta - 1/19/2015 2:40:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi


This is generally a remarkably large collection of remarkably tiny changes.
It is mainly a result of efforts to create a Japanese start turn for test ten.
But it also owes something to a report from our eratta hunter in Poland - he
detected an issue with a Philippine Army 75 mm AA gun and that led me
to detect three similar ROC device issues. As well, my own effort to explore
a start turn for "Allied Chair 2" led me to discover a pwhexe issue near
Adelaide in the base (1941 Winter) pwhexe.dat file. So a few changes are not
related to the Japanese efforts to build a solid foundation for a test that may
run for years. These other items led to revised pwhexe files and device files.

The original focus of the review as location files with respect to production devices
at defined locations, or with respect to issues like a newly defined major population center lacked the garrison required for it. Sure enough - never mind it wasn't in any version of AE - there really was a Japanese base at Toyohara. In fact, it was the gateway to Sakhalin Island and a somewhat important one. This process - looking
at locations for similar errata (I always try to catch them all when I am on to an issue) - led me to discover three remote islands where the starting resources were in the wrong field. A small number of locations were reworked - mainly in Japanese territories but also in India and Australia and the South Pacific. Most places actually lost industry - but in India some picked up - and others "traded" (e.g. one industrial city lost a steel mill not built until the 1950s, but another picked up one not previously accounted for). The net changes were not significant - but the point effects sometimes are significant. And it is always good form to have the numbers be in sync with the "standards" we use and, to the extent possible, with historical reality.

But then the problem of aircraft production became acute. This eventually led to a review of all the Japanese aircraft - and even to the addition of a new one - the A6M1m11. Contrary to the scene in Tora Tora Tora, what then commander Fujida said when he landed the first A6M2m21 on the deck of a carrier, it was not "see, it has the new folding wingtips, so we can store more aircraft below." A proper translation would have been "see, it has folding wingtips so now it can be struck below on our carriers." Prior to that the Zero was ONLY a LANDPLANE - and there were fully 68 of those (counting prototypes which USSBS says are hopelessly mixed in with production serials so we don't really know how many there were). Two were lost in combat - so 66 survive - but they are classified as fighter rather than carrier fighter aircraft. The process of the review led to minute technical changes. 3 or 4 changed engines. Some of the changes the Japanese won't like: I decided it makes no sense to have identical models of the Frank (and there were multiple cases of that). Ki-84 nomenclature is peculiar and confusing - manufacturer and JAAF didn't use the same system! - so DIFFERENT planes use the SAME designation! RHS has "rationalized" this by honoring the manufacturer's standard - calling some of them Ki-84 IIs instead of Ki-84 Is. [There are a and b variations of both. But no less than 6 different engines and two armament combinations inside that!] So I simplified the system (long ago) such that I models use a lower power engine and an all metal airframewhile the II models use a higher power engine and a wooden afterbody. A means it has two mg plus two cannon and B means it has four cannon in BOTH I and II series. But I messed up my own system by mixing guns across the a and b definition I just gave - so I fixed that. But I decided WHY HAVE IDENTICAL planes in different slots? I decided there should be a durability penalty for the non-metal afterbody, so the II models now are slightly less durable than the I models. Curiously, the balance of power and weight resulted in no measurable performance difference between any of them! [In fact with about 12 variations of engines and body, but here modeled by only 4.] Anyway - the point is - I tried to justify using slots by showing some difference between the planes.

