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 Design Theory: Comprehensive Update 5.04

 
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 Design Theory: Comprehensive Update 5.04 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Design Theory: Comprehensive Update 5.04 - 12/29/2012 2:52:34 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Software, even in the form of data entry when it affects how a program behaves,
always takes longer than you expect. It is axiomatic. Especially if you follow the
other rule that should be axiomatic - test, test and test again.

Publishing things also generates feedback. This is very useful and corrects errors, improves models, and permits adoption of better ideas than we started with. But it also takes time to fold in.

This "little" project to take "a day or two" has turned into a couple of weeks due to the sheer scale of the files, the problems found, and feedback - mostly from Mifune.

Numbers of unexpected things have turned up. This began as work on the aircraft file, and its impact on the group file (which is to say, six of each in RHS). It also involves the location files because of needed changes in production - to get things to work as intended or to fold in new data about PTO availability. But we found some problems in the air OB itself. We have added some units, the latest being LB-30 and B-17 bomber detachments in Alaska, using the very same LB-30 recon plane we added a couple of days ago for Operation X (with a plane at Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec 1941). Seems two similar aircraft were assigned to the Navy at Kodiak - and here are a detachment of the Patrol squadron there. There were also two B-17s - one a Bomber Recon model and one a sort of B-17 imitation of the LB-30 recon type - both B-17C variants - but the latter with airborne surface search radar. Rare and valuable assets in 1941.

Perhaps a bigger problem was air transport units for RAF and RAAF. Seems we have numbers of Dakota (and even Liberator transports) - and I found we should also have even more Hudson transports. But few units to use them! [Who wants big collections of planes that cannot fly?] So I did some research and found a few things that can be done (one fighter squadron, instead of disbanding and reforming, now can convert to transports any time, but if you upgrade to a better fighter - it will lose that ability). RAF added some regional assets, generally controlled by higher HQ (in India, Ceylon and Malaya) while RAAF added "LOC units" - which are static - but form a network (and if you don't like em, disband em) permitting moving supplies almost everywhere in AUS. [Playing Chair 2 - including AUS - I have learned the rail net is awfully inefficient due to gage breaks - and sometimes moving supplies by air permits you to build things you want badly]

Otherwise, I found some things that should be different: no H6K4 torpedo loadout is possible for example - this was introduced with the H8 series. Many plane types gained lots of operationally useful capabilities - since they now can fly with weapons appropriate to different missions. As it now stands, ASW planes tend to force use of ASW weapons in naval attacks, but are perfectly fine bombers for land targets. TP planes either use torpedoes or AP bombs vs naval targets (if torps are not available),
but GP bombs on land. Otherwise, a bomber or fighter will use AP for ships and GP for land, unless the bombs are very small and no AP is available.

Numbers of production issues were simplified, corrected, etc. A lot of this involved the upgrade path nightmare - due to several different considerations - not all of which are ideal (so often you must compromise between them).

The result is a SET of files that pretty much must work together. Looks like some files change the cam files and the aei files - and I remain unclear about which do that? So we need to change those files - or lose things like the right setting for active Russians.
We also change the air, group and location files. Since the last comprehensive update, we also changed the SCEN files (only by naming the version 5.04), leader, class and ship files (adding air unit leaders in a few cases, and correcting eratta).
In short, the best thing is to copy all SCEN files - if you get the comprehensive update (next transmission). If not, the parts will follow tomorrow.

Now this set is integrated - in that the aircraft, group and location files all work together as needed - and in a few cases one can add the leader file to that (for a couple of the new air units - e.g. Operation X units). But it is integrated through IJN aircraft - all Allies plus IJN. JAAF will be folded in tonight. I will therefore issue a 5.05 file tomorrow. JAAF is straitforward - it is an exercise in data entry - because we have done so much work on it in the past - and key elements are in fact done now (heavy bombers for example). Transports and recon planes generally need no changes (no weapons). Same for some fighters (no bombs, or small ones that are always the same). It should really be issued tomorrow.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 211
RE: RHS Design Theory: "Final" Update 5.05 - 12/30/2012 7:57:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The aircraft files are now completed - and issued. I will be issuing the entire file set tomorrow - and burning CDs for those unable to download the installer.
If you want one, let me know.

As always, I learned some things. The reason the Ki-67 is so good as a torpedo bomber is that it carried a 24 inch torpedo! And I thought a 21 inch would be a step up. No longer needing different AP and GP bomber versions, I turned the former into a Ki-67 II - with bigger engines - something mainly for the Downfall Scenario - but if the war lasts long enough, it might apply to a campaign. Also I learned that there was a Ki-97 Transport variant - which is actually better than a Ki-49 transport in terms of payload, range, speed and armament (at the cost of competition for better engines). So we have that as well.

I didn't like the look of the Condor's armament. It is amazingly complex - and more or less "right" - although the theoretical load was "never" carried. Mostly external (what you get when you make a bomber out of a passenger plane), it isn't very range efficient with high drag bombs. But without them, it is a very respectable recon ship,
and the first one (built for Japan) had two cameras. I also was disturbed by the records and route lengths involving the transport version - and could not reconcile that with data from a commercial airliner database. So I went to Greene, and reworked the transport version. I didn't go with the "Special" plane used for the record passage to New York, but rather with more normal planes - no doubt the "special" traded payload for fuel in some way.

I found problems with the speed of the Hudson transport. By the time I got them figured out, I had added a few of them to USAAF - impressed RAF versions - significant briefly before C-47 production ramps up. This because I found our naming was wrong for the A-29A - it is NOT a bomber. So the A-29A is now plain A-29 - stock had it right - and a new A-29A is the transport version. I also found the Navy JO-2 was wrongly called a Hudson variant. Instead, it is a Lockheed Model 12 (while the Hudson is a Model 14) with much less speed, payload and range. However - it was used to prove viability of twin engine carrier operations - in 1938! So they are carrier capable. [Not that I have much idea what anyone may do with that capability? There is also a TBF transport variant - and units to use it - but again - I am not sure it is useful in game terms.]

The Japanese picked up a new version of the C-47 - L2D3 - which is more or less similar to the US C-47A and B upgrades - more powerful engines, faster speed, slightly less range. And it permits an upgrade path for a transport that needs to run out production before it upgrades.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 212
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied players needed - 12/30/2012 10:57:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		For the first time, we have Japanese volunteers in numbers - details still to be worked out.

But we may need Allied palyers for Test 8A. The Japanese turn should be ready for them in a few days.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 213
RE: RHS Design Theory: Comprehensive Update Completed ... - 12/31/2012 8:19:59 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Aside from folding in an art issue just reported, which only takes me a moment as I have the needed ship art, and packaging, we are done. Verified too.

I am surprised to report that the task of revising the air groups is of Olympic proportions. The USAAF is simply too big! If it wasn't historical, I would reject it as destroying play balance! Yamamoto was right - Japan must win soon - or it will lose. Period. Never mind atomic bombs. There are enough bombers to sink Japan. Not to mention P-47s which probably deliver as many bombs again. But this work, long neglected, is more important than I realized: any air unit with a gap in its list of devices didn't have the use of devices below the gap. Much of the work we have done on aircraft will only be realized with this update. I decided to go for task completetion than cutting corners: but I did make one compromise: an air unit NOT used in ANY RHS scenario also was not updated. If you copy a unit, and it does not have an X beside the name, update the aircraft for safety.

5.05 is an unintended comprehensive update. I just intended to do air groups and maybe aircraft if eratta were found. Well - I found about 10 eratta that matter and a few more cases of cosmetic nature (removing GP from behind the name of a bomber) - so we do have to add aircraft. I found one device needed a different date so the plane that uses it could actually have a valid device (if they built it, it must have been available!). So we need device files. I have this art report above, so class files need to be revised. And yesterday I found a strange error with respect to I-400 class submarines - while doing their air groups. Seems we had the early (original) version dates (sooner) but the later (actually built) ships in all scenarios. It should be the as built version exists in all scenarios except 105 (and possibly 100 when that is completed), but with the 1944 and 1945 dates. 105 (and 100) should have the early smaller version with 1943 and 1944 dates. I had dummy slots for some of the additional units planned - and these were activated for 105 only (so half the planned 18 will appear in 18, and all as aircraft carriers, none as tankers). This means we need to issue ship files as well. For safety I will insure current cam and aei files, and I will do the notepad only files with the version number update. Lastly I will try to put supporting documentation into a new folder in the installer. And write a note to Mifune that we should do an AE version of the RHS Manual - there is too much to expect players to know and a reference is probably indicated.

Next I will try to organize Test 8A. We seem to have a Japanese testing team, and this is unusual: few players are willing to try Japan in any form, never mind the demanding RHS version with its economic and air training complications. So I need to get the Japanese to define a strategy that shows off RHS features and organize an Allied team.

Work wise, I intend to update the later pwhexe files to current standard. Then I will work on making Scenario 106 playable (1945 start situation). After than, we plan a Level 2 map system, more or less Andrew Brown's Extended map with additional RHS features - possibly like WITP RHS with a mini map - and possibly with dynamic movement for both sides at certain points.

I want feedback. While I will resist changes of an extensive sort, there is always eratta to punch. We badly need long term human testing, but there must be an update to address certain things when we get the revised aircraft filmstrips. Also, we must stop changing things so Mifune actually can make the filmstrips! We will then update everything we have fixed at the same time. That will probably be update 5.10

The update will issue within the hour. Not far into the hour either. This is an exercise in packaging.



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 214
RE: RHS Design Theory: Game Start Allied Production Se... - 1/5/2013 7:42:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is a general answer to a private question - because it needs to be understood by all.

First the question:


I'm at the start of scenario 102, and need a clarification about something you told me earlier.

I notice that all the allied resource centers/oil wells/factories etc are set to repair ON at game start. Do I leave everything alone (repair ON) except for aircraft factories where the aircraft is still in research?

The aircraft factories which ARE still in R&D get turned to repair ON on the month they become available?

Second, the answer:

Review each location on turn one. While it is common for all factories to be set to repair = on and production = on, sometimes they are all set to off. You need to consider every case, case by case, and turn on those you want on, off those you want off.

The question applies to Scenario 102, which also means to 104 and eventually to 106 - even numbered scenarios have a lot less Allied aircraft production, and less need for management of it. I will return to even numbered scenario in re Allied aircraft in a moment. First, however, I will deal with all scenarios and all industries EXCEPT aircraft.

Some locations (not very many) can "afford" to turn on everything possible. Here we should also include construction: if there are engineers at the location (displayed on the bottom of the screen for the location), you may "build" airfields, ports or fortifications. This act, as well as "repair" of industry, needs supply points. So just how much you can attempt depends on how many supply points are present? And that in turn also is affected by how many supply points you wish to load on ships. US West Coast ports, for example, may wish to load ships bound for distant (or not so distant) places - and should not expend all their supply points in repair. Each repair of each industry costs 1000 supply points every day - so you can easily demand "too many" supply points at most locations.

In RHS, there are a LOT of "damaged" industries. These are present so the production at the location may grow over time. Some of them, in particular in the USA, can "grow" for up to three years! So if you do not set repair = yes, then you will never get the full production from that industry. And the sooner you repair any industry, the sooner you will get its production. In this regard, note the old forum concept of "it isn't worth it to repair" because it takes "1000 days" to "pay you back" is generally wrong. The value of something is not precisely determined in terms of supply points. Even those industries that do make supply points make two (LI and Refineries) or four (HI) supply points per day, and the Refineries also make 12 fuel while the HI also make HI points. [FYI it appears the Allies do use HI points, although only for aircraft production at factories]. And how do you measure the value of a shipyard, or an aircraft factory? What something is worth depends on how much you want it at that location, and how soon you want it? Relative to what other uses you have for supplies at that location. That in turn also may relate to how many supplies will appear at that location every turn? Some places at the map edge get supplies from off map every day - again look on the location display. [Every 2000 tons of something, supply, fuel, oil, or resources, represents one standard train arrival per day for a major rail line.] There is no substitute for considering, location by location, on the first turn, just what should be on, and what should be off. There is no hard and fast rule which applies everywhere.

Aircraft production is a special case in RHS. In general, in AE, if a plane is not a future development, its name appears without a date behind the designation. But a future aircraft appears with a date: A6M5 (7/43) or something like that. In odd scenarios in particular, production is designed to "ramp up" - not start at 100%. So IF an aircraft has a date behind its designation do NOT repair that factory. When it becomes available - the date will disappear. THEN turn ON the repair if you wish. There is a little of this in even numbered scenarios: consider locations like Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Komsomolsk na Amur, Vancouver BC, Seattle and Tacoma: aircraft there have in most cases dates behind the designation. They should NOT repair at start. Wait for that date - at which time the (7/43) will disappear.

Aircraft production in even numbered scenarios is "semi automated." In many cases the "factories" do not exist and need no management at all. They simply appear, full bore, when the date arrives for production. If the total is more than 15 per month, the date is one month later - a crude "production ramping" scheme. [We have others - sometimes factories convert to the same model - making the later one appear in much greater numbers than the early ones do] But IF the factory is on the map, in particular if it is in the exclusive Allied area on the map edge, it may well be it has no damaged factories: that means it does not need management. It won't produce until the right date arrives. So you may safely set repair = on and production = on and forget it. When the time comes, it will produce.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 215
RE: RHS Design Theory: Game Start Allied Production Se... - 1/6/2013 9:21:41 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Mifune makes the following suggestion

Maybe you should have clarified that "damaged" industries represents potential (historical) industrial growth. Just so it is clear for everybody to be on the same page. As this would also clarify it is a good investment as opposed to a risky investment.

I thought I said that somewhere. RHS initial "damaged" industry is a way to model growth of production over time - so it does not start out at peak in 1941. The Allies are not able to decide what to invest in so we do that for them - based on where they did invest?


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 216
RE: RHS Design Theory: Hawaii Defenses and 5.1 Release... - 1/12/2013 8:33:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The actual data entry related to past issues is done.

Some technical matters remain under investigation:

1) A report about rearming is being worked on, and it appears I have found a solution. IF I have, it means I should change certain nationalities
of certain locations. Still working it out.

2) A report of "teleportation" - an old issue in WITP which occasionally rears its head - needs to be run down. Unless and until we can duplicate the phenomena, no one can fix it. But I always try to duplicate issues reported - on principle. IF we can make it happen, we can fix it.

