RHS 7.80 & 6.798 Released and uploading
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RHS 7.80 & 6.798 Released and uploading
1) Japanese amphib armies are now name only formations. The code has been changed to be the same as for regular army (corps) HQ.
This is because of problems loading amphib armies on ships: seems they only load on an AGC (but you can FLY them). Since we have no AGC - we turned them into things like LSDs so they can carry things other than HQ - we now have the problem that the amphib HQ don't like to load at all. I regard this as unfortunate - and we could go the other way - restoring ships like Shinshu Maru to AGC status. But the need to move an HQ is rare - and it is probably more useful to have the ships able to carry more things - and the HQ able to ride more ships. This is all a function of peculiar hard code - and it is an issue for the Allies no doubt - but they have so many ships and AGC - it is less critical for them.
2) We need to insure that by 1944 there are four tank divisions, and by 1945 at least six additional tank brigades and seven independent regiments.
This is because of problems loading amphib armies on ships: seems they only load on an AGC (but you can FLY them). Since we have no AGC - we turned them into things like LSDs so they can carry things other than HQ - we now have the problem that the amphib HQ don't like to load at all. I regard this as unfortunate - and we could go the other way - restoring ships like Shinshu Maru to AGC status. But the need to move an HQ is rare - and it is probably more useful to have the ships able to carry more things - and the HQ able to ride more ships. This is all a function of peculiar hard code - and it is an issue for the Allies no doubt - but they have so many ships and AGC - it is less critical for them.
2) We need to insure that by 1944 there are four tank divisions, and by 1945 at least six additional tank brigades and seven independent regiments.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
Submarines will be reworked. This is time consuming - I have four days off this week - look for it a week from now - Tuesday.
By a technical trick invented by Historiker we can decouple durability and cost. Then we can increase durabilty - which means subs become more survivable - and not pay for it in terms of time or construction cost - which can be made proportional to size and weapons.
To be fair and consistent we will use crush depth instead of test depth to get a greater durability rating - and we will use the displacement of the sub to calculate its cost in the form of a dummy durability. What happens is that the moment a sub completes building it will upgrade to a different class with the proper durability.
The deepest diving submarine of all time (not a bathyscaph or other submersable but a large submarine) was Komsomolks designed for 4265 feet. She sank at 5600 feet (and was sealed by a research submersable at that depth). The deepest diving successful submarine is USS Dolphin AGSS 555 rated for 3000 feet.
By a technical trick invented by Historiker we can decouple durability and cost. Then we can increase durabilty - which means subs become more survivable - and not pay for it in terms of time or construction cost - which can be made proportional to size and weapons.
To be fair and consistent we will use crush depth instead of test depth to get a greater durability rating - and we will use the displacement of the sub to calculate its cost in the form of a dummy durability. What happens is that the moment a sub completes building it will upgrade to a different class with the proper durability.
The deepest diving submarine of all time (not a bathyscaph or other submersable but a large submarine) was Komsomolks designed for 4265 feet. She sank at 5600 feet (and was sealed by a research submersable at that depth). The deepest diving successful submarine is USS Dolphin AGSS 555 rated for 3000 feet.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
RN uses a test depth of 4/7 of design depth.
USN uses a test depth of 2/3 of design depth.
KM uses a test depth of 1/2 of design depth.
Crush depth is some unknown amount greater than design depth - and it is always estimated - and sometimes
unexpectedly exceeded.
True German WWII era crush depths were in the range of 200 to 280 meters.
The deepest diving submarene in service is USS Dolphin rated for 3000 feet.
The deepest diving true submarine ever built was Kmosomolsk - rated at 4265 feet - sunk at 5600 feet - and sealed there by a research submersable. These latter can go to any depth - and Trieste once went to the deepest part of the Ocean - the Mariana's Trench - 35000 feet
down.
USN uses a test depth of 2/3 of design depth.
KM uses a test depth of 1/2 of design depth.
Crush depth is some unknown amount greater than design depth - and it is always estimated - and sometimes
unexpectedly exceeded.
True German WWII era crush depths were in the range of 200 to 280 meters.
The deepest diving submarene in service is USS Dolphin rated for 3000 feet.
The deepest diving true submarine ever built was Kmosomolsk - rated at 4265 feet - sunk at 5600 feet - and sealed there by a research submersable. These latter can go to any depth - and Trieste once went to the deepest part of the Ocean - the Mariana's Trench - 35000 feet
down.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
CL USS Amsterdam appears at New Orleans instead of Colon Panama - 11 days sooner.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
See below.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
ORIGINAL: el cid again
In EOS family USS Yorktown appears on 12/09/41 at New Orleans instead of on 12/30/41 at San Diego.
