RHS Revision 2.42 [minor sensor and command update]

[el cid again]

Just delete all comment lines (like UK AIRCRAFT...) and witpchk runs well.

And in fact UK aircraft was deleted some time ago - because it shows up in reports in games as an optional upgrade! But many such comments remain - and many are left over from CHS and stock. In fact, there are fewer in RHS than either of the others. But if the check does not like it - well too bad: it is good programming practice to have comment lines for later use by modders/programmers/yourself.

[CobraAus]

Notified - but he can't fix it - because it is right in his files. I cannot explain this one.

let me ge this right Sid are you saying tha in the editor for CVO ARO BBO that allied air slot 247 IS pointing to bit map 80
because in in package sent out to me it is all 3 case's pointing to 20 (easy fix)

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

let me ge this right Sid are you saying tha in the editor for CVO ARO BBO that allied air slot 247 IS pointing to bit map 80
because in in package sent out to me it is all 3 case's pointing to 20 (easy fix)

No - you are quite right.
But somehow in the notice I got it said 20

since you mean 80 - OK - fixed.

[Aterpa]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

- Furutaka (8) upgrades to Aoba (517), intended?

Yeah. They are sisters. There seems to be a convention - if a ship upgrades - any in the class can upgrade - but the standard is named for the sister that really did it - to help people verify the definition of the class in that form.

I meant: Furutaka ship class upgrades to Aoba ship class. I am wondering because this classes have different maximum speed, endurance and fuel capacity. Sister ships should have the same values and there should be only one ship class, or not?

[Aterpa]

Version 2.44:

- Agano-Mod [Job 810]class (5) is available from 11/42 and upgrade to class 580 that is also available 11/42
- Mayasan Maru (59) is available from 12/42 and upgrade to class 633 that is available more early 12/41
- Mayasan Maru (59) has in weapon slot 3 2 AA guns in 3 turrets
- Mayasan Maru (59) has in weapon slot 4 1 AA gun in 3 turrets

[langley]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

goodies time V2.44 has been packaged and dispersed to list

The last mini update in the 2.4 series

because I have determined a major rework of economics is required for anything to work once stockpiles run out

this fixes

one class of Japanese DEs with respect to radar (an inherited setting)
one class of Japanese APDs with respect to weapons
and many Allied merchant ships with respect to weapons

one art pointer (Anson)

New Zealand Command is activated for land and air units

A squadron on a British carrier appears too soon - the carrier is ONLY a ferry until February 42 - so it is delayed

and a few minor technical matters which I found and/or were pointed out to me

Cobra Aus

there is an outstanding problem the TBD Devestator is pointing to Bitmap 20 should be 80
Sid has been notified.

Just loaded this version!
Art pointer for Anson shows Beaufighter????

MJT

[el cid again]

Art pointer for Anson shows Beaufighter????

It is indeed 152 - which seems wrong. I think it needs to be 167. Will check tonight.

[CobraAus]

I am a rolled gold goose I gave Sid a bad intelligence the Anson is on BITMAP 97 just change the pointer with the editor until Sid fixes (again)

(goes and sits in corner for an hour)

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

I meant: Furutaka ship class upgrades to Aoba ship class. I am wondering because this classes have different maximum speed, endurance and fuel capacity. Sister ships should have the same values and there should be only one ship class, or not?

I have not looked at this - it is data from CHS. However:

There are two nearly identical classes of Japanese CAs - the first modern ships of their type in the world; each class has two ships:

Furutaka and Kako are the first sub class;

Aoba and Kinugasa are the second sub class

Originally armed with six singe guns, they were all rearmed with three twin mountings. These were the very first heavy cruisers built under terms of the London Naval Treaties, and they were, with the light cruiser Yubari, technology test platforms for a new concept in cruiser design (done because there would not be large fleets of modern battleships).

The ships actually did change speed over time, and they also changed fuel capacity and radius. Whatever data is in our database is probably correct for some variant or other! But I will look at it.

[TulliusDetritus]

El Cid Again, RHSCVO v2.50 possible inconsistencies (or intended?):

1) the japanese 55th division has only 216 infantry squads (xx/100). A normal japanese division has 324 infantry squads (in your RHS). If my memory does not fail a regiment (or brigade, I don’t know) was detached from this division. This would explain the 216 squads. But the unit will never have 324 squads again. Normal?

2) there are two RIA Ceylon Infantry Bde in Colombo. And no, they are not /A and /B units.

3) when you click on the “show unit TOE” of all the xxx USAAF Base Forces you may see => SCR-270 Radar = 0. So they won’t get radars? Normal?

4) both New Zealand light cruisers CL Achilles and CL Leander have one Walrus. But “cap[acity]” = 0. Could this be a potential problem?

5) all the RAAF No. xxx Base Forces (except the 101) have a weird TOE. First of all, their composition is “normal” but when you click on “show unit TOE” you may see that there are only CD guns, ANZAC Light Squads, Pioneer Squads and Support Squads. And there are just very few squads.

[DrewBlack]

Hi

Have found a few light crusiers in Pearl have SKytrains as their spotting aircraft!!! i would like to see the size of the bloody catapult!!!!!