One historical matter: AE data entry people decided to use ahistorical organization for the modified Hawaii Division. This unit, just before the war began, divided into the 24th and 25th Divisions - its four regiments combining with two Hawaii National Guard Regiments (98th and 99th) to form triangular divisions. One of these regiments is missing, and the other does not combine up into a division! Instead, two later regiments are linked - so neither division may form in Hawaii - if need be (say in the face of an invasion). One of these, from the Washington National Guard, was actually planned for the Philippines - and should start the game that way. The other, not yet raised in Hawaii, was also not originally tasked for either division. The Matrix principle is you get things as they appear - but this was not done in this case. As well, the 98th regiment is divided into three battalion combat teams, with the wrong artillery (guns not even in service yet) - and split among three islands. The actual defenses of the islands - which include coast guns - are not present. So the 98th cannot effectively form into its real parent division even if the components of it are nearby. As well, the 98th is at about 2/3 strength - not all up. All the OB stuff was done for RHS WITP because one scenario focused on an invasion of Hawaii - and I will simply move over the OB materials - so each island gets what it had - and the two divisions may form up on Hawaii - day one - if a player wants either or both to do that.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 217
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/13/2013 9:29:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I reported a couple of days ago that some start of game US units had "the wrong
artillery"

I specifically referred to the 105 mm airborne howitzer - a real enough weapon.

It is a cut down US M2 howitzer mounted on a 75mm carriage to reduce weight.

It was dreamed up only in 1941 and the first prototype only reached Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1942. The cutting off of no less than 26 inches of barrel - from an already short howitzer - was problematical, even though it did save weight. Seems there was not enough time for the powder to burn! A workaround was found, and the gun put into production, eventually - such that numbers began to reach troops about a year after the war began.

AFTER. NO units should have this weapon in a 1941 OB. But MANY do.

Thus the 1941 infantry division (slot 2517) shows no less than 36 of these weapons, fictional in 1941. The same 1941 formation, and formations pointing at it like the 24th and 25th divisions on Hawaii (slots 5559 and 5565), also show 36 105 mm howitzers. But in fact the regiments in Hawaii appear to have had 75 mm field guns, and the divisions got 105s to replace them only later in time.

Since these divisions have component RCT, and since these need to have the same devices in the same slot order so they combine properly, that means all 6 RCT need reworking re devices. As well, it appears only 6 artillery battalions are available, so each RCT probably gets EITHER 12 75s or 12 155s - or perhaps 8 75s and 4 155s - not 12 plus 4 as shown (in 4 cases).

It is more complicated than that because two of the actual RCT are not shown as assigned to the divisions - with two later ones shown instead. That means players may not form up either division on Hawaii at start. One of the actual RCT present - the 298th - is incorrectly shown as split into BCT on the outer islands. The other - the 299th - is not shown at all. So I reworked these, at 33% disabled (since they do not point at a formation), gave them 12 75 mm field guns, and attached them. I detached the Washington National Guard 161st RCT, moved it to Fort Lewis (Tacoma), and let it appear on the first day - because it was there and activated. Yes, it moved to San Francisco a few days later - but players can do that. It was not actually assigned to a division - so I let it be unassigned. The other RCT - the 34th - is also not actually assigned to a division either. Both units get 12 105s and 4 155s (although an ex MP of the 161st is not able to confirm they had any artillery at all), and remain assigned to Pacific Fleet - as they were supposed to contest the Philippines or the SLOC route to there - as of 7 Dec 1941. I had to create the 299th to achieve this. I left the 24th and 25th split - so players may move the units to different places or combine up. But I changed the command relationships - all the RCT AND the divisions are now part of Hawaii Department. Stock had the 4 RCT on Hawaii so assigned, but not the divisions - so if they combined up with the other RCT you got instant free political points! A subtle solution to the problem!

Related to this, formation 2357 is pointed at by the 298th RCT, but it is dated 420801. It upgrades to 2387, named "42 infantry regiment" - but that has no date. So the formation pointed at probably is ignored, and the "updated" formation probably gets used instead, in a day or so of game start. 2387 should not show the fictional 105s at all - but does. 2387 perhaps should show them, and the way the dates work, it looks like all formations pointing at 2357 may try to use the 1942 OB - and thus will get the fictional airborne howitzer even if they don't start with them - in 1941.

A similar issue appears re Alaska RCT. The 1941 formation (slot 2533) has a date of 420401, but the 1942 (slot 2534) update has no date at all. And the 1941 formation also shows the fictional airborne 105. IRL there were no 105s of any sort in Alaska at all - one regiment of 75s and one of 155s (the latter present as a separate battalion). So only one RCT could exist in 1941, and it would have 75s. If you want some chrome, the 1942 Alaska RCT should have a new device (I use slot 1170) called the T-14 (or CTLS-4) tank! It was a temporary emergency measure not widely used elsewhere by the US Army.

Alaska has still more problems. Its biggest collection of US Army units is at Fort Greeley, a location not present at all! Others are missing from other places. Several units are split up - making a nightmare situation in terms of slot requirements. Some simplification is probably warranted. But IF you add Fort Greely - SE of Fairbanks on the Tanana River and on the main highway of the territory - it gets the 201st Regiment (separate), technically is the location of the parent of the 37th regiment (1 BCT at Dutch Harbor and one at Kodiak), the the 151st Engineer battalion, a battalion of 75s (not a unit if you use even one RCT - but it is the 98th), and the 215th Coast Artillery AAA regiment. The 4th Infantry (Sep) RCT, the only one with tanks, is properly shown at Fort Richardson (that is, at Anchorage). The 81st Artillery is also there (the 155s). So is the 75th AAA regiment. The parent of the 1/297th Infantry is also there, but 2 companies are at Chilikoot Barracks (that is, at Haines Alaska = Skagway hex for game purposes - the terminus of the Whitehorse and Yukon RR and the reason for the barracks - to control the people moving into Yukon - a disaster resulting in 20,000 or more deaths during the gold rush - because of starvation - not only of the newcomers - but everyone else as well!) I simply put the entire unit there. This unit gets the ANG (Alaska National Guard) prefix. [It had several trusted Japanese members, but in spite of the advocacy of their officers, they were transferred to the segregated US Army Japanese units in 1942]. The entire coast artillery regiment is at Dutch Harbor - not split into 3 battalions as shown. Two battalions of AAA are missing - the 1/205th at Valdez and the 1/206th at Dutch.
The 32nd Separate Engineer Company is also at Anchorage, but it might be considered part of the USAAF base force there. The 153rd infantry (sep) is at Valdez, but isn't an RCT. Only one battalion is present, the rest being split between four other locations - more or less properly as shown in the data set. [A battalion at Dutch, a company at Nome, Annette Island and at Yakutat]

A different issue is command relationships. Alaska suffered until 1946 from a lack of unified command. I have split continental and island locations into Alaska Command and Naval Forces Alaska (later North Pacific) Command. Army units - say at Kodiak or Dutch - are under Navy command. And naval units (say at Nome) or other places - are under Army command. On Hawaii, the Hawaiian Department controls most units and locations - but some islands and units are Navy controlled. Midway and Johnston, of course, but also Mauai, which gets a USN base force and USMC infantry squads - while Hilo and Kauai get US Army base forces (with their 9.2 inch guns!) and US Army squads. There is a company of infantry rather than a battalion on most of the larger islands.

A different kind of weapon issue relates to game start US Naval base forces. These are shown with 40 mm guns (not yet in US service!) and 155 mm CD guns (not naval weapons at all but Army). I replaced them with quad 50 cals and with 5 inch CD guns - which were the most common used by the Navy and Marines. There are numbers of these units and all need to be reworked if you wish not to have ahistorical weapons. In a similar sense, command relationships may matter for these units. Which ships may be allowed to rearm may be related to the nationality of the naval unit, and the nationality and command of units at the port they try to rearm at? I have been able to show British ships won't rearm in New Zealand, but the very same vessels classified as New Zealand can, for example. It appears that US Army West Coast command is not allowing US or Canadian ships to rearm at least some (ASW) weapons. It may be that Pacific Fleet command will help that issue.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 218
RE: RHS Design Theory: Follow Up - 1/13/2013 10:33:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I "only" had to "add two missing AA battalions" - right?

Not so simple. The parent units - AA regiments - were present in the OB -
slots 5593 and 5613. These were "2 battalion AA regiments" so I could turn
them into 2nd battalion of the regiment - and create duplicates called the 1st battalion - for Dutch Harbor and Valdez. Simple enough. Except the "regiments" were at below battalion strength - and needed to be increased to reach "battalion" size - in order to duplicate the battalions properly.

But the 2 battalion parent formation was dated 430601 - while the 1946 upgrade was undated (familiar story to the infantry issues). And the 3 battalion AA regiments had the same problem. And the 3 battalion regiments did not have the correct device counts for 3 battalions on the same scale as the 2 battalion regiments - in several respects. So all four parents - 2 for 1941 and 2 for 1942 - needed correcting. As well, I created US Army Coast AA battalions - for the no longer regiments in 5593 and 5613 - and updates for them. I used slots 2414 and 2439. The 1943 regiments parental slots are 2436 & 2437. The 1941 parent slots are 2362 and 2363.

A great deal of work to get just two new battalions.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 219
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.10 Installer Released: Details - 1/14/2013 6:31:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This is the present content of the RHS installer - it is a sort of framework that
describes what is present and where it is to go. You might use it to compile
some version of your own, or Mifune may use it to build an installer locally (since
he cannot get the complied version as such, and instead gets the bits and pieces
which go into it).

It also is a heads up. The installer (WITH content) is now done and is the next transmission (no delay) unless you cannot get such a large file.

I made heroic efforts to integrate and validate the file set. I have also tried to
address numbers of technical and historical issues. If I am correct, this is going
to be the files we use for test series 8. Updates - e.g. to air art or pwhexe files - will
fold into existing games.

There is one more aircraft type - a float version of the TBD-1 Devastator - for 105 only - to compliment the Wild Catfish float version of the Wildcat fighter. These are not going to be something that would be mass produced, but might find a technical application some place with few airfields nearby. There is a reason these planes were developed (I didn't make em up), after all.

There is a bit of development on the land side, as messages of the last two days should indicate. We have a more correct initial US LCU initial order of battle, correcting device errors, adding missing units, and moving things around to the right place. As well, we added the Fort Greely Alaska location, as that is where many of the Army units are (building an airfield to help planes make it to Fairbanks - if they have a range problem). At the same time, I finally rationalized a somewhat extensive minor RR network in South Australia - mainly for hauling grain - a few sheep, gipsum and salt - no longer is it a rail net to nowhere with nothing to move and no way to move units (because there must be two defined locations on a rail line to move a unit now we have five). Since Australia is short of resoures in its big industrial cities, a new port to get resources at closer than the long haul to the West (or even to Noumean) is going to help some. I had no idea about these towns, or that there was such a superb port not defined in the game.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 220
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied Carriers and Air Groups - 1/19/2013 12:59:22 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The biggest changes are in US Carriers (adding USS Ranger and changing dates and locations for Yorktown and Wasp). Note also that Yorktown and Wasp appear with 20mm vice machine guns and, for that reason, the first update for their classes had its date changed to 12/41. Only minor technical changes occurred to the other documents.

RHS US Carrier Logic

Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear, THEN the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at further changes after that. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US carriers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war.

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Scen 105 Date

CV-4 Ranger Ranger CV-4 26 July 44 Not in Stock Start San Diego

CV-5 Yorktown Yorktown CV-5 16 Dec 41 30 Dec 41 Start at SE USA

CV-7 Wasp Wasp CV-7 6 June 42 10 June 42 Start at SE USA

CV-8 Hornet Hornet CV-8 4 May 42 11 May 42 Start at SE USA

CV-9 Essex Essex CV-9 21 May 43 19 May 43 17 Feb 43 in 105

CV-10 Yorktown (ii) Bon H Richard CV-10 15 Apr 43 2 July 43

CV-11 Intrepid Intrepid CV-11 16 Aug 43 4 Dec 43 20 Jul 43 in 105

CV-12 Hornet (ii) Kearsarge CV-12 29 Nov 43 2 Feb 44

CV-13 Franklin Franklin CV-13 31 Jan 44 1 May 44

CV-14 Ticonderoga Hancock CV-14 8 May 44 5 Aug 44 23 Apr 44 in 105

CV-15 Randolph Randolph CV-15 9 Oct 44 7 Dec 44 2 Oct 44 in 105

CV-16 Lexington (ii) Cabot CV-16 17 Feb 43 15 Jul 43

CV-17 Bunker Hill Bunker Hill CV-17 25 May 43 9 Sep 43 28 Feb 43 in 105

CV-18 Wasp (ii) Oriskany CV-18 24 Nov 43 11 Mar 44

CV-19 Hancock Ticonderoga CV-19 15 Apr 44 16 Aug 44

CV-20 Bennington Bennington CV-20 6 Aug 44 11 Dec 44 6 Mar 44 in 105

CV-21 Boxer Boxer CV-21 16 Apr 45 13 Jul 45 4 Feb 45 in 105

CV-31 Bon H Richard Valley Forge CV-31 26 Nov 44 30 Mar 45 23 Apr 44 in 105

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Scen 105 Date

CV-32 Leyte Pearl Harbor CV-32 11 Apr 46 Not in Stock

CV-33 Kearsarge Reprisal CV-33 2 Mar 46 9 Aug 45

CV-34 Oriskany (ii) Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Completed in 1950

CV-35 Reprisal Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945

CV-36 Antietam Antietam CV-36 28 Jan 45 21 May 45 7 Jun 44 in 105

CV-37 Princeton Valley Forge CV-37 18 Nov 45 Not in Stock

CV-38 Shangra La Shangra La CV-38 15 Sep 44 15 Jan 45

CV-39 Lake Champlain Lake Champlain CV-39 3 Jun 45 15 Sep 45 6 Aug 44 in 105

CV-40 Tarawa Tarawa CV-40 8 Dec 45 7 Mar 46

CVB-41 Midway Midway CVB-41 10 Sep 45 10 Sep 45

CVB-42 F D R Coral Sea CVB-42 27 Oct 45 27 Oct 45 Renamed FDR

CVB-43 Coral Sea Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Completed in 1947

CVB-44 No Name Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945

CV-45 Valley Forge Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Completed in 1946

CV-46 Iwo Jima Not in RHS Not in RHS Not in Stock Cancelled in 1945

CV-47 Philippine Sea Philippine Sea CV-47 11 May 46 Not in Stock

CV Iowa Type Ship Name Oct 43+ Not in Stock IF converted only

Note 1: CV-16 & 17 both laid down on 15 Sept 41. CV-16 launched 11 days sooner than CV-17 did. In 105, it is assume higher priority kept the pair 11 days apart all the way to completion.