In EBO and EEO only USS Wasp (which is Yorktown class rather than its own) appears WITH USS Hornet on 420306 INSTEAD of there months later (as IRL).
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
The two cases of cluster bombs will redefine as normal bombs (but different effect than a single bomb of the same weight - because we use square root = soft effect - a cluster is more effective than a single bomb of the same weight)
This means that planes with clusters will get a reduced load at extended range. Right now - as smart weapons - it is the same load at extended range.
RHS uses the 100 pound ICB cluster to represent 3 x 15 kg bombs on planes that carry this device too small for its own slot. (15 kg = 33 pounds; 3 x 33 = 99 or almost exactly 100 pounds)
This means that planes with clusters will get a reduced load at extended range. Right now - as smart weapons - it is the same load at extended range.
RHS uses the 100 pound ICB cluster to represent 3 x 15 kg bombs on planes that carry this device too small for its own slot. (15 kg = 33 pounds; 3 x 33 = 99 or almost exactly 100 pounds)
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
It appears we can fix the problem of Japanese big tankers costing too much - by the same mechanism we use for submarines.
An RHS reform (and not universally popular) is that ships are not all rated the same way for durability. Naval auxiliaries are more durable than AKs - even on identical hulls. Tankers are even more durable. But this cost too much - so we had to compromise - for Japan - which buys ships using a peculiar code formula. Now we have a way to make ships Japan should not buy almost free - and other ships cost whatever we wish. We can make the cost to build more in line with what it ought to be. [The strange code amounts to a square function, so large merchants cost way too much] The limit on this is data entry time. Lots is required. Anyway - the replenishment tankers held back can now appaer on time almost free.
We will look at British replenishment ships - it seems there are none - and Japanese - it seems there are too many.
An RHS reform (and not universally popular) is that ships are not all rated the same way for durability. Naval auxiliaries are more durable than AKs - even on identical hulls. Tankers are even more durable. But this cost too much - so we had to compromise - for Japan - which buys ships using a peculiar code formula. Now we have a way to make ships Japan should not buy almost free - and other ships cost whatever we wish. We can make the cost to build more in line with what it ought to be. [The strange code amounts to a square function, so large merchants cost way too much] The limit on this is data entry time. Lots is required. Anyway - the replenishment tankers held back can now appaer on time almost free.
We will look at British replenishment ships - it seems there are none - and Japanese - it seems there are too many.
- Historiker
- Posts: 4742
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Deutschland
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
wasn't there a problem with Allied planes using slot 10? There are still three planes using the slot!
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
Slot 10 is for engines.
I checked CVO - and found Lancaster III with radar there. It is H2S nav radar - and it is just a dummy - apparently nav radar never works - it has no device type assigned in the device itself. I put it in because Stock and CHS have nav radar - I just changed the names to make them right -but I doubt it matters or works even if in a functional slot. Still - I fixed it. For the second time - it WAS fixed in Level 5 and 6 - and somehow we lost the fixed record in all of Level 7.
I checked CVO - and found Lancaster III with radar there. It is H2S nav radar - and it is just a dummy - apparently nav radar never works - it has no device type assigned in the device itself. I put it in because Stock and CHS have nav radar - I just changed the names to make them right -but I doubt it matters or works even if in a functional slot. Still - I fixed it. For the second time - it WAS fixed in Level 5 and 6 - and somehow we lost the fixed record in all of Level 7.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
In EBO it is a problem on the Doolittle B-25 - which probably totally is meaningless. Aside from the fact it is a nav radar which does not work in the first place - it also should not be on that aircraft at all. I will take it out.
Same problem in EEO - these are the only scenarios with this plane.
The patrol version of Mars in 74 and 77 had a search radar in slot 10. This should be present and probably does not work in slot 10 - so it is fixed. The same plane in a different slot in other scenarios does not have this issue. It was fixed for the BBO family - but not for the revised EEO/EBO scenarios.
Same problem in EEO - these are the only scenarios with this plane.