The above is both an introduction and a digression: the real focus ended up being trying to address the problems of production of aircraft in AE. This is complicated and quite different for Japan and the Allies. It is clear that historical numbers are never, ever possible in game terms. Much RHS development effort has been with a view to addressing this problem in particular (inside the more general problem of production of all Japanese devices needing HI points, all of which more or less suffer from the same problems). SOME of the problems are player induced - insofar as the mods (and stock) try to give you everything planned - but Japan simply cannot afford to buy all that on its industrial base. By NOT TURNING OFF production - as soon as starting HI stocks (fixed by hard code at 50,000) run out (in a matter of days) - production nose dives, never to recover to anything like historical levels. And Japan did BETTER THAN GERMANY at expanding aircraft production (see the Air War, 1939-1945, by R. J. Overy). Yet the huge expansion of production is generally not possible: more common is players NEVER EVER expand after the first few days - they just change what is being built (at a loss in numbers for every change not automatic). But the argument was made that EVEN IF players turn off EVERYTHING ELSE, code does not permit production at anything like the numbers stated in the fields. So all the work we do on databases to get the "number per month" value correct - the players don't get them in fact. Now part of that is for good cause: the game wants players to move resources and fuel (made from oil that also must be moved) to generate HI points - and then to use some of those HI points to make engines and others to make aircraft and others to make other things (none of which the player controls directly). The system kind of sort of works and permits players to modify important factors (like what engine or airframe a factory is assigned to build, how much it will expand, and wether production or expansion is turned on or off)? Yet at the end of the day nothing like historical numbers of aircraft are generated, even with more HI centers each producing no less than 6 HI points a day (even if they are "fed" resources and fuel). I also feared giving players total control over "junk" aircraft they surely would not order - and the engines for them - turning all and sundry into front line combat planes no doubt. So (long ago) I mitigated both issues by removing part of the aviation industry from player control and making it automatic - you get planes for training (wether or not the scenario has training units - directly in "full RHS" and abstractly in "simplified RHS") and some kinds of utility transports or other support types automatically - both helping insure production numbers are up - and preventing "misusing" those abstract factories to make planes that were not made and would not have been made. But the Japanese did NOT get anything like the Allied repair depots I was able to put in the game - because for one thing Allied engines are "free" while Japanese engines come from pools which determine new production potential. So here I have created a system whereby the Japanese have abstract repair depots. Essentially, in cases where production was in hundreds or thousands, 1% (of historical vice game) production will be replaced per month during the period the aircraft is defined as in production (and stops automatically when the type goes out of production). This is generally a small deal - the typical case is 0 and when not 0 it is most often 1 airframe per 30 days: nevertheless in important cases it can be more than 10 and in aggregate over time the numbers are significant. [Modders who work with Allied data are generally amazed by the tiny numbers that occur on the Japanese side of the board.] Nevertheless, combined with the automatic production of planes players would never order but which must be present to model what was available for operations, the "depot repair" aircraft help make operational numbers more realistic. [In "simplified RHS" scenarios 102, 104 and 106, 90% of trainers and 100% of trainee pilots are missing from the game - but 10% of the armed trainers are available for recon or other missions if a player is desperate. In "full RHS" the player has all the trainers and has the option of gutting the training force for planes and pilots - this was actually done in 1945 - although the quality of both planes and pilots may make this worse than continuing to train green pilots would be!] The AE pilot training system does seem to work - but it insists on getting pilots in batches of 10 - so I reworked training units to be multiples of 10 - which isn't generally precisely true.

The real focus of these changes was to make life easier for players who play the production side of the game as well as to get rid of irritating problems (e.g. Japan loses a victory point every day because its base force at Toyahara was not present).

I gave the Japanese one more day to submit the Test Ten start turn. I expect they will find more issues: never mind, with this much data theory says there WILL be eratta.
We will fix it (to the extent we can) and fold it in later - but I won't redo the files to restart again (hoping nothing important enough turns up to change that concept).


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:03:47 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 445
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.72 - Eratta - 1/19/2015 7:13:25 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 862
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline 		Sid - I'm not that experienced an player so may have misunderstood you but i really don't recognise some of your comments on the working of the stock/modded game. The following is my feedback based on what little i have played and from reading AARs. Also, i am unclear if your reference to "production" refers to HI or stuff actually produced liked engines and devices etc. (i assumed the latter)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

SOME of the problems are player induced - insofar as the mods (and stock) try to give you everything planned

no they don't - with PDU on you can build what you like and you don't have to build anything like what was done historically

quote:

but Japan simply cannot afford to buy all that on its industrial base. By NOT TURNING OFF production - as soon as starting HI stocks (fixed by hard code at 50,000) run out (in a matter of days) - production nose dives