Note 2: CV-10 & 11 both laid down on 1 Dec 41. CV-10 launched 3 months and 5 days sooner than CV-11 did. In 105, it is assumed higher priority kept the pair 3 months and 5 days apart to completion.

Note 3: CV-14 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

Note 4: CV-15 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

Note 5: CV-20 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

Note 6: CV-31 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

Note 7: CV-36 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

Note 8: CV-39 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.

Note 9: CV-21 is given the priority to launch and complete at the same time span as CV-13 took.



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 221
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied Carriers and Air Groups - 1/19/2013 1:00:54 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		In order to assure long term games do not run into difficulties, I ran a computer vs computer test series using high speed machines (about an hour a day). Then I examined the data, making due allowance for the idiocy of AI strategy, looking for other kinds of issues.

It appears that the work done to address carrier air groups was substantially lost. Worse, it appears that the work was less than exhaustive - that some issues never seen before still existed. At first my impression was the FAA was the worst case - and so I fixed that - and restarted the test. The much larger USN turns out to be even more of a problem.

Some squadrons have no size defined. In some circumstances these squadrons will grow until they reach the field limit (255 planes)! This makes them unusable on carriers at all.

I don't think users are very aware of when the 'wrong plane' is used? At start, the Allies have lots of obsolete aircraft. How can a player know this case of a slightly out of date plane is incorrect? Even if the plane is "too soon" - there are instances where these are deliberately present (a squadron of prototype Ki-44s is present, even in stock). And apart from data entry guys, who has much of a sense of the specific date a sub model is to appear? Often this sort of error will not be noticed.

Doing a comprehensive review, I found something less than ideal with about 75% of Allied air groups. That made me wonder about those ships never checked - the ones we start with. Maybe we should look at game start data as well? Sure enough, the game does not have the off map carriers appearing when and where they ought to: they should depart Eastern USA on known dates (of leaving Norfolk) - with the freedom to go in various directions - but don't. And one never appears at all! USS Ranger is eventually rebuilt for Pacific operations - fitted with modern radar as a night fighter carrier - and sent to San Diego to pick up planes: but it is in no variation of AE I can find. If we care about CVEs, why not a CV? [A more interesting variation is a plan by Adm King to convert her to USS Hornet standards - possible as the designs were closely related.]

In general, apart from the dates of 2 US CVs and their start at Eastern USA, and the total absence of Ranger, the RHS documentation is correct - but the database is not always consistent with the documentation. Spot checking failed to reveal a few instances of name swapping (one pair), wrong port of entry, wrong date, etc. The other major issue is the omission of numbers of night fighter squadrons. These substantially are in the data but not implemented. And they were incomplete. Most of the record issues, however, relate to which plane is on what carrier when it appears?

Otherwise, testing reveals a find data set that works well.

These matters amount to eratta and will be corrected by an update called 5.12 - and which only affects data files. Most changes are in group records, some in ship records, a handful in class (including defining the USS Ranger and a later upgrade for USS Wasp), and another handful in aircraft (plane counts in 105 or dates of end of production mostly) files. This will issue today.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 222
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied Carriers and Air Groups - 1/19/2013 1:01:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		CW Carrier Logic
Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear that the Allies change what they did historically. In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission unless there was another deployment besides PTO. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war. [In this list, Vancouver = Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada]
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Victorious Slot 3034 RN Victorious R38 430201 430201 Note 4 Starts at UK
Indomitable Slot 3035 RN Indomitable R92 420117 420117 Note 5 Starts at Aden
Illustrious Slot 3036 RN Illustrious R87 420605 420428 Starts at Capetown
Indefatigable Slot3037 RN Indefatigable R10 441101 441015 Starts at Aden
Formidable Slot 3038 RN Formidable R67 420315 420315 Note 3 St @ Capetown
Implacable Slot 3039 RN Implacable R86 450415 450415 Starts at Aden
Colossus Slot 3041 RN Colossus R15 450312 441216 To France 1946
Venerable Slot 3042 RN Venerable R63 450301 450615 Starts at UK; RNN 1948
Vengeance Slot 3043 RN Vengeance R71 450525 450615 Strt @ Aden; RAN 1952
Glory Slot 3044 RN Glory R62 450523 459402 Starts at UK
Hermes Slot 3045 RN Hermes R95 411206 411206 Starts at Trincomalee
Warrior Slot 3053 RCN Warrior R31 450402 451202 Note 1 Start @ Quebec
Ocean Slot 3060 RN Ocean R68 450808 450808 Starts at UK
Unicorn Slot 3113 RN Unicorn D72 440113 440130 Note 13
Perseus Slot 3114 RCN Perseus R51 451019 451019 Only in 105. Note 8
Pioneer Slot 3115 RN Pioneer R76 450208 450208 Mars in 105. Note 2
Vindix Slot 3116 RN Vindix D15 450915 450714 Note 12 Enters at UK
Attacker Slot 3117 RN Attacker D02 441001 450415 Enters at UK
Battler Slot 3118 RN Battler D18 431001 431015 Enters at Aden
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Chaser Slot 3119 RN Chaser D32 440415 450615 Enters at Aden
Fencer Slot 3120 RN Fencer D64 450315 450415 Enters at Aden
Hunter Slot 3121 RN Hunter D80 450221 450615 Enters at UK
Pursuer Slot 3122 RN Pursuer D73 450715 450315 Enters at UK
Searcher Slot 3123 RN Searcher D40 450715 450615 Enters at UK
Stalker Slot 3124 RN Stalker D91 450715 450215 Enters at UK
Striker Slot 3125 RN Striker D12 441115 450315 Enters at Aden
Ameer Slot 3126 RN Ameer D01 430720 441215 Enters at Tacoma
Arbiter Slot 3127 RN Arbiter D31 440801 450515 Enters at Aden Note 14
Begum Slot 3128 RN Begum D38 440301 440315 Enters at Aden
Emperor Slot 3129 RN Emperor D98 440901 450515 Enters at Aden
Empress Slot 3130 RN Empress D42 430813 450315 Enters at Tacoma
Khedive Slot 3131 RCN Knedive D62 450901 450115 Enters at Aden
Reaper Slot 3132 RCN Reaper D82 440221 450715 Enters at Tacoma
Ruler Slot 3133 RN Ruler D72 430821 450615 Enters at Vancouver
Shah Slot 3134 RN Shah D21 440301 440315 Enters at Aden
Slinger Slot 3235 RN Slinger D26 430811 450415 Enters at Aden
Smiter 3136 RN Smiter D55 450915 450715 Enters at UK
Speaker Slot 3137 RN Speaker D90 450122 450815 Enters at Aden
Atheling Slot 3138 RN Atheling D51 430731 450815 Enters at Vancouver
Trumpeter Slot 3139 RN Lucifer D09 450601 440515 Enters at UK
Activity Slot 3140 RN Activity D94 440915 440915 Enters at UK
Tracker Slot 3141 RN Tracker D24 451015 450101 Enters at UK
Raja Slot 3142 RN Prince D10 440911 440911 Enters at UK Note 14
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Ranee Slot 3143 RN Ranee D03 431108 440208 Enters at Vancouver
Leviathan Slot 3225 RN Leviathan R08 460218 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Eagle Slot 3226 RN Audacious R05 451124 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 6
Vanguard Slot 16017 RN Vanguard R01 450612 Not in Stock If converted Note 9
Puncher Slot 16018 RCN Puncher D79 450915 Not in Stock Enters at UK
Queen Slot 16019 RN Queen D19 450815 Not in Stock Enters at UK
Trouncer Slot 16020 RN Trouncer D85 440131 Not in Stock Enters at Portland
Patroller Slot 16021 RN Patroller D07 450128 Not in Stock Enters at UK Note 14
Premier Slot 16022 RN Premier D23 451015 Not in Stock Enters at UK
Terrible Slot 16023 RN Terrible R93 451030 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Magnificent Slot 16024 RN Magnificent R22 451216 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Powerful Slot 16025 RN Powerful R06 460327 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Majestic Slot 16026 RN Majestic R07 450827 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10
Arc Royal Slot 16027 RN Irresistible R09 460603 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 7
Hercules Slot 16028 RN Hercules R12 460212 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 10

Note 1: This ship commissioned twice in RN, and once in RCN, and references rarely get the first one!
Note 2: In Scenario 105, it is assumed Pioneer is not used as a maintenance carrier and it is assigned a proper air group. She uses her original name (Mars), as intended for the line carrier role. Enter @ UK.
Note 3: Withdraw 420904, return 420915.
Note 4: Withdraw 431015; return 440612.
Note 5: Withdraw 420705; return 440612.
Note 6: Audacious, renamed Eagle, commissioned in 1951. In 105, she is laid down as a repeat Implacable on her historical laying date, and built at the same rate as Illustrious = 37 months. Starts at United Kingdom.
Note 7: Arc Royal laid down more than six months after Audacious, commissioned in 1955. In 105, she is laid down as a repeat Implacable on her historical laying date, and built at the same rate as Illustrious. Starts at United Kingdom.
Note 8: Originally named Edgar. Reconstructed as a maintenance aircraft carrier. No air group. Historically not in PTO. Enters PTO after the end of historical hostilities since that was an option.
Note 9: "A proposal was made in 1942 to convert the Vanguard to an aircraft carrier." In RHS the player has the option to accept this proposal, by converting the battleship after she appears. This is also an option in strictly historical scenarios. This is in my view a superior CVB design with exceptional range, AAA, protection and a large air compliment. Enters the map at United Kingdom.
Note 10: Majestic class carriers, none of which ever served in RN, were originally additional units of the Colossus class. Their design was modified, and construction delayed, such that the war ended, and work was suspended, although five were eventually completed for other nations. In the presumably worse situation in Scenario 105, and in any future "enhanced Japan scenarios" (likely including Scenario 100, still in development by Mifune), the original plan is preserved, and they will complete in 1945 or 1946. 13 months from launch is the time it took to complete Ocean. This value is used for the first three Majestic class (which are in all ways identical to Colossus). 15 months from lay down to launch is the time it took for the Powerful, third unit of the Majestic class. This is combined with 13 months to obtain total build time of 28 months, is used for the last three.
Note 11: R numbers for hulls not completed for RN and given them historically use the next issued R numbers historically issued (that is, the Centaur class numbers), in date order. Exception: Vanguard (ex Lion) gets R01 - after the unnamed CV01 project - a superior CVA design. Unfortunately, the Vanguard R number exists only in this list, because we don't want the BB version to have an R number in the game! So it is as theoretical as the historical CV01 project was!
Note 12: Not in PTO historically. Was historically used for Firefly night fighter trials. Could have been sent to PTO after the end of historical hostilities. Air group max size increased to 21 vice 18 in stock.
Note 13: Aircraft maintenance carrier and aircraft transport. No air group but capable of operating one. This was so successful other carriers were modified for a similar mission. Critics of the final Shinano design concept take note.
Note 14: No air group. Served as an aircraft transport.




