Matrix Games Forums

Join the Matrix Team at Historicon!Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!Ageod takes you back to the Civil War Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AARConflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!Pandora Beta Playthrough VideosGermany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update]

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/10/2006 11:55:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

IJN Port Base Force (960) has Kaiten D -> should have Kaiten C that upgrades later to Kaiten D
- IJN Special Base Force (963) has Kaiten D -> should have Kaiten C that upgrades later to Kaiten D


You are correct. Fixed.

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 121
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/10/2006 11:58:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

- M6A1 (046) weapon slot 1 is empty, intentional


It was designed to carry a 20mm cannon - 2 actually. But they were not mounted and I removed them.

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 122
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 12:00:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Amagi (012) has n
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aterpa

- G8N1 (030) has in weapon slot 7 device 000 10 times
- M6A1 (046) weapon slot 1 is empty, intentional?
- Amagi (012) has no torpedo bombers


Sure it does - they just got lost on a navigation training flight - and landed on Unryu. Looks the same you know. Fixed

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 123
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 12:00:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Ise and Hyuga airgroups have wrong strength (they are 14/2(1) and 8/1 -> should be 14/8 and 8/14)


Depends on whom you believe. Will check - I have the actual data.

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 124
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 12:03:11 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Musashi has float fighters (F1M2 FF), intentional?


Technically the F1M2 Pete is an observation plane - and it replaced the E8N2 in the short range recon role - so yes it is intentional. It is raged as a float fighter because - it could be!

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 125
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 12:09:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

- Nippo Maru has no aircraft (they are on Kimikawa Maru)


So they are. Should be slot 518 - Nippo Maru.

(in reply to Aterpa)
Post #: 126
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 1:48:32 AM   
KHawk

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline 		there are two 52nd Naval Garrison
-52nd (1122)
-52nd (1125)

-4.7in/45 3YT SP Gun (10) is this suppose to be a STATIC device when it is issued to a LCU like 5th IJN(1554) or 6th IJN(1555)?

Thanks,
KHawk

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 127
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.23 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 5:22:45 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		RHSCVO & RAO v2.23 packaged and dispersed do the usual

Cobra Aus

(in reply to KHawk)
Post #: 128
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 6:35:06 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

It is RHS-RAO, so I should be able to give orders to Russians? But I can't. Am I doing something wrong?

I don't know. Will investigate in 10 hours.


The Russians work. However, I hear I once sent out CVO files labed as RAO. Make sure your files are number 061 - not 060 - which is the CVO set.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 129
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 6:36:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

there are two 52nd Naval Garrison
-52nd (1122)
-52nd (1125)


Usually it - and 5.5s - and 5 inchers - are static - mounted on cement pads. However, I tie them down only when I have alterior motives -
either the base MUST be supported AND/OR there is a supply sink in the unit.

When I looked at these units I saw neither guns nor static devices. You sure you got the right slots? These units are landing parties - armed sailors.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/11/2006 2:50:22 PM >

(in reply to KHawk)
Post #: 130
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 10:57:41 AM   
Guest

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 9/7/2005
Status: offline 		Many rivers ports are defined as "airbases" not "bases". Is it ok?
1st IJA Raiding Bde is attached to 3rd JAAF Div.
50 Hvy AA bn has TOE like AA Rgt.
Industry. Oil (in Japan, Manchucuo, DEI, Malaya, Philipines and Burma + reserve) are sufficiently for Japan heavy industry (+ big reserve) but resorces are too small. Intentional?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 131
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 11:34:47 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		hi mate did you get your map problems worked out

and there was no work done on the jump map its too small for changes to show up I have found

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 132
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 12:39:26 PM   
Guest

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 9/7/2005
Status: offline 		I'm thinking that map panels: WITP10 and WITP 11 for RHS weren't uploaded with others. I downloaded this panels from Andy Brown page. Theys little uncompatibly but ok at this moment. Thanks for you interest.

I looked that Lily II has identical bomb load for short and extended range (8x100) it's ok?
Planes in RHS have very, very long range. Are this practical range for this planes? In RHS Liberator have to bombard Soerabaja from Australia and use then his short range...

< Message edited by Guest -- 5/11/2006 12:45:36 PM >

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 133
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 1:05:48 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
quote:

I'm thinking that map panels: WITP10 and WITP 11 for RHS weren't uploaded with others.

I just did a check of the file packs that were upload and both WITP10 & 11 were in the PACK2
at Rouges an & Spookies download site
but to get over this and for RHS you must have the RHS maps send me your E-mail via PM not on the open forum and I will mail to you to night or in the morning (Aus time)

Cobra Aus

< Message edited by CobraAus -- 5/11/2006 1:06:23 PM >

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 134
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 2:01:45 PM   
Guest

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 9/7/2005
Status: offline 		I downloaded pack2 from Spookies site (again) and I didn't find this panels. But I downloaded pack2 from Rogue site and yes, I found theys.