Drew

[Mifune]

Maybe they were experimental [:D]

[el cid again]

- ships that have different equipment than the class they are based on
- ships that arrive more earlier than their captains
- ships with guns that have no ammunition
- ships with a number of guns but no turrets for them
- pilots that are assigned to airgroup slots that are empty
- units that have different composition than their TOE they point to
- allied devices that have no production rate
- units with leaders that have wrong nationality
- leaders that have navy rank but are in the army

Some of these things are not issues. That is, some things cannot have a production rate. Sometimes we deliberately make a unit different than the unit it points to - and expect it to change - an invention of Joe I think - a way to get it right to start and also later! I have no idea about leaders - I don't look at leaders very often - it is what it is (that is, was - unless somehow the data changed - which seems possible as sometimes I find fields that seem to have shifted - often one). How a leader might have the wrong rank or nationality I have no idea. [I would not put leaders in the game - but since they are there - I see no reason to mess with all that work - so I don't - unless something is identified specifically as wrong.] I cannot fix "in general" - I only fix specific issues. I sure do not want to fix thousands of leaders - and would set all the fields to zero (random) before I tried!

[el cid again]

This is no tool to change something in the data (it can not). It just checks the data for consistency and as such gives information, nothing more and nothing less.

You are misunderstanding my meaning: tools DO change the data. I am under a warning to beware of them and not trust them. And to the degree I have disregarded the warning, I have experienced what programmers warned about: the data CHANGES IF you use tools on it!
Not sure why? But at the moment - I suspect the big problem is the editor. I have one case of 100% errors - and you can see it every time.
It should not be doing that.

[el cid again]

Location ID:2726 (183rd US Army Field Artillery Regiment) - same type but different device (155mm Howitzer) to TOE (75mm Field Gun) in weapon slot #1
Location ID:2726 (183rd US Army Field Artillery Regiment) - different device (Support Squad) to TOE (12.7mm M2 AAMG) in weapon slot #2
Location ID:2726 (183rd US Army Field Artillery Regiment) - different device (75mm Pack Howitzer) to TOE (Motorized Support) in weapon slot #3
Location ID:2727 (188th US Army Field Artillery Regiment) - same type but different device (155mm Howitzer) to TOE (75mm Field Gun) in weapon slot #1
Location ID:2727 (188th US Army Field Artillery Regiment) - different device (Support Squad) to TOE (12.7mm M2 AAMG) in weapon slot #2
Location ID:2727 (188th US Army Field Artillery Regiment) - different device (75mm Pack Howitzer) to TOE (Motorized Support) in weapon slot #3

-> so you can know there is something wrong with the 188th US Army Field Artillerie Regiment and can check and correct it (it looks like it points to wrong TOE, or TOE is wrong)

We do NOT know there is anything wrong with this unit. At least for Japan Joe did units this way on purpose. I am told there was a lot more work done on Allied units - and I will only change something if I have specific data about it. [For example, I changed the Philippine Army, and many Allied Coast Defense units, for which I have good data, and knew there were errors.] Unless you know this is wrong, I will ignore it. A computer report saying "the unit does not match the formation" is just a program taught to report differences: it does not understand we modders do that for cause - on purpose - so we can start the war right and get the later organization right too. [My only problem with the practice is that it takes a very short time to convert, usually. Joe says less than a week.]

[el cid again]

Thanks for coming back to me!
The Hurricane IIc started to be used by the RAF in the Karachi area from June 1942 going to 79, 607 and 615 Squadrons in that month. Maybe I was wrong to say May 1942 but June or July at the latest may be a better option.
The Hurricane IV appears to of being operating with 42 squadron by December 1943.

MJT

I took the data from a rather expensive RAF history book - something like RAF Aircraft since 1910 - article on the Hurricane - complete with squadron references. I can check it - but I don't think I got it wrong. Wether your source or mine is wrong - that is another matter. I find contradictions and confusing data to be very common! I try to use one source for everything - because - whatever the standards used - that makes them consistent. If I find the material justifies the data entered, I would need to have some specific material to look at to change it. On the other hand, maybe the data is somehow left over from CHS and not properly modified. I didn't change all Allied plane data - just when it came to my attention. There are a LOT of Allied planes!

[el cid again]

oh, and there is only one important cargo TF in the area (in Bako): load => 12,000 supplies.

If it isn't military cargo, it is plain wrong. Japan issued a general recall of merchants, and the Singapore decode station of RN determined (before the event) all would be in Japan by 8 Dec 1941 Tokyo Time: there were NO cargo vessels at sea in the usual sense when the war began.

[el cid again]

Witpchk does not change any thing only reports on what it finds. Some errors are more like warnings and you'll see the same type even with the offical scenarios.

Maybe. Given Andrew's view, maybe. But I am warned to trust NO such tool - and the ones I have used are indeed corrupting data to a degree. I can go back to the source file and show it isn't the same in a specific field - sometimes. After as few as one "look." What we need are tools of a sort we do not have - tools that are safe and able to do global search and replace of specific fields. We don't have them.

[el cid again]

Have found a few light crusiers in Pearl have SKytrains as their spotting aircraft!!!

I show no such aircraft. I checked all US ship air groups and also all CLs at Pearl Harbor. I need more specific data to be sure, but I think you have a bad file. Download again. There is a new set out anyway - 2.51.

[el cid again]

El Cid Again, the game date is 7 december. Numbers:

Takao:
-supplies: 3,600
-supplies required: 11,729

Taichu:
-supplies: 2,187
-supplies required: 4,741

These numbers are (were) incorrect. Should be 27,000 and 36,000 respectively. Fixed for 2.51. Thanks.