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 223
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied Carriers and Air Groups - 1/19/2013 1:02:02 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS US Light Carrier Logic
Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear, THEN the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at further changes after that. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US carriers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, starting long before the war.
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Scen 105 Date
CVL-22 Independence Independence CVL-22 1 Jan 43 16 Jun 43
CVL-23 Princeton Gettysburgh CVL-23 25 Feb 43 1 Jul 43
CVL-24 Belleau Wood Belleau Wood CVL-24 31 Mar 43 6 Jul 43
CVL-25 Cowpens Cowpens CVL-25 28 May 43 26 Aug 43
CVL-26 Monterey Monterey CVL-26 17 Jun 43 18 Sep 43
CVL-27 Langley Crown Point CVL-27 31 Aug 43 2 Dec 43
CVL-28 Cabot Alamo CVL-28 24 Jul 43 11 Nov 43
CVL-29 Bataan Bataan CVL-29 17 Nov 43 28 Feb 44
CVL-30 San Jacinto San Jacinto CVL-30 15 Dec 43 24 Mar 44
CVL-48 Saipan Arlington CVL-48 5 Jul 43 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 2
CVL-49 Wright Wright CVL-49 31 Dec 43 Not in Stock Only in 105 Note 3
Note 1: While generally the names of WWII battles are avoided in RHS, it is safe to assume the long planned battle for Bataan would occur. Bataan's forts prevented enemy use of strategic Manila Bay.
Note 2: This is not the historical Saipan class using a modified Baltimore hull. It is a repeat Independence on a war emergency basis which can be built in less time in Scenario 105 ONLY. It is assumed that the hull of CL-89 Miami is taken over for conversion in mid 1942.
Note 3: This is not the historical Saipan class using a modified Baltimore hull. It is a repeat Independence on a war emergency basis which can be built in less time in Scenario 105 ONLY. It is assumed that the hull of CL-90 Wilksbarra is taken over for conversion in mid 1942.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 224
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied Carriers and Air Groups - 1/19/2013 1:02:23 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		RHS US Escort Carrier Logic
Early in the war, all the considerations that led to the design and ordering of Allied carriers remain valid. In scenario 105, AFTER the ADDITIONAL carriers of the REVISED shadow program and regular production programs begin to appear, THEN the Allies change what they did historically. I assume that something like the attack on Pearl Harbor happens, so the original revisions to pre war planning still occur in game terms. Here we ONLY look at further changes after that. However, in scenarios 101 to 105 US carriers get the ORIGINAL names assigned, not renames (which depend on what sank in the war). In scenarios 101 to 104, all dates are date of commission. Stock sometimes uses dates before commissioning! Other times later. Scenario 100 uses an entirely different logic stream, not documented here and not finished.
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Sangamon Slot 3049 Sangamone CVE-26 421205 421215 Start @ SE USA
Chenago Slot 3050 Chenago CVE-28 421215 421215 Start @ SE USA
Suwannee Slot 3051 Suwannee CVE-27 421205 421215 Start @ SE USA
Santee Slot 3052 Santee CVE-29 440213 430512 Start @ SE USA
Nassau Slot 3054 Nassau CVE-16 421010 421015 Note 3
Atamaha Slot 3055 Atamaha CVE-18 421027 421027 Start @ Tacoma
Copahee Slot 3056 Copahee CVE-12 420615 420815 Start @ Tacoma
Breton Slot 3057 Breton CVE-23 430412 430615 Start @ Tacoma
Prince Wm Slot 3058 Prince Wm CVE-31 430409 421023 Note 3
Barnes Slot 3059 Barnes CVE-20 430220 430421 Note 3
Casablanca Slot 3061 Casablanca CVE-55 430708 430815 Note 4
Corregidor Slot 3062 Anguilla Bay CVE-58 430831 430612 Start @ Vancouver
Anzio Slot 3063 Coral Sea CVE-57 430827 430601 Note 1
Liscome Bay Slot 3064 Liscome Bay CVE-56 430807 431015 Start @ Vancouver
Manila Bay Slot 3065 Manila Bay CVE-61 431005 431115 Note 5
Natoma Bay Slot 3066 Natoma Bay CVE-62 431014 430820 Start @ Vancouver
Kalinin Bay Slot 3067 Kalinin Bay CVE-68 431127 431227 Start @ Astoria
White Plains Slot 3068 Elbour Bay CVE-66 431115 440115 Start @ Astoria
Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Kitkun Bay Slot 3069 Kitkun Bay CVE-71 431108 440108 Start @ Vancouver
Gambier Bay Slot 3070 Gambier Bay CVE-73 431228 440215 Start @ Astoria
Nehanta Bay Slot 3071 Nehanta Bay CVE-74 440103 440204 Start @ Astoria
Ommoney By Slot 3072 Ommoney Bay CVE-75 440311 440311 Start @ Vancouver
Petrof Bay Slot 3073 Petrof Bay CVE-80 431229 440318 Start @ Vancouver
Savo Island Slot 3074 Kaita Bay CVE-78 440203 440303 Start @ Vancouver
Rudyerd Bay Slot 3075 Rudyerd Bay CVE-81 440225 440325 Start @ Vancouver
St Lo Slot 3076 Chapin Bay CVE-63 431023 441023 Start @ Vancouver
Fanshaw Bay Slot 3077 Fanshaw Bay CVE-70 431209 440109 Start @ Vancouver
Kadashan Bay Slot 3078 Kadashan Bay CVE-76 440118 440218 Start @ Vancouver
Saginaw Bay Slot 3079 Saginaw Bay CVE-82 440302 440402 Start @ Vancouver
Cape Esperance SL3080 Tanaek Bay CVE-88 440409 440509 Note 2
Hogatt Bay Slot 3081 Hogatt Bay CVE-75 440111 440211 Start @ Astoria
Wake Island Slot 3082 Dolomi Bay CVE-65 441120 431207 Start @ Balboa
Marcus Island SL 3083 Kanalku Bay CVE-77 440126 440206 Start @ Astoria
Shipley Bay Slot 3084 Shipley Bay CVE-85 440321 440421 Start @ Vancouver
Stikoh Bay Slot 3085 Sitkoh Bay CVE-86 440328 440428 Note 6
Steamer Bay Slot 3086 Steamer Bay CVE-87 440404 440504 Start @ Vancouver
Makassar Strait SL 3087 Ulitaka Bay CVE-91 440427 440527 Start @ Astoria
Thetis Bay Slot 3088 Thetis Bay CVE-90 440421 440521 Note 2
Wyndham Bay SL 3089 Wyndham Bay CVE-92 440503 440603 Note 2
Bismark Sea Slot 3090 Alikula Bay CVE-95 440520 440620 Start @ Vancouver
Kwajalein Slot 3091 Bucarelli Bay CVE-98 440607 440707 Note 2
Lunga Point Slot 3092 Alazon Bay CVE-94 440514 440614 Start @ Vancouver

Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Makin Island Slot 3093 Woodcliff Bay CVE-93 440509 440609 Start @ Astoria
Bougainville Slot 3094 Didrickson B CVE-100 440618 440718 Note 2
Hollandia Slot 3095 Astrolabe B CVE-97 440601 440701 Note 2
Matanikau Slot 3096 Matanikau CVE-101 440624 440724 Note 6
Munda Slot 3097 Tonowek B CVE-104 440708 440815 Note 2
Roi Slot 3098 Alava Bay CVE-103 440606 440806 Note 2
Salamua Slot 3099 Salamua CVE-96 440526 440626 Start @ Vancouver
Sargent Bay Slot 3100 Sargent Bay CVE-83 440309 440509 Start @ Vancouver
Attu Slot 3101 Attu CVE-102 440527 440730 Start @ Vancouver
Admiralty Is Slot 3102 Admiralty Is CVE-99 440613 440713 Start @ Astoria
Tulagi Slot 3103 Fortaleza B CVE-72 441021 440121 Start @ Balboa
Shamrock Bay SL3104 Shamrock B CVE-84 441118 440415 Start @ Balboa
Kassan Bay Slot 3105 Kassan Bay CVE-69 441226 440109 Start @ Balboa
Takanis Bay Slot 3106 Takanis Bay CVE-89 440526 440522 Note 2
Long Island Slot 3107 Long Island CVE-1 420510 420521 Start at SE USA
Com'mnt B Slot 3108 St Joseph B CVE-105 441127 441227 Note 3
Block Island Slot 3109 Sunset Bay CVE-106 441230 450128 Start @ Tacoma
Gilbert Islands 3110 St Andrews B CVE107 450205 450415 Start @ Tacoma
Kula Gulf Slot 3252 Vermillion B CVE-108 450512 Not in Stock Note 7
Cp Gloucester SL3111 Willapa Bay CVE-109 450305 450405 Start @ Tacoma
Selerno Bay Slot 16029 Winjah Bay CVE-110 450519 Not in Stock Start @ Portland


Historical Name RHS Name RHS Date Stock Date Notes
Vella Gulf Slot 3112 Totem Bay CVE-111 450409 450519 Start @ Tacoma
Siboney Slot 16030 Frosty Bay CVE-112 450515 Note in Stock Start @ Seattle
Puget Sound SL16031 Hobart Bay CVE-113 450618 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Rendova Slot 16032 Mosser Bay CVE-114 451022 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Barioko Slot 16033 Portage Bay CVE-115 450716 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Badoeng Strait SL16034 Alberto Bay CVE-116 451114 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Saidor Slot 16035 Saltery Bay CVE-117 450904 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Sicily Slot 16036 Sandy Bay CVE-118 460227 Not in Stock Note 8
Point Cruz Slot 16037 Trocadero B CVE-119 451016 Not in Stock Start @ Tacoma
Mindoro Slot 16038 Mindoro CVE-120 451204 Not in Stock 105 Only Note 9
Rabaul Slot 16039 Rabaul CVE-121 460114 Not in Stock Note 10
Palau Slot 16040 Palau CVE-122 460115 Not in Stock 105 Only Note 9
Tinian Slot 16041 Tinian CVE-123 450305 Not in Stock Note 11
Note 1: USS Anzio was originally Alikula Bay. This name was later allocated to CVE-95 and she entered service as Coral Sea. She was renamed again so CVB-43 could have it. But there is no CVB-43 in RHS, because the ship cannot complete until 1947 or later, and we need a name other than Bismark Sea for CVE-95. So she carries the name she entered service with: Coral Sea. Starts at Vancouver, Washington.
Note 2: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Vancouver, Washington.
Note 3: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Tacoma, Washington.
Note 4: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Vancouver, Washington. Originally Ameer for RN, then Alazon Bay, finally Casablanca (before completion). Alazon Bay used by CVE-94, and Casablanca became famous as class name. So, unusually, RHS uses the rename.
Note 5: Originally Bucarelli Bay, the name is needed for CVE-98. A famous victim of a kamikaze attack, she unusually retains her rename in RHS. Starts at Astoria, Oregon.
Note 6: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Astoria, Oregon.
Note 7: No air group. Historically a transport. Starts at Portland, Oregon.
Note 8: No air group. Completed after the end of historical hostilities. No data on planned air group. Serves as a transport Starts at Portland, Oregon.
Note 9: Designated for Atlantic ASW duty. Starts at Tacoma, Washington.
Note 10: Not completed historically. Completes six months after historical launch. Starts at Tacoma, Washington.
Note11: No air group. Completed after the end of historical hostilities. No data on planned air group. Serves as a transport Starts at Portland, Oregon. Not in scenarios 101 - 104 or 106.




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 225
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied Carriers and Air Groups - 1/19/2013 1:13:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Aircraft carriers make phenomenal transports. Numbers of Allied CVEs were used in this role during WWII. In addition, many of them spent decades after the war in commercial service, not as aircraft carriers, but as merchant transport ships. The large hanger deck and flight deck make them particularly useful for moving vehicles and aircraft. They also make great troop transports (see "Operation Magic Carpet" at the end of WWII). In addition, those built on tanker hulls could serve as bulk liquid transports - and did so during the war.

I have long considered how to permit the use of CVEs as transport ships? The next microupdate of RHS (5.12) will contain a new type of conversion:

The mass produced types of Allied CVEs may "convert" into AKVs. These get about 75% of displacement as cargo (rounded down to the nearest thousand) - unless they also serve as tankers - in which case the tanker capacity is subtracted from the bulk cargo capacity. IF the original design is build on a tanker hull and has phenomenal five digit ranges (18,000 to over 26,000), then half the bunkerage is shown as liquid fuel capacity, and the range is reduced by half in the AKV form. Only a CVE appearing in the original sub type for that class may convert. It may do so at a yard 1/3 the size normally required for conversion of a ship of that class (how hard is it to remove a minimal amount of equipment?). The ships armament is retained, as is its speed, radar and other features. Any vessel so converted may also "upgrade" to the next sub type of the same class - on or after the date that upgrade is permitted - and on the same terms (time delay, etc). An AKV may join a transport TF, a cargo TF or an air transport TF, but not an amphibious TF. The troop capacity of a former CVE is twice as great as a normal AK of the same size would be (an RHS concept - the default troop capacity is defined for most ship types). Aircraft loaded onto an AKV are not disabled on load and will arrive at their destination without being disabled.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/19/2013 1:28:43 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 226
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/19/2013 8:08:06 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I reported a couple of days ago that some start of game US units had "the wrong
artillery"

I specifically referred to the 105 mm airborne howitzer - a real enough weapon.

It is a cut down US M2 howitzer mounted on a 75mm carriage to reduce weight.

It was dreamed up only in 1941 and the first prototype only reached Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1942. The cutting off of no less than 26 inches of barrel - from an already short howitzer - was problematical, even though it did save weight. Seems there was not enough time for the powder to burn! A workaround was found, and the gun put into production, eventually - such that numbers began to reach troops about a year after the war began.

AFTER. NO units should have this weapon in a 1941 OB. But MANY do.

There is similar problem with US 90mm AA gun. AT version begin with pool, but there was impossible to lower AA gun enough to engage tanks, so modification had to be firstly done, after experience with German Tanks in Africa.
Anyway, why are those guns almost identical, when M3 had like only 2/3 muzzle velocity of M2?

quote:

Thus the 1941 infantry division (slot 2517) shows no less than 36 of these weapons, fictional in 1941. The same 1941 formation, and formations pointing at it like the 24th and 25th divisions on Hawaii (slots 5559 and 5565), also show 36 105 mm howitzers. But in fact the regiments in Hawaii appear to have had 75 mm field guns, and the divisions got 105s to replace them only later in time.

I do not know, which version of Scenario you are referring to, but I see 1941 Infantry Division in slot 2511, and it shows 0 M3 105mm guns (although it actually have such slot). Anyway it seems there was NO 105mm in Regiments in 1941 TOE.

quote:

The other RCT - the 34th - is also not actually assigned to a division either. Both units get 12 105s and 4 155s (although an ex MP of the 161st is not able to confirm they had any artillery at all),

And he may be right. Regiment had only AT companies initially, and if it was NOT member of any Division previously, there was obviously NO parent unit, from which it could get artillery.

quote:

Related to this, formation 2357 is pointed at by the 298th RCT, but it is dated 420801. It upgrades to 2387, named "42 infantry regiment" - but that has no date. So the formation pointed at probably is ignored, and the "updated" formation probably gets used instead, in a day or so of game start. 2387 should not show the fictional 105s at all - but does. 2387 perhaps should show them, and the way the dates work, it looks like all formations pointing at 2357 may try to use the 1942 OB - and thus will get the fictional airborne howitzer even if they don't start with them - in 1941.

It seems to work in-game. Obviously dates in TOE works differently, than in any other place - they show, when NEXT upgrade will be available, not current.

Anyway, I see US Divisions are weirdly modelled. First upgrade is actually 1943 TOE, and it should use 57mm AT guns. 1942 TOE is missing completely, and it was VERY interesting (over 100 AT guns), just think of all this extra transport needs!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 227
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/20/2013 3:29:27 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		AI will NEVER adsd new groups onto aircraft carriers - if adding new carriers and you want the AI to work you must add some air groups to the carriers - I would recommend 1 fighter and 1 bomber sqn

The AI will overwrite sqn size to fill out the carrier as it will not add additonal sqns

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 228
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/20/2013 8:14:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It appears that whoever did the original carrier air groups wanted to add the FB squadrons late in the war -
and attempted to use the date field to get the job done. It also appears AI does not check the aircraft type
of a squadron - it just believes what it is told. So you can put a 1945 plane on a carrier in 1942 and AI is fine
with that.

As well, stock and other mods seem to be willing to put F6Fs on Escort carriers - only four were considered suitable
for them. USN designed the (smaller) F8F in part "to be able to operate from the smallest carriers" in part because
F6Fs were not used on them. [Curiously, the FAA had a different view. They substantially modified CVEs, carried
a lot less fuel, a lot more ballast, and often operated fewer aircraft. But these DID sometimes include the FAA
Hellcat - a version of the F6F. It has less range and less bombload because of how they loaded it - for safety.]