I'm in early April 1942 and have NOT turned anything off (except a BB and CV) - i have 275,000 HI in the pool and its steadily increasing (with the odd small blip down when yet more aircraft/engine/etc factories are built)


quote:

Yet the huge expansion of production is generally not possible

not true - my aircraft production has been ramped up very significantly as has engine prod - with minor increases to vehicle and arms production - if you are referring to production of HI this does get increased by a small amount but either way it doesn't stop japan producing lots of stuff

quote:

more common is players NEVER EVER expand after the first few days

absolutely not true - see my comment above or read some of the many fanastic AARS

quote:

they just change what is being built (at a loss in numbers for every change not automatic)

again, not true at all - the airframes i'm building and R&Ding in my April 1942 game are nothing like they were in Dec 41

quote:

But the argument was made that EVEN IF players turn off EVERYTHING ELSE, code does not permit production at anything like the numbers stated in the fields.

who made this argument? and what exactly is the code stopping you building (and how)? What fields are you referring to, can you give an example to clarify things
i have no data on historical production but i get the distinct impression from AARs that it ends up way over what was historically produced - though i stand to be corrected here

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 446
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.73 - Slot fixes... - 1/21/2015 3:27:22 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		See link above or below

I failed to honor Joe Wilkerson's Law ("Test, Test, Test) - I "fixed" a problem without checking to see if it was fixed. No matter I re-assign units all the time - what I didn't detect was that the unit I reassigned was NEVER, EVER working! Ever in all the history of AE, from day one.

As usual, I take a problem to mean "look for more problems" - and I found three more bad slots. I was able to verify it is the slots, not the data in them. The data works fine in other slots. Working records from other slots fail in these. They truly are bad. And they always were bad - but there are so many units no one noticed.

To fix it I had to find four more slots - hard to do in RHS - there are virtually no Axis location slots left. But I did.

Apart from that, there was one other issue in most RHS scenarios that matters - the 144th Regimental Combat Team (better known as the South Seas Regiment) started at its objective - instead of loading on its assigned task force. My fault surely, it long has worked, and somehow I re-assigned it. Fixed of course.

There were some minor eratta fixes. Mainly things like not enough supplies. This is a stock issue - most units were created without them - as well as without planning for objectives - and I will be fixing that for the rest of my life (approximately). But more were reported and addressed.

There was a request for a drydock famous for being hit at Pearl. She turned out to be a sister (five years younger) of the Dewey Drydock at Subic - so we already had the class defined. It is now added. It WILL fix ships. It will NOT let ships be inside it however. [Three ships were hit inside it IRL.]

I finally figured out how to model the Bin Xuyen "Pirates" in Indochina. Most of them are invisible in game terms. But one unit was more or less an infantry battalion - it mustered 2000 men in 1945 when they decided to take to the field to oppose the return of the French. This unit was allied to the Japanese - and later to the Communists - but also its leader was made a colonel and later a general by a nationalist regime: anything to oppose the French it seems. This unit should never leave Indochina - and it is restricted of course. The "pirates" (the term is slightly apt but they were more official than that, and had police powers in some places officially designated) also were a power on the river. Their largest craft is also now modeled - and its "headquarters" is the land unit. Which is to say it won't coordinate with other naval units very well.

Many Royal Indian Navy officers were added - because of new material from Neihorster. And for the first time we have the RIN Fleet HQ - which turns out to be at Bombay - with its historical commander in charge. For a small collection of frigates it seems overstaffed with a Vice Admiral in charge - but the Indian Navy has ever since always been top heavy with more admirals than could be justified for its size, in every period of its history. This is a small HQ - and its only "power" is to help ship repair within command radius - but there are only two ports in range - and one of those is not even British (Goa). I am not sure it will cooperate well with the RIN HQ - but it probably will.

I redefined slightly a few Japanese aircraft - trying to make the data better model the differences between them. There is also now slightly more development between scenarios - with fewer things common to all - and more things scenario specific - in this case relative to aircraft.