The patrol version of Mars in 74 and 77 had a search radar in slot 10. This should be present and probably does not work in slot 10 - so it is fixed. The same plane in a different slot in other scenarios does not have this issue. It was fixed for the BBO family - but not for the revised EEO/EBO scenarios.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 planning and issues
It has prooved feasible to separate B1 and B2 - also C1 and C2 classes - for strictly historical scenarios - and to provide more detailed upgrade paths. This was hardly worth it when the subs were not going to survive - and were so expensive players should seriously think of not building them (as indeed many were not IRL) - and also we had to create a number of new class slots - so I went the long way and separated them. We might do this with a few other cases of new subs - the old ones are a different story - there is no change at all except plug in the new durability value.
We have settled on cost for production = surface displacement divided by 200. This has some nice effects - you can tell a C from a B cost wise - and it is similar in structure to the WITP system for surface ships but not excessive in cost imposed. There is no "right" way to do this - and staying close to WITP cost seemed wise.
We have settled on cost for production = surface displacement divided by 200. This has some nice effects - you can tell a C from a B cost wise - and it is similar in structure to the WITP system for surface ships but not excessive in cost imposed. There is no "right" way to do this - and staying close to WITP cost seemed wise.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
Some eratta and other enhancements have been put into Level 5 and 6 scenarios - and they will post - probably for the last time
in x.7976 form. Level 7 - which differs in submarines too much to backfit - and also which will work better with the Japanese
economy - will become 7.80 to note the significant change.
The submarines have been fixed - and appear - and to not burden production badly. We will go on an do some surface ships - which mostly will help merchant ship production - also a few warships - and some tankers which are withheld (in CVO/BBO where they make the PH approach and refuel KB) - will appear without a big cost. I am will review British tankers - and if possible turn some Japaese AO into TK - the difference is one involving crewing and there seem to be too many.
Eratta noted should be posted here. Some Rapid Replacement Units in Korea and Formosa (3 of them) had command issues in some scenarios - and these were fixed.
in x.7976 form. Level 7 - which differs in submarines too much to backfit - and also which will work better with the Japanese
economy - will become 7.80 to note the significant change.
The submarines have been fixed - and appear - and to not burden production badly. We will go on an do some surface ships - which mostly will help merchant ship production - also a few warships - and some tankers which are withheld (in CVO/BBO where they make the PH approach and refuel KB) - will appear without a big cost. I am will review British tankers - and if possible turn some Japaese AO into TK - the difference is one involving crewing and there seem to be too many.
Eratta noted should be posted here. Some Rapid Replacement Units in Korea and Formosa (3 of them) had command issues in some scenarios - and these were fixed.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
Minekaze class updated so ship records match class records for EEO and EBO - where it appears in DE form. It is a DM in CVO and BBO. It is a DD in EOS family other than EEO/EBO - and all of these were not a problem. But in these scenarios the "update" button needed to be pressed - and because it was not - the ship data display had strange fields - and the ship does not behave as a DE which was intended. This matter was reported by OSO and fixed in about two minutes. Since we are going to issue an update - probably today - this is the time to report eratta.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
I was called in to work so I won't finish this today.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
Between work, games and finding more things to fix (Mizuho Air Group in EOS family, remove a duplicated supply sink in Malaya, undamage a 99 per cent damaged supply sink in Malaya, revising experience for Soviet subs, and above all - doing Axis tankers - complicated task).
Won't finish today either.
Won't finish today either.
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:45 pm
- Location: Virginia
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
El Cid,
The pilot replacement rate for IJN in EBO is only 108 (as in BBO) rather than 216 as in EEO. Since EBO has the same IJN CV/CVL/CVE as EEO this must be in error.
The pilot replacement rate for IJN in EBO is only 108 (as in BBO) rather than 216 as in EEO. Since EBO has the same IJN CV/CVL/CVE as EEO this must be in error.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
I have figured out how to permit major CD units survive a long siege - so I will help them. Right now the heavy guns are the first to go - when IRL they survive major attacks and need to be sabotaged at the end. Only one unit is excepted - because one slot conserves supplies - that unit being the one with Fort Drum at Corregedor. I now can make all major CD forts tend to stay in good shape when all around them are sucking supplies.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 planning and issues
ORIGINAL: chuckwalla
El Cid,
The pilot replacement rate for IJN in EBO is only 108 (as in BBO) rather than 216 as in EEO. Since EBO has the same IJN CV/CVL/CVE as EEO this must be in error.
Yep - this is indeed a mistake. It should be the same as EEO - the training course is half as long and the quality rate is lower.
-
- Posts: 16980
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS 7.7976 = 7.80 Released and uploading
Level 7 is packaged and in the upload process at this time. L evel 6 needs packaging and won't happen today.