Another matter is the Corsair. Long considered in appropriate for use on ANY carrier by USN, after FAA began to use
it, USN finally did too. I model this by not allowing the first version of the F4U-1 to be carrier rated. The F4U-1D and
later are rated as carrier planes. But this means air groups with the earlier Corsair should instead be using a different
plane. Note some carrier FB squadrons used the F6F and converted to the F4U - even though Corsairs existed and
were widely used by Marines on land bases at that time.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 229
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/20/2013 8:17:15 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Inquistor is correct - in 1941 a division had no 105 mm artillery at all - only 75 mm (mostly) and 155 mm.
He is also correct - a WNG regiment not attached to a division probably had no artillery at all. And my
father in law was a member of that regiment - mustering at Fort Lewis with it. Assigned to be an MP,
he was going to object, when a companion said "it is better than being in a line company - accept it!"

I will check out his 90 mm gun data - I bet he is right about that as well.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/20/2013 8:18:02 PM >

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 230
RE: RHS Design Theory: LCU issues - 1/20/2013 8:19:32 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		In stock and every mod I have checked - including ones you might assume I would not check -

Device 763 is the land version of the fairly fabulous Type 98 naval gun.

It is used, for example, by formation 2114, "IJN Minor Base Force" - although apparently not in more appropriate places (e.g. the JNAF 44 Home AF Base Force, slot 2297).

This gun was indeed used ashore in numbers - by 1945 at least 114 were installed at naval air bases.

But the idea that several times this number start the war in such service, and that at minor naval bases, is an error.

It may be an honest one - one device up is a 8 cm Type 88 DP gun in very widespread service - more so than any other AA gun at Japanese naval bases. It is possible that device 762 was intended and 763 got selected. I have also seen what I think are software induced errors when saving from the editor - occasionally device numbers shift upward by one.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 231
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/21/2013 1:47:08 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
the FAA had a different view. They substantially modified CVEs, carried
a lot less fuel


This was a deliberate design decision on the part of the RN who had particularly strict regulations for the handling systems for aviation fuel, going back, if memory serves, to the loss of the Ben-my-chree in 1917, and then compounded by the loss of Dasher to internal explosion in 1943

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 232
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/21/2013 11:50:53 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		Cid,

I salute your research and efforts to improve first, WitP, and now, AE. I was the primary researcher for the US land OOB, and knew from the get-go that I was not going to get everything 100% correct. So I appreciate the fixes and improvements that you and others point out.

But in some cases there is no error, just a misunderstanding of the interplay of the game engine. For example, the TO&E for US divisions and regiments do have the M3 105mm short-barrelled howitzer at start. But it is a place-holder (number=0 in the weapons slot) for a future upgrade. Only after the divisional TOEs upgrade on 42/7 can the divisions actually be equipped with the M3.

And, as Inquisitor points out, the upgrade field in the TOE points to the date when it upgrades to the next TOE.

There are some errors with the (device 1154) short howitzer worth fixing; device production should not start until 42/12; a few of the 1942 Regiments arrive with the M3s -- only units arriving after 4301 should arrive equipped. The short howitzer was not fielded in the Pacific until 1943.

Selecting the locations and unit designations in Alaska and Hawaii involved compromises, as many units were divided, with battalions or companies deployed separately, in some cases to bases that were not included in the WitP/AE map. I made lots of compromises, including adding a tank company to the TOE of most US Infantry Regiments to incorporate the Marmon-Herrington T-14 tankettes ordered by the Dutch but sent to Alaska when the DEI fell, and the one tank company diverted when the two battalions were sent to the Philippines (that's added to the 4th Infantry). In general, I tried to avoid putting independent units below battalion size into the game.

IIRC, I assigned a section of 155mm CD guns to USN Base Forces because there were such guns on the Alaskan islands. Most of the other USN Base Forces start with no CD guns of any kind. I wouldn't add 5" guns to the TOE -- the navy and marines were phasing them out at the beginning of the war and replacing them with the 155s -- but obviously, if you know of a base that had 5" guns that is not reflected in game, you should add them to the unit. And of course, you are correct that no unit should start the game equipped with 40mm AA.

The Hawaiian infantry regiments are a special case. Here are my reasons for leaving out the 299th Regiment, taken from my designer's notes in the Land & AI Thread, in December, 2009:

Hawaii’s Missing 299th Infantry Regiment:
In October of 1941, the “square” Hawaiian Division was split in two to create the 24th and 25th “triangular” divisions. Each division received 2 regular army regiments. Their third regiments (299th to the 24th; 298th to the 25th) came from the Hawaiian National Guard. The 299th was detached from the 24th and sent to guard the outer islands. The National Guard regiments started the war understrength, and lost half their number when the Army discharged all soldiers of Japanese ancestry in early 1942. Reduced to skeletons, the two regiments were merged into one – the 298th – and made a separate regiment, guarding the positions held by the old 299th. By then, two other regiments that started the war in California (the 34th and 161st) were in Hawaii and they officially became the round-out regiments for the 24th and 25th divisions in July.

For simplicity’s sake, in AE, when the war begins the 24th and 25th Divisions each have two regiments on Oahu. The 298th and 299th have already been consolidated into the 298th Separate Infantry Regiment, defending the other islands. The 34th and 161st Regiments, arriving in San Francisco, start as part of the 24th and 25th Divisions in Hawaii.




quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I reported a couple of days ago that some start of game US units had "the wrong
artillery"

I specifically referred to the 105 mm airborne howitzer - a real enough weapon.

It is a cut down US M2 howitzer mounted on a 75mm carriage to reduce weight.

It was dreamed up only in 1941 and the first prototype only reached Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1942. The cutting off of no less than 26 inches of barrel - from an already short howitzer - was problematical, even though it did save weight. Seems there was not enough time for the powder to burn! A workaround was found, and the gun put into production, eventually - such that numbers began to reach troops about a year after the war began.

AFTER. NO units should have this weapon in a 1941 OB. But MANY do.

Thus the 1941 infantry division (slot 2517) shows no less than 36 of these weapons, fictional in 1941. The same 1941 formation, and formations pointing at it like the 24th and 25th divisions on Hawaii (slots 5559 and 5565), also show 36 105 mm howitzers. But in fact the regiments in Hawaii appear to have had 75 mm field guns, and the divisions got 105s to replace them only later in time.

Since these divisions have component RCT, and since these need to have the same devices in the same slot order so they combine properly, that means all 6 RCT need reworking re devices. As well, it appears only 6 artillery battalions are available, so each RCT probably gets EITHER 12 75s or 12 155s - or perhaps 8 75s and 4 155s - not 12 plus 4 as shown (in 4 cases).

It is more complicated than that because two of the actual RCT are not shown as assigned to the divisions - with two later ones shown instead. That means players may not form up either division on Hawaii at start. One of the actual RCT present - the 298th - is incorrectly shown as split into BCT on the outer islands. The other - the 299th - is not shown at all. So I reworked these, at 33% disabled (since they do not point at a formation), gave them 12 75 mm field guns, and attached them. I detached the Washington National Guard 161st RCT, moved it to Fort Lewis (Tacoma), and let it appear on the first day - because it was there and activated. Yes, it moved to San Francisco a few days later - but players can do that. It was not actually assigned to a division - so I let it be unassigned. The other RCT - the 34th - is also not actually assigned to a division either. Both units get 12 105s and 4 155s (although an ex MP of the 161st is not able to confirm they had any artillery at all), and remain assigned to Pacific Fleet - as they were supposed to contest the Philippines or the SLOC route to there - as of 7 Dec 1941. I had to create the 299th to achieve this. I left the 24th and 25th split - so players may move the units to different places or combine up. But I changed the command relationships - all the RCT AND the divisions are now part of Hawaii Department. Stock had the 4 RCT on Hawaii so assigned, but not the divisions - so if they combined up with the other RCT you got instant free political points! A subtle solution to the problem!

Related to this, formation 2357 is pointed at by the 298th RCT, but it is dated 420801. It upgrades to 2387, named "42 infantry regiment" - but that has no date. So the formation pointed at probably is ignored, and the "updated" formation probably gets used instead, in a day or so of game start. 2387 should not show the fictional 105s at all - but does. 2387 perhaps should show them, and the way the dates work, it looks like all formations pointing at 2357 may try to use the 1942 OB - and thus will get the fictional airborne howitzer even if they don't start with them - in 1941.

A similar issue appears re Alaska RCT. The 1941 formation (slot 2533) has a date of 420401, but the 1942 (slot 2534) update has no date at all. And the 1941 formation also shows the fictional airborne 105. IRL there were no 105s of any sort in Alaska at all - one regiment of 75s and one of 155s (the latter present as a separate battalion). So only one RCT could exist in 1941, and it would have 75s. If you want some chrome, the 1942 Alaska RCT should have a new device (I use slot 1170) called the T-14 (or CTLS-4) tank! It was a temporary emergency measure not widely used elsewhere by the US Army.

Alaska has still more problems. Its biggest collection of US Army units is at Fort Greeley, a location not present at all! Others are missing from other places. Several units are split up - making a nightmare situation in terms of slot requirements. Some simplification is probably warranted. But IF you add Fort Greely - SE of Fairbanks on the Tanana River and on the main highway of the territory - it gets the 201st Regiment (separate), technically is the location of the parent of the 37th regiment (1 BCT at Dutch Harbor and one at Kodiak), the the 151st Engineer battalion, a battalion of 75s (not a unit if you use even one RCT - but it is the 98th), and the 215th Coast Artillery AAA regiment. The 4th Infantry (Sep) RCT, the only one with tanks, is properly shown at Fort Richardson (that is, at Anchorage). The 81st Artillery is also there (the 155s). So is the 75th AAA regiment. The parent of the 1/297th Infantry is also there, but 2 companies are at Chilikoot Barracks (that is, at Haines Alaska = Skagway hex for game purposes - the terminus of the Whitehorse and Yukon RR and the reason for the barracks - to control the people moving into Yukon - a disaster resulting in 20,000 or more deaths during the gold rush - because of starvation - not only of the newcomers - but everyone else as well!) I simply put the entire unit there. This unit gets the ANG (Alaska National Guard) prefix. [It had several trusted Japanese members, but in spite of the advocacy of their officers, they were transferred to the segregated US Army Japanese units in 1942]. The entire coast artillery regiment is at Dutch Harbor - not split into 3 battalions as shown. Two battalions of AAA are missing - the 1/205th at Valdez and the 1/206th at Dutch.
The 32nd Separate Engineer Company is also at Anchorage, but it might be considered part of the USAAF base force there. The 153rd infantry (sep) is at Valdez, but isn't an RCT. Only one battalion is present, the rest being split between four other locations - more or less properly as shown in the data set. [A battalion at Dutch, a company at Nome, Annette Island and at Yakutat]

A different issue is command relationships. Alaska suffered until 1946 from a lack of unified command. I have split continental and island locations into Alaska Command and Naval Forces Alaska (later North Pacific) Command. Army units - say at Kodiak or Dutch - are under Navy command. And naval units (say at Nome) or other places - are under Army command. On Hawaii, the Hawaiian Department controls most units and locations - but some islands and units are Navy controlled. Midway and Johnston, of course, but also Mauai, which gets a USN base force and USMC infantry squads - while Hilo and Kauai get US Army base forces (with their 9.2 inch guns!) and US Army squads. There is a company of infantry rather than a battalion on most of the larger islands.

A different kind of weapon issue relates to game start US Naval base forces. These are shown with 40 mm guns (not yet in US service!) and 155 mm CD guns (not naval weapons at all but Army). I replaced them with quad 50 cals and with 5 inch CD guns - which were the most common used by the Navy and Marines. There are numbers of these units and all need to be reworked if you wish not to have ahistorical weapons. In a similar sense, command relationships may matter for these units. Which ships may be allowed to rearm may be related to the nationality of the naval unit, and the nationality and command of units at the port they try to rearm at? I have been able to show British ships won't rearm in New Zealand, but the very same vessels classified as New Zealand can, for example. It appears that US Army West Coast command is not allowing US or Canadian ships to rearm at least some (ASW) weapons. It may be that Pacific Fleet command will help that issue.




_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 233
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/22/2013 12:05:30 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
There is similar problem with US 90mm AA gun. AT version begin with pool, but there was impossible to lower AA gun enough to engage tanks, so modification had to be firstly done, after experience with German Tanks in Africa.
Anyway, why are those guns almost identical, when M3 had like only 2/3 muzzle velocity of M2?


In AE, the excellent and underappreciated M2 90mm dual-purpose AA gun begins production in 4305 and that is when you should see the 'at start' pool of 50 devices arrive in-game, as well. You are correct, that the M1A1 version could not depress to fire at tanks (or vs ships). I do not know how the game engine models AA units in land combat. Do they fire against tanks? If so, then setting the M1A1 anti-armor rating to '0' would make sense.

quote:

Anyway, I see US Divisions are weirdly modelled. First upgrade is actually 1943 TOE, and it should use 57mm AT guns. 1942 TOE is missing completely, and it was VERY interesting (over 100 AT guns), just think of all this extra transport needs!


I only used the TOE upgrades that were actually implemented in the Pacific (so no "cannon companies", either, for example.) The Pacific Theatre used the 37mm AT gun in lieu of the 57mm throughout the war, because it was good enough to defeat any Japanese tank, because the larger AT guns were desperately needed in NATO and ETO, and mostly because only the 37mm had a high-explosive round, and the guns were mostly used against infantry. An HE/HEAT round was not developed for the 57mm until 1945. Starting in 1945, US 37mm AT guns begin to upgrade to the 57mm guns.


< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 1/23/2013 9:19:06 AM >

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 234
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/26/2013 7:23:14 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
There is similar problem with US 90mm AA gun. AT version begin with pool, but there was impossible to lower AA gun enough to engage tanks, so modification had to be firstly done, after experience with German Tanks in Africa.
Anyway, why are those guns almost identical, when M3 had like only 2/3 muzzle velocity of M2?


In AE, the excellent and underappreciated M2 90mm dual-purpose AA gun begins production in 4305 and that is when you should see the 'at start' pool of 50 devices arrive in-game, as well.

I do not think it works that way. For planes, if there is pool, it is from the beginning, and you can use it no matter if plane already entered production, or not. You can definitely use devices, when they are no longer in production, so opposite probably also works.

quote:

You are correct, that the M1A1 version could not depress to fire at tanks (or vs ships). I do not know how the game engine models AA units in land combat. Do they fire against tanks? If so, then setting the M1A1 anti-armor rating to '0' would make sense.