< Message edited by Guest -- 5/11/2006 2:33:44 PM >

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 135
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 2:19:36 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
quote:

I downloaded pack2 from Spookies site (again) and I didn't find this panels. But I downloaded pack2 from Rogue site and yes, I finded theys.

ok glad you are ok now I will double check spookies and fix

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 136
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 2:44:07 PM   
pz501

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/1/2003
From: Chambersburg, PA
Status: offline 		Not sure if these have been mentioned before:

Under Locations, "Solomons" is mis-spelled as "Solomans" for every entry.

III Indian Corps HQ begins the scenario in India, not in Malaya, where it was historically.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 137
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 2:52:33 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Many rivers ports are defined as "airbases" not "bases". Is it ok?


No it is not OK. And no one has yet figured that one out. I have a theory - I will test it. It does not matter what you set - the port values do not work.

Where are you seeing a value "air bases"? What are you looking at ?

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 138
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 2:56:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

1st IJA Raiding Bde is attached to 3rd JAAF Div.



No. While this is quite historical, it is not functional in WITP. Should be 4 - Southern Area. Worse - the other raiding units have no HQ. Fixed.

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 139
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:02:42 PM   
Guest

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 9/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Many rivers ports are defined as "airbases" not "bases". Is it ok?


No it is not OK. And no one has yet figured that one out. I have a theory - I will test it. It does not matter what you set - the port values do not work.

Where are you seeing a value "air bases"? What are you looking at ?


With database editor - locations - type - you choose 02 base or 06 airfield (or 05 HQ for example).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 140
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:05:24 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Industry. Oil (in Japan, Manchucuo, DEI, Malaya, Philipines and Burma + reserve) are sufficiently for Japan heavy industry (+ big reserve) but resorces are too small. Intentional?
+

Certainly not. I am running long term tests and I find more "burdon" is possible. I just added dozens more (mostly small) supply sinks - at places where resources should not produce many supply points directly.

It may not be clear, but the system demands more oil than resources - about 100% more - so the lower resources numbers are not directly an issue.

I do not like this economic model. I prefer to use 5 to 10 resource types, and several kinds of industry (we have heavy industry, shipyards, aircraft factories, vehicle factories and armaments factories - I want oil refineries - light industry - heavy industry broken apart so the most critical of strategic materials - steel - is visible as such - that is I want steel mills - with steel becoming a resource for ships, armaments, vehicles, etc). I have difficulty with too much abstraction - comprehending what is meant? But I am being a technician here - working INSIDE the system - not designing it to my taste. So while I think there needs to be more resources - it is not yet clear this is so? We are "calibrating" the mod by running it. So far it looks like it generates fuel and supply fine.

My big worry is not Japan - but the USA later in the war: will there be enough supply for all those units? It appears the system CANNOT move anything like 22,500 points a day from United States (CHS) - NOR 20,0000 points a day (stock) - it may be able to move 18,000 points a day of supplies (RHS) - but it cannot handle that much fuel (RHS) - yet I doubt that is enough? Time will tell.

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 141
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:06:41 PM   
turkey1

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 12/10/2005
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline 		I know this will have been discussed at length somewhere

Could you point me to with a thread that tells why you have decided to decrease the value of all aircraft's durability so much.

I find it curious because the Nick mod went the other way to improve air combat by increasing plane durability.

I know you will have a good reason and am interested to understand the logic.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 142
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:12:51 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

50 Hvy AA bn has TOE like AA Rgt.


I do not see this.

The mixed AA regiments in the game - they seem to derive from CHS -
are one bn of 105s and one bn of 76s - each of 18 guns.

Oh - I see what you are trying to say - the unit POINTS AT a regiment as its "formation" - rather than a battalion.

Also - it has 76s instead of 105s. Got it. Thanks.

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 143
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:15:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I looked that Lily II has identical bomb load for short and extended range (8x100) it's ok?
Planes in RHS have very, very long range. Are this practical range for this planes? In RHS Liberator have to bombard Soerabaja from Australia and use then his short range...


RHS uses real data - and never gives any thought to operational implications in the game. However, I would like to reduce the ranges by a function for operational reserves - 5 or 10 %. But the real problem is many planes have very SHORT ranges - 1 or 2 hexes - almost not worth having in the game.

WITP does not use maximum bomb loads for bombing missions. It uses the listed bomb load at normal range - and LESS THAN that for extended range - according to Joel Billings.

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 144
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:17:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Under Locations, "Solomons" is mis-spelled as "Solomans" for every entry.


That is me. There are 18 identified kinds of intelligence, and spelling is not one I score well in. Worse, I was taught phonetic spelling - and German - and Japanese - where spelling is almost consistent and phonic. I do not think in terms of the many vaguries of English spellings. I will fix it. I promise! Thanks.