The Japanese start turn for test ten is unusually well organized and defined - so data entry will not involve decision making - as these have been made. For the first time - probably ever - spreadsheets have been made so players can see the numbers of aircraft and engines by type - organized on the basis of required engines. This makes planning decisions more practical than guessing what might be required?
This organization in turn has led to an integration of production with strategy so that production will be optimized to fit what is needed. No longer will four engine bombers and transports be built - just because they can be - in numbers sufficient to curtail the numbers of one and two engine aircraft critical to virtually all operations. A surprising effect has been that the evaluation of types vs production capacity and the impacts of changing what is already tooled up for resulted in much more focus on historical types rather than optional alternatives (but not always in the same proportions).
If you change a factory's plane type, it loses its capacity - typically 30 planes become 21 or 22 capacity. And NONE of the plant is producing - ALL of it needs to be "repaired." If you change a factory's engine type, it does not lose capacity, but once again ALL the lines are "damaged" - so it starts at zero production of the new engine. In both cases it costs 1000 supply points to fix every point of plant capacity. These factors create an incentive to leave production as is as long as it produces useful aircraft. It is interesting to see players reject almost every option - in particular relative to imports. This is wise - I put options in partly to give players choices - but also as a sort of hidden opportunity to make poor choices. In general, German aircraft lack the range required for PTO operations, for example. Investing in them may yield some tactical advantages, but at the expense of the operational flexibility longer ranges permit. Both Axis powers split their production efforts too many ways, over too many kinds of aircraft. It is generally more effective to mass produce a smaller number of types. The test ten Axis team has come up with a variation on that - produce FEWER types of ENGINES! Mass produce a few engines. Use airframe overcapacity in tandom with engine production such that you can turn on or off different planes - as needed - but when needed - you get instant numbers because the engine production rate is high enough to permit that. We will see if this works well - or not! I expect test ten to go to the Allies tomorrow.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:03:28 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 447
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.72 - Eratta - 1/21/2015 3:46:46 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Sid - I'm not that experienced an player so may have misunderstood you but i really don't recognise some of your comments on the working of the stock/modded game. The following is my feedback based on what little i have played and from reading AARs. Also, i am unclear if your reference to "production" refers to HI or stuff actually produced liked engines and devices etc. (i assumed the latter)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

SOME of the problems are player induced - insofar as the mods (and stock) try to give you everything planned

no they don't - with PDU on you can build what you like and you don't have to build anything like what was done historically

REPLY: I was speaking generically and generally. It is actually true that no mod ever gives players "everything" - the
main limitation being the time it would take to define everything - and also in some cases the lack of slots to put
"everything" in. We can add ships for the rest of our lives, but not aircraft, for example. But relatively speaking,
AE is more or less a static model of the economy - when in fact there was a vast increase in capacity which players
don't really get to use. Even so, the system works surprisingly well and mainly suffered from a lack of development
and long term testing. There are amazing omissions in terms of locations and significant industries producing this or
that - all over the map. And apparently players were not trusted to actually move enough resources to Japan for industry
to function - so fictional sources were put into the Home Islands. But having got rid of those - and added every
significant population and industrial center - I find the system REALLY WORKS PRETTY WELL! But only if it is understood
that "we can do almost anything, but we can't do everything." Players must manage limited resources. Writing off the cuff,
without review, I may not perfectly express my meaning on the first pass.

quote:

but Japan simply cannot afford to buy all that on its industrial base. By NOT TURNING OFF production - as soon as starting HI stocks (fixed by hard code at 50,000) run out (in a matter of days) - production nose dives

I'm in early April 1942 and have NOT turned anything off (except a BB and CV) - i have 275,000 HI in the pool and its steadily increasing (with the odd small blip down when yet more aircraft/engine/etc factories are built)

REPLY: This is an RHS thread. You won't do that in RHS. We do NOT give you free sources of resources in Japan (only the actual ones
which are grossly below what industry requires). We DO give you all sorts of production options. Most navies - not just Japan - order more
ships than they can deliver. [Perhaps half the aircraft carriers of history never were completed. The same can be said for other types.]
Japan ordered no less than 6800 of the last version of the Zero in 1945: somebody thought the plant capacity and aluminum existed to make
such a formal order realistic. And perhaps it WAS realistic in terms of what they needed! But not one was completed. I find in AE it is very
easy to get into a similar situation - ordering vastly more than you can get.