Ship based AA guns seems to not fire in surface combat (like Dutch Submarines), maybe land devices works the same, although there is another problem - they may not fired in flat trajectory, but this is after all gun, and could fire as artillery. German Flak Korps in Normandy had secondary task as ground artillery support (and AT role was tertiary, not that they were actually trained in any of those roles).

quote:

quote:

Anyway, I see US Divisions are weirdly modelled. First upgrade is actually 1943 TOE, and it should use 57mm AT guns. 1942 TOE is missing completely, and it was VERY interesting (over 100 AT guns), just think of all this extra transport needs!


I only used the TOE upgrades that were actually implemented in the Pacific (so no "cannon companies", either, for example.) The Pacific Theatre used the 37mm AT gun in lieu of the 57mm throughout the war, because it was good enough to defeat any Japanese tank, because the larger AT guns were desperately needed in NATO and ETO, and mostly because only the 37mm had a high-explosive round, and the guns were mostly used against infantry. An HE/HEAT round was not developed for the 57mm until 1945. Starting in 1945, US 37mm AT guns begin to upgrade to the 57mm guns.

Yeah, 37mm gun seems quite handy in jungle. Also rearming from 75mm to 105mm does not seem that tempting, considering ranges invloved, and lack of roads.
The main reason for reduction of AA, and AT strength in Europe was shortage of front-line riflemen, but in Pacific actions were pretty scarce, so it could not worked that way.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 235
RE: RHS Design Theory: Situation Report and A6M4 Stuff - 1/30/2013 2:31:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It may not seem like it, but we are now building a Japanese turn for Test 8A. And that meant negotiating a few things with the players. Very little really - although I did just come across some exciting data on the A6M4 - a plane I long believed in (because I trust Dr Rene Francillon's ability to read Japanese). Now I have slightly more to guess with about its nature - and a lot more confidence it was a real (if difficult) option. It is more or less a high altitude A6M3 Model 32 - itself a sort of short legged A6M2 with a 1250 hp engine replacing the original 1000 hp engine.

The Japanese economic player and the Japanese air production planner both found some minor problems. A few are actual eratta - a machine gun facing forward instead of top rear for example - a drop tank extended range calculation not to the latest RHS definition standard for another. Other things were more a matter of judgement calls by the modder - but it seems fair to say Japan should not be forced to stop making a trainer or a transport before the war is over if there is no replacement. Yes - production may have stopped in 1945 - but in a game war that goes well into 1946 - that might not be the case. So changing dates of end of production or forcing conversion to production of another type of plane (say an ASW plane) might be historical - but it isn't entirely fair. Or needed since Japan played by humans has the option to switch production. It is more important to do this in the AIO scenario - guiding the AI - than to force it on human players in other scenarios. So some upgrade changes were appropriate.

They also found a bit of eratta in locations - a plane type not in the scenario defined as a factory anyway - rare in 105 but there was such a case (105 has no gliders - it assumes the mid war development of airmobile forces is not worth the cost for such light units - and instead focuses on the best possible airborne units - some sooner in time).

New information on the A6M4 permits better modeling of its performance and its likely date of service - so that is also folded in. See below. And add device files - although only for a cosmetic name change of an engine -
the turbo supercharged engine for the A6M4 is the TS Ha-35 instead of the TS Ha-5.

More important, perhaps, is that one more bad half hexside was found - critically beside Noumea (a new error, created by the editor when the file was saved - and you cannot inspect every hexside on the map to see where it happened easily). So we need to change the pwhexe file (whose editor I hate for precisely this reason).

And there are documentation changes related to Japanese aircraft. Mostly cosmetic, changes in name, correcting errors in the documentation itself.

Here is the pwhexe file - which backfits. The aircraft files also, which backfit. A comprehensive installer will follow - but it really only changes the aircraft and location files very slightly. It is 5.133 - and note the last one was 5.132 - not 5.123 as the email header said it was.


The Imperial Japanese Navy's A6M4

By Rob Graham

During the Second World War, the Imperial Japanese Navy's main carrier fighter, the Type Zero, received numerous design enhancements in an attempt to match the ever-improving aircraft that the Allied forces were developing. Almost all versions of the Zero were widely used in combat and have been well documented. However, one version, which has been a source of speculation and elusive wonder to aviation historians, was the A6M4. It has been said over the years that the A6M4 was an experimental turbosupercharged version. Recent research has offered several twists to this and other theories. The history of the claims and fruits of this research are presented here.

Several different theories regarding what the A6M4 was can be debunked fairly easily, reducing the theories to about two. Theory number 1 is that the A6M4 was a turbosupercharged variant, and that two were built experimentally before the project was canceled; within this theory, there are several different beliefs regarding the airframe, engine, and layout. Theory number 2 states that the A6M4 was a very brief transitional design between the A6M3 and A6M5 models, although many factors remain unknown. Almost as a news flash, very recently, acclaimed aviation historian Jim Long discovered some translated Japanese documentation that supports the turbosupercharger theory by referencing an intercooler, a device commonly used with a turbocharger that works like a radiator to cool hot compressed air. However, as he points out, it's not a lock, and questions remain as to the layout.

The A6M4 was very likely a turbosupercharged Zero.

Modelers have not had many leads to follow to model the A6M4, and when considering the chronological order of these sources (as they are arranged in this document), it appears as though René Francillon's text was the initial and oft-quoted information. Its accuracy has been the hinge for this whole argument, with many people citing that Dr. Francillon had perhaps misquoted and / or used an inaccurate source.

This contribution courtesy of historian Jim Broshot:

The Mitsubishi A6m3 Zero-Sen ("Hamp"), by René J. Francillon, Aircraft In Profile No. 190 , ©1967

"THE TURBO-SUPERCHARGED SAKAE

"The A6M4 version of the Reisen has long been conspicuously missing from the various historical studies yet published on this aircraft and even the designer of the Reisen, Mr. Jiro Horikoshi, could not remember what the A6M4 was! However, Mr. Horikoshi had the kindness to inquire among his friends of the former Imperial Japanese Navy and, recently, was able to confirm to the present writer that the A6M4 designation was applied to two A6M2s fitted with an experimental turbo-supercharged Sakae engine. The design, modification and testing of these two prototypes was the responsibility of the Dai-Ichi Kaigun Gijitshusho (First Naval Air Technical Arsenal) at Yokosuka and took place in 1943. Lack of suitable alloys for use in the manufacture of the turbo-supercharger and its related ducting resulted in poor operation marred by numerous ruptures of the ducting, and fires. Consequently further development of the A6M4 was cancelled, the aircraft still providing useful data for further aircraft, and the manufacture of the more conventional A6M5, already under development by Mitsubishi Jukogyo K.K. was accelerated."

Other various sources state, as indicated:

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, by René J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-313-X, ©1970. Pages 369-371 have a couple of paragraphs that say:

"In Japan at that time Mitsubishi and the Navy were attempting to improve the Reisen. At low altitude it could still hold its own against Allied aircraft, but at medium and high altitude it was hopelessly outclassed by the Lightnings and Corsairs. In an attempt to correct this situation two A6M2s were modified by Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho at Yokosuka and, designated A6M4s, were powered by an experimental turbosupercharged Sakae engine. Major teething troubles with the experimental engine precluded the placing of a production order and the Navy had to settle for an interim version of the aircraft, the A6M5, pending availability of the new Mitsubishi A7M Reppu... To improve diving speed Mitsubishi modified the 904th A6M3 in August 1943 by fitting a new set of wings with heavier gauge skin and with redesigned non-folding rounded wingtips..."

Zero Fighter, by Martin Caidin, Ballantine weapons book #9 ©1970. Page 158-159 shows a table that says:

"Experimental version with turbo-supercharger. Only two built. Basically an A6M2.

A6M1-2-2N Zero-Sen by Richard Bueschel, Schiffer, ISBN 0-88740-754-4, ©1995 (This book is a reprint with some minor updating from the original ©1970 Osprey and ARCO-AIRCAM publication). Pages 62-63 have a chart that shows the A6M4 and a footnote that says:

"Model 21 with turbosupercharger"

Zero Fighter, by Robert C. Mikesh and Rikyu Watanabe, Crown, ISBN 0-517-54260-9, ©1981. Page 32 has a paragraph that states:

"The assignment of this designation to a Zero model had been questionable for a long period of time since there was no record of its use. The Japanese use the number "4" with the same reservations that Westerners use the number "13", and therefore it was presumed not to have been used for this reason although not avoided in numbering systems for other aircraft. (The number "4" which is shi in Japanese also has the meaning of the word "death.") It was not until 1968 that Horikoshi revealed that a Model 32 was equipped with an experimental turbo-supercharged engine, and this designation A6M4 was reserved for this configured model had it gone into production."

Zero: Japan's Legendary Fighter, by Robert C. Mikesh, Motorbooks, ISBN 0-87938-915-X, ©1994. Page 89 has a paragraph of text that says:

"The assignment of this designation to a Zero model has been in question for a long time, since no authoritative records have ever been found to prove its use. The designation may have been set aside for a proposed model that never materialized. Some think that it was associated with an A6M3 that was to be equipped with a turbo-supercharged engine, as suggested in 1968 by the Zero's designer Jiro Horikoshi. But the reason is not really known."

Famous Airplanes of the World - A6M models 22-63, #56, 1996. Page 14 has a brief paragraph, basically translated, that the A6M4 design has not been adequately researched. Interestingly, there are virtually NO references to the A6M4 in Japanese texts.

Off the Internet:

At www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html

"By late 1942 and early 1943, the Zero Fighter was beginning to be confronted with newer, more-capable Allied fighters. At high altitude, the A6M2 and A6M3 were hopelessly outclassed by newer Allied fighters such as the P-38 Lightning and the F4U Corsair. In an attempt to correct this deficiency, two A6M2s were modified by Dai-Ichi Kaigun Koku Gijitsusho at Yokosuka to take an experimental turbosupercharged Sakae engine. The short designation A6M4 was assigned to this project.

"However, major teething troubles were encountered with the A6M4, and no production order was placed. As a substitute, the A6M5 interim version was introduced pending availability of the A7M Reppu."

At www.j-aircraft.com/main/newkits/a6mdesc.htm

"A6M4 (2 modified A6M2's as prototypes) Turbosuper charged Sakae engine "

Correspondence from an expert:

Jim Long of AIR'TELL Publications & Research Service says,

"At the time that I first read this explanation, I was skeptical of its validity, and as the years passed and no proof was forthcoming, I became even more uncertain. But after all of these years, I finally found a scrap of evidence to support René Francillon's pronouncement. It is fragmentary, but I think it is enough to make us all believe that there was something to the report of the A6M4. But what I've found is small and only gives evidence of the A6M4 designation in connection with an aircraft that had an intercooler, and which probably means that it had a turbosupercharged engine. There are no other details of that sort, however. We'll all be left with questions, I'm afraid.

"What I've found comes from microfilm reel JP-26 which contains images of Bulletins 67-45 through 78-45. These documents are CINCPAC-CINCPOA or JICPOA intelligence bulletins issued by the Intelligence Center, Pacific Ocean Area, or the Joint Intelligence Center, Pacific Ocean Area, or the Commander in Chief Pacific and Pacific Ocean Area. They are available to the public on microfilm from the Department of the Navy, Naval Historical Center, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D. C. 20374-0571.

"I have excerpted the material of interest to you, and it runs as follows:

"Excerpt from CINCPAC-CINCPOA BULLETIN NO. 67-45, 30 MARCH 1945 QUARTERLY REPORT ON RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS VOLUME 1 SPECIAL TRANSLATION NUMBER 52

"QUARTERLY REPORT ON RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS

(Naval Air Technical Depot); dated 1 October 1942, Captured on SAIPAN.

13. Type 0 Mark 1 Carrier Fighter (TN: ZEKE)

PROGRESS REPORT: Research on wing flutter is in progress.

FUTURE DISPOSITION: Continue

14. Type 0 Mark 2 Carrier Fighter (TN: ZEKE)

PROGRESS REPORT:

A. Study of engine cooling performance:

The efficiency of each design was tested by using actual engines in medium-sized wind tunnels. As a result, it was found that putting the cylinders and the inter-cylinder baffles close together and fairing the inner surface of the openings in the engine cover were useful in increasing the cooling efficiency.

B. Study of wing flutter:

Measurements of the limiting speed for flutter with and without bomb load has been completed, and results are being compiled.

C. Study of the form of carburetor intake tube:

Comparative tests are being made of the A6M2 and A6M3 using the intake tube on an actual engine.

D. Study of intercooler:

The amount of air cooled and the uniformity of distribution of the cooled air in a cross section of the A6M4 intercooler were examined. Among the things examined, it is best to eliminate the inter-cylinder baffles from the cover of the original Airplane Dept intercoller [sic] design.

FUTURE DISPOSITION:

A. Present report

B. Continue

C. Continue

D. Formulate wind tunnel test results


[TN means translator's note]"

This latest information from Jim Long has the most compelling information to make a case for the turbosupercharged A6M4, though Mr Long's comment, "We'll all be left with questions, I'm afraid," is absolutely correct.

Researchers may glean that the A6M4 was likely not based on an A6M3 Model 22, as this report was dated October 1, 1942, which was two months before the first Model 22 was built. Mitsubishi's A6M2 production had been replaced in June of 1942 with A6M3 Model 32 production, although the A6M3 Model 32 had been under development for a year prior to its production. It is certainly possible the A6M4 was based on either the A6M2 Model 21 or the A6M3 Model 32. It would likely have had the larger propeller and spinner of the A6M3. Since the plane has been said to have a turbosupercharged Sakae 12, it likely would have had the short cowl of the A6M2. Since the turbosupercharger and / or intercooler components could not have been mounted in the belly or other location without considerable re-engineering, it is possible the plane had the intercooler mounted between the engine and the firewall, much as the turbosupercharged J2M4 Raiden. In order to accommodate the turbosupercharger and intercooler in this location, the further aft firewall of the A6M3 airframe was a likely choice, and long engine mounts similar to the setup used on the A6M2-K. That said, it is also entirely possible the turbosupercharger and intercooler was installed in a package beneath the cowl, as was done on the C6N2 "Myrt."