(in reply to pz501)
Post #: 145
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:28:52 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Could you point me to with a thread that tells why you have decided to decrease the value of all aircraft's durability so much.

I find it curious because the Nick mod went the other way to improve air combat by increasing plane durability.

I know you will have a good reason and am interested to understand the logic.


My mod is attempting to deal with several issues at one time. I believe it is necessary to do ALL these things together - or things get out of whack worse than they are to begin with:

1) Address air air combat attrition
2) Address AAA combat attrition
3) Address operational attrition

Now the theory was widely held (I may have now disprooved it) that durability was a key factor in attrition. We wanted a lot more attrition due to AAA and operations - so we had to decrease durability to get it.

Along the way I found a "knee" in the data (Programming term). Matrix figured out they plane durabilities were wrong, but instead of fixing them, they "cheated" by a patch - in effect to make heavy bombers harder to kill they changed the algorithm (at around durability = 40). IF I got the relative durability function right, I had to remain below that level - or the "knee" would force me to be wrong again. Since reducing durability a lot was the only way to get attrition up - it was easy to keep the values all below 40.

In order to insure lower air-air attrition, I did something very Nik like - I reduced the values of weapons. But instead of assuming they were right to begin with, I studied them, and conclused they were grossly wrong - one programmer said "they probably are seat of the pants" - and surely all the modders were - since we had no formulas to use.

So I reverse engineered formulas from the data set, then made my own variations.

I also noted that the ranges were wrong. In WWII air combat is a close range sport - and yet our planes were not playing that way. IF you had cannon - you could shoot at a bomber - and it could not reply! On the other hand, cannon were understated in power: IF you got a hit it was not much different than a mg hit! This combined with the grossly wrong values for durability - so bad they had to put in the "knee" - to mean that fighers were hard to kill - particularly by bombers with only MG on the threat axis.

Another problem was ammo: a fighter can engage 100 times or more! Having a high durability, even if it gets hit, it probably lives and keeps fighting! In that context, my changes matter a lot:

1) Air combat almost always is at range 1 to be effective (some later weapons - particularly rockets - are exceptions). The bombers can shoot back at that range - every time!

2) IF the fighers get in lethal range - it is a TWO WAY lethal range. BECAUSE they have low durability, they do not live to shoot 10 times - never mind 100.


I succeeded in getting AAA attrition up. I succeeded in making air combat less lethal. I failed to increase operational attrition. Or if I did increase it - it was nothing like the x2000 we need. It is going to take a hard code change to fix that.
The result is a lot less attrition in the air.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/11/2006 3:29:56 PM >

(in reply to turkey1)
Post #: 146
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:31:22 PM   
Guest

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 9/7/2005
Status: offline 		Japan has about 12.000 heavy industries at start and can easy conquer 550 h.i. This is 12.550 heavy industries + mayby expand.
Japan has 545 oil center at start and can take 2600-2750. This is about 3.200. x6 = 19.200 oil per day. Oil reserves aren't necessary.
Japan has 5.469 resource center at start and can take easy 2.300-3.200. This is about 8.600 resorces per day maximum.
4000 heavy industries aren't resources. Reserves about 3 mln resources/4000 h.i. will be enough 2.5 years but Japan won't conquer all resorce center quickly and allies have bombers...
Sorry for my english, again.

(in reply to turkey1)
Post #: 147
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:31:27 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

With database editor - locations - type - you choose 02 base or 06 airfield (or 05 HQ for example).


OK - I understand. This solves a problem - thanks.


(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 148
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:42:53 PM   
Guest

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 9/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I would like to reduce the ranges by a function for operational reserves - 5 or 10 %.

This is too small. 5-10% resrves maybe will be ok for short range aircrafts, but for long range aircraft won't.
I think that shorter ranges in WitP or CHS weren't accidental.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 149
RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] - 5/11/2006 3:50:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14647
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

This is too small. 5-10% resrves maybe will be ok for short range aircrafts, but for long range aircraft won't.
I think that shorter ranges in WitP or CHS weren't accidental.


You are confused:

stock and CHS often have up to 100% too much range

The data set is very mixed and very awful

There were lots of things done on purpose to distort the ranges - and that combined with errors in the data used - which is hard to get "right" because often sources differ - and fail to tell us all the conditions for the range

They give one plane too much range, the next one too little, and a third one dead on right. Looks like there was NEVER any effort to account for operational reserves on a ferry mission. But the 33% extended and 25% normal ranges WERE reasonable values - and DO account for operational factors well. I want to reduce range YET AGAIN - so you are taking 33% or 25% of a smaller value - and your transfer missions are not attempted at 100% range. But that is going to hurt a plane like F1M2 badly. It already is too short a range in game terms (due to the excessive hex size).

(in reply to Guest)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: FILE SET RHS 2.22 Released [Minor update] Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.324