quote:

Yet the huge expansion of production is generally not possible

not true - my aircraft production has been ramped up very significantly as has engine prod - with minor increases to vehicle and arms production - if you are referring to production of HI this does get increased by a small amount but either way it doesn't stop japan producing lots of stuff

REPLY: I am unclear if you understand the huge increase in production IRL. See The Air War, which I cited. If
you are - and if you can get the game to duplicate it - I am pleased to know it.

quote:

more common is players NEVER EVER expand after the first few days

absolutely not true - see my comment above or read some of the many fanastic AARS

REPLY: Once again, I am advising players of RHS - who have huge ship orders on the books. If they are allowed
to remain all on line, they will rapidly suck up the HI point pools - never mind the RHS economy produces three
times as many HI points PER center at significantly MORE centers than stock does. What matters is the balance
of production and consumption. Here there are two different problems:

Uno - You do NOT produce HI points if you do NOT feed the HI plant. And RHS forces massive imports of resources to
do that - because there are no huge (fictional) resource centers in Japan. Players who do not move resources back to
Japan - and in particular to locations which (even in stock) have 1000 HI plants - needing more than rail lines can move -
will not get all the HI points that, in theory, they "should" get.

Dos - You can NOT feed everything that wants HI points. On paper - RHS produces more HI points than the total
demand of every industry - by a few hundred a day. In fact, because of production shortfalls - this is never true.
You simply must turn off something or you will deplete the stocks of HI points - and that will in turn shut down
much tertiary industry production of stuff (planes, ships, etc).

quote:

they just change what is being built (at a loss in numbers for every change not automatic)

again, not true at all - the airframes i'm building and R&Ding in my April 1942 game are nothing like they were in Dec 41

REPLY: I think I begin to see what you mean. Yes - 1942 production is MUCH greater than 1941 production.
But this trend actually increased in later years IRL. In game terms - you get more April 1942 production because
you expanded industry using start of game pools of HI points. You can't keep that up because you are not producing
enough HI points to maintain the pools. At least in terms of my experience.

quote:

But the argument was made that EVEN IF players turn off EVERYTHING ELSE, code does not permit production at anything like the numbers stated in the fields.

who made this argument? and what exactly is the code stopping you building (and how)? What fields are you referring to, can you give an example to clarify things
i have no data on historical production but i get the distinct impression from AARs that it ends up way over what was historically produced - though i stand to be corrected here


REPLY: This comment has two different sources and meanings. In gross supply terms, a player should have problems feeding units just supply points
late in the game. Not to mention impossible requirements for political points to change commands to do HISTORICAL
operations with HISTORICAL numbers of units. In terms of aircraft production, the two sides differ: The Allies
don't really produce airplanes in the same sense Japan does (or anything else). But the Japanese will find it hard
to produce the numbers of planes really produced in 1944. In particular, if they don't make a real planning effort
and ongoing major management efforts, they won't. At least IMHO.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/21/2015 5:07:54 AM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 448
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 6.74 - Eratta - 1/23/2015 4:29:52 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=30E506228938D79E!2716&authkey=!AMrDULsG2RJdsI8&ithint=file%2cmsi

This is a collection of mainly minor things learned because an unusually
comprehensive Japanese start game turn was worked up for Test Ten.
[This test goes to the Allied Tag Team today.] Most of the changes are
in the aircraft files and are fairly technical. Possibly the most dramatic
was that the "Japanese B-36" (aka G10N1) - and its transport variant -
had engine problems. [Something like IRL - where they had to contemplate
building the plane - if at all - with half the engine power it required.] In
this case, the engines were in the wrong slot, and were tractors instead
of pushers. Most of the rest was device level corrections. One of these
required altering a date in the device files - so device files also changed.

Possibly the most important part of this update is a revised start of game
pwhexe.dat file. Two hexes needed hexside mismatch pairs fixed - and
one of them (on Formosa) mattered. So we have revised pwhexe.dat files.