Please note that throughout this document, the word turbosupercharged refers to a process where a turbocharger is used. This differs from a supercharger in that a turbocharger uses an impeller and shaft that is spun by the passing of exhaust gases that spin the compressor; a supercharger uses a mechanically driven compressor, usually taken indirectly from the crankshaft. The Sakae 12 used in the early Zeros used a single speed supercharger, which was mounted on the rear of the engine, and the Sakae 21 used in later Zeros used a two speed unit that boosted higher altitude performance. Sakae -12 and -21 superchargers were mechanically driven by a planetary gear set and turned at a higher speed than the crankshaft.

For the Modeler:

As a modeler, my personal choice to date to hypothetically model the A6M4 is to use an A6M3 Model 32 with a modified A6M2 Model 21 cowl and Sakae 12 engine, and a turbosupercharger mounted on the side of the fuselage, aft of the engine. Probably, I'd put the intercooler below the cowl, replacing the oil cooler with a larger dual-purpose oil cooler / intercooler scoop. I'd paint it "prototype orange" with a black cowl, and my choice of the tail code would be "Ko"A6-41.

Conclusion:

So, theory Number 2, "It was essentially an early A6M5," is almost certainly not valid. Configuration is still uncertain, and we are still left to model our desires to fill the gap of the A6M4 in our collections. As researchers and historians, we must dispel the notion that research can't fill gaps on this subject because so many records were destroyed. The truth is out there.

Book Bibliography:

The Mitsubishi A6M3 Zero-Sen ("Hamp") by R. J. Francillon, Aircraft In Profile No. 190 , ©1967

Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War by R. J. Francillon, Naval Inst. Press, ISBN 0-87021-313-X, ©1970

Zero Fighter by Martin Caidin, Ballantine weapons book #9 ©1970

A6M1-2-2N Zero-Sen by Richard Bueschel, Schiffer, ISBN 0-88740-754-4, ©1995 (This book is a reprint Zero Fighter by Robert C. Mikesh and Rikyu Watanabe, Crown, ISBN 0-517-54260-9, ©1981

Zero Japan's Legendary Fighter by Robert C. Mikesh, Motorbooks, ISBN 0-87938-915-X, ©1994

Famous Airplanes of the World - A6M models 22-63, #56, 1996

The Siege of Rabaul by Henry Sakaida, ©1996, ISBN 1-883809-09-6

Internet Bibliography:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html

http://www.j-aircraft.com/main/newkits/a6mdesc.htm

Acknowledgements:

Acknowledgements go to all the researchers and historians who have brought this information to be published, including (but not limited at all to) the late Richard Bueschel, René Francillon, Robert Mikesh, Shigeru Nohara, Jim Broshot, and many others. A special thanks to Jim Long and Jim Lansdale, whose encouragement and assistance have made this a fruitful exercise.

©2000 Rob Graham




< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/30/2013 2:32:11 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 236
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/30/2013 2:58:36 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Doing a game - up front or as a modder - inherently involves compromises. Games are simplifications of reality and, as well, we have limited time for research and data entry. So I appreciate your tone and attitude - and also your explanations. Knowing the history of the former Hawaii Division, I guessed at much of your reasoning.

For me the problem is that the two divisions on Hawaii can not form up as divisions at once - when in fact they were able to do that - and would have done if - say - there was an invasion. In that case, there would have been no problem with the Japanese soldiers either. Only one small unit got to show its stuff immediately (look up the incident of a Japanese pilot crash landed, running around raising havok on a private island: a platoon leader convinced his superiors to permit his unit repspond to the situation). But later these men became members of the most decorated units in the history of the Army. In fact, Gen Short called the militia to the colors 20 seconds after being informed of the attack ("call out the Territorial Guard") - never mind it was almost entirely ethnic Japanese. They stood too - ready to fight. Early in 1942, the HTG was DISBANDED due to paranoia - it was mostly University of Hawaii students - but on 7 Dec, 1941 - it stood to as directed - and there is no doubt what side it was on? Hawaii also had an unusual army boss after short - one who did not like Executive order 1066 - or what it would mean to Hawaii if implemented there ? [Imagine losing MOST of the shipyeard workers] He and the local FBI agent in charge successfully implemented a program of only deporting actual suspects - instead of the entire population as happened in many West coast cities. I think players should not be forced to strip the HNG of its men (to send them to Italy to fight). But more important, they might need to have divisions sooner - either defensively or offensively. Without waiting for transit from the US West coast.

I solved the problem of Alaska by adding locations so they are all present. But I did not break out every company - and combined units up to some extent. I added the ex Dutch tankettes as a separate device - they are too cool to ignore anyway. And put the right artillery in the right places. In general, I don't think the Marines or Navy used the 155 - and I have visited many of the sites still extant. But there were lots of weapons special cases. At the Mouth of the Columbia river there is a famous Army Fort Stevens - and it has two NAVY 5 inch gun emplacements - Army or not. Hawaii started with 117 pieces of every sort and age - some of them unable to shoot until a building got knocked down (Gen Marshall's count) - but added many more during the war (such that I suppliment the Hawaii Separate Coast Defense Brigade with two additional units over time). They were still building the Arizona Batery (with 14 inch turrets from the Arizona) when the war ended! No rule barred one service from using the guns of another! But the mobile base forces and Marine CD units I know about seem all to uave used 5 inch guns - generally 5 inch 51 SPs - sometimes 5 inch 38s - and rarely 5 inch 25s. The defense of Alaska is less germane to AE as oritinally designed than it is today in RHS. We have Arctic ocean navigation - and river navigation - such that an enemy might force the Bering Strait (in Fall) - and might come down any of six different rivers into Asia or North America. Thus the Army base at Barrow - to detect such an incursion - might make sense in RHS - but would not in AE with it always frozen Arctic ocean and its rivers impassible to shipping (never mind they were long the main "highways" of Alaska and the Canadian NW - particularly for heavy equipment). So we stand up the units actually present - including the Alaska Territorial Guard. A really strange unit, a majority of the population served in some role or other, something like 20,000 of 30,000 - and ultimately three formal battalions formed up to relieve regulars to move on for the invasion of Japan. It was the first US formation to have women in numbers in combat roles - mostly because native women were better at fieldcraft and shooting than most men are - and because in most villages it was more or less everyone was involved with everything no matter what the theory might be. Most of the guard was mere squads and platoons at village leve- too small to simulate - and it was SOP for significantly more to volunteer than the total male population of the village. This was formally recognized by an Army ceremony at Fort Richardson in 1978 - with some presentations made to individuals of merit still living.










quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

Cid,

I salute your research and efforts to improve first, WitP, and now, AE. I was the primary researcher for the US land OOB, and knew from the get-go that I was not going to get everything 100% correct. So I appreciate the fixes and improvements that you and others point out.

But in some cases there is no error, just a misunderstanding of the interplay of the game engine. For example, the TO&E for US divisions and regiments do have the M3 105mm short-barrelled howitzer at start. But it is a place-holder (number=0 in the weapons slot) for a future upgrade. Only after the divisional TOEs upgrade on 42/7 can the divisions actually be equipped with the M3.

And, as Inquisitor points out, the upgrade field in the TOE points to the date when it upgrades to the next TOE.

There are some errors with the (device 1154) short howitzer worth fixing; device production should not start until 42/12; a few of the 1942 Regiments arrive with the M3s -- only units arriving after 4301 should arrive equipped. The short howitzer was not fielded in the Pacific until 1943.

Selecting the locations and unit designations in Alaska and Hawaii involved compromises, as many units were divided, with battalions or companies deployed separately, in some cases to bases that were not included in the WitP/AE map. I made lots of compromises, including adding a tank company to the TOE of most US Infantry Regiments to incorporate the Marmon-Herrington T-14 tankettes ordered by the Dutch but sent to Alaska when the DEI fell, and the one tank company diverted when the two battalions were sent to the Philippines (that's added to the 4th Infantry). In general, I tried to avoid putting independent units below battalion size into the game.

IIRC, I assigned a section of 155mm CD guns to USN Base Forces because there were such guns on the Alaskan islands. Most of the other USN Base Forces start with no CD guns of any kind. I wouldn't add 5" guns to the TOE -- the navy and marines were phasing them out at the beginning of the war and replacing them with the 155s -- but obviously, if you know of a base that had 5" guns that is not reflected in game, you should add them to the unit. And of course, you are correct that no unit should start the game equipped with 40mm AA.

The Hawaiian infantry regiments are a special case. Here are my reasons for leaving out the 299th Regiment, taken from my designer's notes in the Land & AI Thread, in December, 2009:

Hawaii’s Missing 299th Infantry Regiment:
In October of 1941, the “square” Hawaiian Division was split in two to create the 24th and 25th “triangular” divisions. Each division received 2 regular army regiments. Their third regiments (299th to the 24th; 298th to the 25th) came from the Hawaiian National Guard. The 299th was detached from the 24th and sent to guard the outer islands. The National Guard regiments started the war understrength, and lost half their number when the Army discharged all soldiers of Japanese ancestry in early 1942. Reduced to skeletons, the two regiments were merged into one – the 298th – and made a separate regiment, guarding the positions held by the old 299th. By then, two other regiments that started the war in California (the 34th and 161st) were in Hawaii and they officially became the round-out regiments for the 24th and 25th divisions in July.

For simplicity’s sake, in AE, when the war begins the 24th and 25th Divisions each have two regiments on Oahu. The 298th and 299th have already been consolidated into the 298th Separate Infantry Regiment, defending the other islands. The 34th and 161st Regiments, arriving in San Francisco, start as part of the 24th and 25th Divisions in Hawaii.




quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I reported a couple of days ago that some start of game US units had "the wrong
artillery"

I specifically referred to the 105 mm airborne howitzer - a real enough weapon.

It is a cut down US M2 howitzer mounted on a 75mm carriage to reduce weight.

It was dreamed up only in 1941 and the first prototype only reached Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1942. The cutting off of no less than 26 inches of barrel - from an already short howitzer - was problematical, even though it did save weight. Seems there was not enough time for the powder to burn! A workaround was found, and the gun put into production, eventually - such that numbers began to reach troops about a year after the war began.

AFTER. NO units should have this weapon in a 1941 OB. But MANY do.

Thus the 1941 infantry division (slot 2517) shows no less than 36 of these weapons, fictional in 1941. The same 1941 formation, and formations pointing at it like the 24th and 25th divisions on Hawaii (slots 5559 and 5565), also show 36 105 mm howitzers. But in fact the regiments in Hawaii appear to have had 75 mm field guns, and the divisions got 105s to replace them only later in time.

Since these divisions have component RCT, and since these need to have the same devices in the same slot order so they combine properly, that means all 6 RCT need reworking re devices. As well, it appears only 6 artillery battalions are available, so each RCT probably gets EITHER 12 75s or 12 155s - or perhaps 8 75s and 4 155s - not 12 plus 4 as shown (in 4 cases).

It is more complicated than that because two of the actual RCT are not shown as assigned to the divisions - with two later ones shown instead. That means players may not form up either division on Hawaii at start. One of the actual RCT present - the 298th - is incorrectly shown as split into BCT on the outer islands. The other - the 299th - is not shown at all. So I reworked these, at 33% disabled (since they do not point at a formation), gave them 12 75 mm field guns, and attached them. I detached the Washington National Guard 161st RCT, moved it to Fort Lewis (Tacoma), and let it appear on the first day - because it was there and activated. Yes, it moved to San Francisco a few days later - but players can do that. It was not actually assigned to a division - so I let it be unassigned. The other RCT - the 34th - is also not actually assigned to a division either. Both units get 12 105s and 4 155s (although an ex MP of the 161st is not able to confirm they had any artillery at all), and remain assigned to Pacific Fleet - as they were supposed to contest the Philippines or the SLOC route to there - as of 7 Dec 1941. I had to create the 299th to achieve this. I left the 24th and 25th split - so players may move the units to different places or combine up. But I changed the command relationships - all the RCT AND the divisions are now part of Hawaii Department. Stock had the 4 RCT on Hawaii so assigned, but not the divisions - so if they combined up with the other RCT you got instant free political points! A subtle solution to the problem!

Related to this, formation 2357 is pointed at by the 298th RCT, but it is dated 420801. It upgrades to 2387, named "42 infantry regiment" - but that has no date. So the formation pointed at probably is ignored, and the "updated" formation probably gets used instead, in a day or so of game start. 2387 should not show the fictional 105s at all - but does. 2387 perhaps should show them, and the way the dates work, it looks like all formations pointing at 2357 may try to use the 1942 OB - and thus will get the fictional airborne howitzer even if they don't start with them - in 1941.

A similar issue appears re Alaska RCT. The 1941 formation (slot 2533) has a date of 420401, but the 1942 (slot 2534) update has no date at all. And the 1941 formation also shows the fictional airborne 105. IRL there were no 105s of any sort in Alaska at all - one regiment of 75s and one of 155s (the latter present as a separate battalion). So only one RCT could exist in 1941, and it would have 75s. If you want some chrome, the 1942 Alaska RCT should have a new device (I use slot 1170) called the T-14 (or CTLS-4) tank! It was a temporary emergency measure not widely used elsewhere by the US Army.

Alaska has still more problems. Its biggest collection of US Army units is at Fort Greeley, a location not present at all! Others are missing from other places. Several units are split up - making a nightmare situation in terms of slot requirements. Some simplification is probably warranted. But IF you add Fort Greely - SE of Fairbanks on the Tanana River and on the main highway of the territory - it gets the 201st Regiment (separate), technically is the location of the parent of the 37th regiment (1 BCT at Dutch Harbor and one at Kodiak), the the 151st Engineer battalion, a battalion of 75s (not a unit if you use even one RCT - but it is the 98th), and the 215th Coast Artillery AAA regiment. The 4th Infantry (Sep) RCT, the only one with tanks, is properly shown at Fort Richardson (that is, at Anchorage). The 81st Artillery is also there (the 155s). So is the 75th AAA regiment. The parent of the 1/297th Infantry is also there, but 2 companies are at Chilikoot Barracks (that is, at Haines Alaska = Skagway hex for game purposes - the terminus of the Whitehorse and Yukon RR and the reason for the barracks - to control the people moving into Yukon - a disaster resulting in 20,000 or more deaths during the gold rush - because of starvation - not only of the newcomers - but everyone else as well!) I simply put the entire unit there. This unit gets the ANG (Alaska National Guard) prefix. [It had several trusted Japanese members, but in spite of the advocacy of their officers, they were transferred to the segregated US Army Japanese units in 1942]. The entire coast artillery regiment is at Dutch Harbor - not split into 3 battalions as shown. Two battalions of AAA are missing - the 1/205th at Valdez and the 1/206th at Dutch.
The 32nd Separate Engineer Company is also at Anchorage, but it might be considered part of the USAAF base force there. The 153rd infantry (sep) is at Valdez, but isn't an RCT. Only one battalion is present, the rest being split between four other locations - more or less properly as shown in the data set. [A battalion at Dutch, a company at Nome, Annette Island and at Yakutat]

A different issue is command relationships. Alaska suffered until 1946 from a lack of unified command. I have split continental and island locations into Alaska Command and Naval Forces Alaska (later North Pacific) Command. Army units - say at Kodiak or Dutch - are under Navy command. And naval units (say at Nome) or other places - are under Army command. On Hawaii, the Hawaiian Department controls most units and locations - but some islands and units are Navy controlled. Midway and Johnston, of course, but also Mauai, which gets a USN base force and USMC infantry squads - while Hilo and Kauai get US Army base forces (with their 9.2 inch guns!) and US Army squads. There is a company of infantry rather than a battalion on most of the larger islands.