I reworked the Philippine Army slightly. Most units lacked fatigue values -
which is very wrong in that place. My motive was to swap two garrisons
so they are nearer their parent units to facilitate re-combining with the parent.
I revisited the official US Army history. I also reworked scenario 99 so its
Philippine Army is now in sync with other RHS scenarios, and substantially
removed it from scenario 106 - because most of it didn't exist in 1945. These
scenarios are not yet ready to use - but getting there requires changing records -
and when I work on a record - I deal with them at the same time.

I have learned how to make start game files work better in some ways -
in particular for AI in scenario 102 - but have not yet worked them in.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/24/2015 10:03:02 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 449
RE: RHS Thread: Test Failure and Update 6.80 - 1/24/2015 1:59:45 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I did it again - I used a series 9 number in the subject line instead of a 6.

Once again I was too optimistic. Many things are working very well. But the Test Ten Axis Start turn failed to pass a dummy test. In three different ways.

1) Critically, logistics at several locations (e.g. Samah) were not adequate. The many units and loading ships require too many supplies. When this happens at a HQ location (e.g. Saigon) - it means air units cannot upgrade or disband without losing aircraft - air HQ cannot "buy" torpedoes to arm them - drop tanks are unavailable - and a host of other effects.

2) Probably the most important JAAF airborne unit (the only one at the start of the war) was unable to appear - and would never appear - due to a technical problem. For reasons unclear a different unit picked up the right bits in the right field to point at it - and this is "remembered" by a start of game file - so the unit is forever in "not in play" status.

3) Three armored brigades - which have what looks like good data in their daughter units (they are essentially two battalion sized regiments plus a support unit that combine up) - lose all their tanks and most other useful squads if combined! This is a device order issue - when combined the original device order is lost in favor of the parent one. But the numbers of devices remain the same in the original slot order.

All three of these issues are really my fault. To determine start supplies I have a set of "rules"

Base Rule: Every location has 10 days of production - the normal inventory in business - unless there is cause to know it has more or less than that. This applies to supplies, fuel, resources and/or oil.

Port Rules: If a location is a port that exports resources, oil, etc - and if the location also is connected by good land lines of communication to other locations with surplus production - than that location either gets the sum of the production of the nearby locations up to a maximum of 20 days. This mainly applies to resources and oil.
In addition, a port gets 1300 tons of fuel per port build level for major ports normally functioning; really minor ports - and Japanese ports in 1945 - get 300 tons. Third world primitive ports get 100 tons - unless the local economy is too small to justify fuel for vessels - 0 tons.

Industry Rules: if a location has HI, it gets 10 times the daily HI fuel requirement IN ADDITION to any port requirement. If a location has an oil refinery, it always gets 10 days of production at start - just as it always has 10 days of the oil required by the refinery. However, at the start of the war, certain locations have larger inventories: the actual inventory if known (e.g. Pearl Harbor); 30 days supply for a key storage facility; 90 days supply for an unusual strategic storage facility; in Japan in 1941 at certain points 24 months of oil supply. At the map edge, 2000 tons per day (one train load) of supplies, fuel, oil and/or resources if there is a RR (and lesser amounts if there are primary or secondary road connections off map). If the off map destination has no oil source, it supplies no oil, etc.

Military Rules: A location must have twice the supplies (the code rule to render the display white) required by units present. If it is an important start of war logistical center, add 10,000 supplies. If it is a rare critical logistical center, add 100,000 tons. This latter turns out, rarely, to be inadequate.

Entering data in the editor does NOT reveal what is required by a location. Only looking at every location in the game does that. And that must be done AFTER all changes are done or units are added to the location. Sometimes I didn't do that.

The problems with pointers and device order are data entry errors I am responsible for, either in creating or modifying or reviewing a unit.

I have detected and fixed all these issues.

Version 6.80 - which should be clean - will be issued in a matter of minutes. Test Ten will restart using this.

Never mind I was "taking too long" to get things right. I did not, in fact, spend enough time. This is why we test - to find what isn't right so we can make it better.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Thread: Release 6.30 update link w description Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   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

0.703