A different kind of weapon issue relates to game start US Naval base forces. These are shown with 40 mm guns (not yet in US service!) and 155 mm CD guns (not naval weapons at all but Army). I replaced them with quad 50 cals and with 5 inch CD guns - which were the most common used by the Navy and Marines. There are numbers of these units and all need to be reworked if you wish not to have ahistorical weapons. In a similar sense, command relationships may matter for these units. Which ships may be allowed to rearm may be related to the nationality of the naval unit, and the nationality and command of units at the port they try to rearm at? I have been able to show British ships won't rearm in New Zealand, but the very same vessels classified as New Zealand can, for example. It appears that US Army West Coast command is not allowing US or Canadian ships to rearm at least some (ASW) weapons. It may be that Pacific Fleet command will help that issue.





(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 237
RE: RHS Design Theory: US LCU Weapons and issues - 1/30/2013 3:06:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Om case there is confusion here, Blackhorse is responding to Insistor's comments - not to mine.

In general, Blackhorse is quite correct. I take issue with a 37 mm is good enough to defeat any Japanese tank - but we never met the other kind in battle. We would have, in Olympic or Coronet, however. And IJA might have sent them outside Japan. The 1944 model tank has 50 mm of armoe and the 1945 model 60 mm - both of which are vulnerable to a 37 mm (61 mm penetration at 100 yards) - but not at all ranges or angles. And almost no one is aware of these fine looking tanks (for all the world, like Japanese Shermans, with 75 mm high velocity guns in 1944 and 88 mm in 1945). For a really neat experience, I recommend visiting the Mitsubisi Tank Museum - with samples of a wide range of AFVs. The only one I thought made no sense - a soldier of the 25th Division says makes lots of sense to him (a "torpedo tank" - its weapon was naval torpedoes!). He feels it would be a real problem for troop ships stationary for landings - and it was a swimming tank.

The other problem I worry about is 1946. The game goes until the end of summer 1946 - and by then - more advanced weapons might appear on both sides. I think the 57 mm would be among them. Even if few games get to 1945/6, I have a downfall scenario that will in the works - so I am laying the foundation for it.





quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor
There is similar problem with US 90mm AA gun. AT version begin with pool, but there was impossible to lower AA gun enough to engage tanks, so modification had to be firstly done, after experience with German Tanks in Africa.
Anyway, why are those guns almost identical, when M3 had like only 2/3 muzzle velocity of M2?


In AE, the excellent and underappreciated M2 90mm dual-purpose AA gun begins production in 4305 and that is when you should see the 'at start' pool of 50 devices arrive in-game, as well. You are correct, that the M1A1 version could not depress to fire at tanks (or vs ships). I do not know how the game engine models AA units in land combat. Do they fire against tanks? If so, then setting the M1A1 anti-armor rating to '0' would make sense.

quote:

Anyway, I see US Divisions are weirdly modelled. First upgrade is actually 1943 TOE, and it should use 57mm AT guns. 1942 TOE is missing completely, and it was VERY interesting (over 100 AT guns), just think of all this extra transport needs!


I only used the TOE upgrades that were actually implemented in the Pacific (so no "cannon companies", either, for example.) The Pacific Theatre used the 37mm AT gun in lieu of the 57mm throughout the war, because it was good enough to defeat any Japanese tank, because the larger AT guns were desperately needed in NATO and ETO, and mostly because only the 37mm had a high-explosive round, and the guns were mostly used against infantry. An HE/HEAT round was not developed for the 57mm until 1945. Starting in 1945, US 37mm AT guns begin to upgrade to the 57mm guns.



(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 238
RE: RHS Design Theory: Test 8A Chair Definitions - 2/6/2013 8:24:02 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Test 8A uses the same ALLIED chairs as Test 6A2 does:

Chair 1: Short name US Chair. [Job available if you want it]
Includes US West Coast (which in RHS does NOT include Alaska Command)
US Pacific Fleet
US North Pacific (it starts the game as Senior Naval Officer Kodiak and renames)
US South Pacific (it starts the game as Senior Naval Officer Samoa and renames)
and New Zealand Command (a major US forward base and in order to give NZ a different player from Australia - so it does not get short changed in its defense requirements - which includes many islands in the South Pacific)
The South Pacific (i.e. Tahiti) elements of the Free French

Chair 2: Short name ADBA Chair [Player assigned]
Includes Soviet Union (not at war but managed by the Allies even so)
USAFFE (restricted command)
US Asiatic Fleet (unrestricted command)
NEI (partially restricted command with many restricted units)
US SouthWest Pacific (it starts as Senior Naval Officer SW Pacific and renames)

Chair 3: Short name British Chair [Player assigned]
Includes China, India and Burma command areas.
Includes Canada and Alaska Command - both restricted.
Note Alaska Command is EVERY Location on the mainland,
North Pacific Command is EVERY island location NOT on the main land in the North Pacific area (and North Pacific is under Chair 1 while Alaska Command is under Chair 3 - duplicating the real history). A naval unit on the mainland is under Alaska Command. An air force unit on Kodiak Island is under North Pacific Command. [The game starts with multiple units of this sort both ways]

Test 8A uses DIFFERENT Axis chairs from test 6A2. The number of commands is now larger.

Chair 1: Short Name Nanyo (Pacific Fleet) Chair. [Player assigned]
Includes all major warships operating from Saipan South or East - all the South Pacific - and the major bases of Truk and Kwajalein. Any new bases developed in the area as well. The most important element is the Kiddo Butai - which is structured in two divisions and may divide. The KB remains Chair 1 even if it enters the Indian Ocean or Northern Command areas.
ALSO includes ALL submarines (except under repair) and true raiders (two German eventually, Ichi Maru / Thor, Ni Maru / Michel; and two Japanese - Aikoku Maru and Gokoku Maru, all aircraft equipped, the Germans also have radar) REGARDLESS of area of operations.
In the late war period fights on from the central part of the Home Islands - Kyushu, Shikoku and Honshu except the Northern four hex rows.

Chair 2: Short Name SRA Chair. [Job available if you want it]
Includes Formosa, Hainan Island, Indochina, Thailand South of Bankkok, Malaya,
the NEI, the Philippines, and Australia (when/if invaded in each case).
In the late war period fights on from what is left of this area.

Chair 3: Short Name China Chair. [Job available if you want it]
Includes China, Burma, India theater, and Thailand North of Bangkok (when/if invaded in each case).
In the late war period fights on from what is left of this area.

Chair 4: Short Name Strategic Chair or Economic Chair. [Player assigned]
Includes management of the economy, ship repairs no matter where they are,
escort of convoys and ASW no matter where.
Also manages the Kwangtung Army area and the Northern Command (Hokkaido,
the Kuriles, any part of Eastern Siberia, Alaska, the Aleutians or Canada that becomes germane, and the Northern four hex rows of Honshu.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 239
RE: RHS Design Theory: Economics - the quest for effic... - 2/15/2013 3:36:48 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Players (and even designers) appear to find the RHS economic model somewhat confusing and daunting. This is an attempt to explain some basic principles.

In RHS, the basic idea is to have each place produce what it does. [Exceptionally, at the map edge, places may also get what arrives there daily from off map. Also exceptionally, certain locations may get small amounts of "free supply" - say from dispersed fishing fleets - and some may get small amounts of "free fuel" - which can power HI - if the location has natural gas, coal gas or hydro power. These latter cases are all noted in the location name.] The idea of getting the fundamentals (supplies, fuel, resources or oil) from industry is two fold - so the industry can be damaged or even captured by enemy action (in most cases) - and so they can be invested in for growth (in many cases).

The production of an LI center is more efficient than in stock. This is intentional, to give ships more to haul. But RHS industry is also more efficient. Instead of 15 tons of input to get 1 ton of goods, an LI center needs only 6 tons. Oil refineries, on the other hand, are not 100% efficient, as in stock. [IRL no industry is 100% efficient.] In RHS you need to put in 15 tons of oil to get 12 tons of fuel plus 2 supply points - there is a 1/15th loss - about 6%. Most of that is the power needed by the fractional distillation process. HI is considered to be powered by coal, so while it is consuming "resources" - fully half of them are coal for power or for coke. [IRL 2/3 of all the imports, by weight, of Japan were coal. HI centers are complex, producing both HI points and supply points - at an average cost of 6 tons of resources plus one of fuel for each ton of output. This is only slightly different from stock, with an input of 20 tons of resources and 2 of fuel yielding a total of 3 tons of output - which is only a fraction greater than 7 tons in for each 1 out (whereas in RHS it is exactly 7:1). But the greater demand for resources and fuel of RHS HI centers tends to make large industrial centers very major consumers.

Because it is most efficient to have industry consume resources in the same hex they are produced in, players who repair or build industries that tend to do that will get the greatest rewards. Yes, excess resources or oil can be used somewhere else - but that adds the shipping dimension to the equation. This can be by road or rail, or by ship. [It appears that trails do not ship resources or oil at all; if they do, not very well.] Because AE/WITP is a naval theater, and because ships move things under player control, most of the shipping options will use ships. How this is done, and over what distances, are critical factors in determining the overall efficiency of production of supplies (or fuel or HI) for any given set of inputs and industrial capability. And there are several "near optimum" and many acceptable options in most cases. Dovetailing the shipping allocations, and production and repair settings for industry,
in part depends on the strategy of the player - what he needs or wants where given the particular plan in play? And such plans themselves may be more or less efficient, depending on how related they are to where supplies and fuel needed by forces are going to naturally appear, and to what extent they must be moved, and over what distance? You may send a ship's cargo over a distance of 12,000 miles, and back, only 1/4 as often as you can over a distance of 3,000 miles. And it is more efficient to carry cargo both ways vice just one way. Intermediate between one way cargo and two way cargo is the "triangle" concept - you carry cargo one way (say supplies) and unload, then go to a different relatively nearby point and load a different cargo (say resources), and then return loaded. This was a common Allied practice, but not common for the Japanese - so in this sense Allied shipping was more efficient.

Overall, there are more resources available than are needed to feed all the industry there is. But there are many places without enough resources to feed the local industry. Wether a player can keep the industry fed and in production is often a big problem. Wether it is better to produce or shut down is a common question a player will face. IF there is a shortage of fuel, it is better to shut down HI centers, in favor of feeding LI centers, which will make supplies WITHOUT any requirement for fuel to do so. But LI centers make no HI points. HI points are critical to Japanese production of many kinds. Theoretically not needed by the Allies, it appears in fact that the Allies also use them, but only for aircraft produced in factories (not replacement aircraft). So there is some need to insure there are enough HI points. In general, the Japanese have more of a problem, and production of finished things (aircraft, vehicles, ships and armaments, and factory construction) will be cut off when the pool of HI gets too small. [It also appears there is a greater efficiency if HI needed by industry in a given location are also produced in that same location.] And it appears that production may be shut off if there are not enough HI points to feed industry of some specialist kind - aircraft and engines in particular. [So check factories to see if they are off or on daily]

AE has added player options to determine if supplies, fuel, resources or oil will be stockpiled at each location? As well, the supplies requested can be set by the player. For a location that needs to "grow" industry, set a value over 10,000 tons of supply. For a location to have maximum stockpiling (of everything), set a value of 25,000 tons (over the base requirement) - the most possible. To "dump" supplies (or something else) from a location with many to another with few, over a rail line or road, turn "yes" to "no" for a day or, in some cases (e.g Moscow) forever. Monitor the supplies, fuel, resources and oil in each hex regularly, and adjust as required for efficiency.

Every time any industry expands one level, it costs 1000 supply points. Forum discussions about wether this is worthwhile are not well formed. It does not take "1000 days" to pay for such an increase. In the case of LI centers, in RHS, it takes 500 days to get all your 1000 supplies back. For HI centers only 250 days. But you also get HI from HI centers - what are they worth? Oil refineries pay you back, in supplies alone, in 500 days. But they also make six times as much fuel. What is that worth? As well, the value of production is partly related to where it occurs. Production where you need it is better than production you must move to where you need it. And the greater the distance, the less efficient (so less "value") in producing it there vs somewhere closer to where it is needed.

Remember fuel can be sent by AK - something dating from Uncommon Valor - which originally did not permit this - but which was accepted as a suggestion. It is less efficient - but still better than waiting for a tanker if you need to move the fuel. Fuel is needed to feed ships so they can move other things, as well as to feed HI. If a location is fuel short, turn off the HI there. Then you can use it for ships alone - at the loss of a lot of supplies as well as HI points.

In general, each location makes what it can make. SOME consumption will occur automatically, in the same location or in locations connected by roads and rail lines. But where various things are built or moved, and the settings of where to stockpile what, and where not, are under player control. The more effort put into managing production, in general, the more will be produced. Also, in general, the more ships dedicated to moving things the economy needs, the more it will produce. Some places reward imports. Sending resources and oil to UK (or South Africa, or New Zealand)will be rewarded in terms of supply points (and fuel). Australia needs oil, but it ALSO needs resources moved by SEA from where they tend to be overabundant to where they are short. It does not need imports so much as it needs them moved where they are required. Each location and area has different needs and excesses. The more time spent understanding these, and the more shipping allocated, the more a player will be rewarded.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/15/2013 11:35:31 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Design Theory: Comprehensive Update 5.04 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

1.172