Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Important CHS announcement

 
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 >> RE: Important CHS announcement Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:03:25 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Don't forget to nerf the props also........

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 31
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:05:36 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
And set Endurance to 8.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 32
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:06:15 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Unfortunately, nothing is as annoying as having one Betty slip thru the CAP and put a torp into ship with 100% accuracy. Or 3 Betties attacking scoring 3 torp hits.. Anyhow, I think more realistic pilot exp would be the answer, most likely. Works both ways...my B-17s are the major CV killer against AI.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 33
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:07:06 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
But Forts were impregnable.....you know that don't you?

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 34
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 5:29:42 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Sure, like during Schweinfurt raid...

Well..we all have our own petty grievances...I'd feel opposite if I'd play IJ..but I fear the productions system still after playing over yr and half !!

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 35
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 6:50:07 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 859
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
quote:

Can't we just take the twat who is responsible for the crud-editor and beat some sense into him until his paid for house is suddenly an empty lot?


Ron,
Now I'm 100% certain that you really are a bartender. Only a bartender can refer to someone as a "twat." I'm not sure about Canada, but I believe it's a law in the States.
bs

< Message edited by bstarr -- 6/29/2006 6:52:35 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 36
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 6:51:54 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Sure, like during Schweinfurt raid...

Well..we all have our own petty grievances...I'd feel opposite if I'd play IJ..but I fear the productions system still after playing over yr and half !!



Propaganda

Schweinfurt was plastered for the loss of 1 plane when an Flight Engineer got bored and ate 10 Big Macs causing the plane to ditch.

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 37
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 7:49:41 PM   
DD696

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline
Hi,

I'm playing my "own" version of scenerio 159 (with other personal changes and with the addition of Ron's "no-respawn ships) and am at 17 Dec 41. One of the changes I made was to create in device slot 144 a new Betty/Nell torpedo which has a dud rate of 50%, and I also set the dud rate of the Beaufort to 50%. This was done in the hopes of getting away from the super torpedo bombers. I made an error when I set up device 144 and left it to upgrade to device 101 (the standard torpedo). So the betties/nells reverted back to their old torpedos. However, I have not seen a single torpedo attack by these planes to date. Perhaps it is because of the lowered experience of the pilots for this particular scenerio, altho I believe that effects the Allies more at the start of the game. I did switch over on the 16th and took a look at the Japanese side and found that the Betty/Nell squadrons were suffering from low morale. In previous games I had reduced the accuracy rating but failed to see any significant change.

So, because I do not have an InGame Editor which would allow me to make a simple change to fix the problem I caused, I now have to restart the game in order to get it fixed. This is what I truly love about this game.....always restarting. I am sure that on my deathbed I will be mumbling "No, not now! I must restart the game one more time"!

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 38
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 10:29:09 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2539
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline
Naw.. Just come up with the Phalanx about fifty years sooner! Shoot the torpedo out of the sky before it hits the water. That has always been the one bugaboo with the game to me. Those ever accursed and unseemly scoundrels can sneak in under any cap and drop thirty or forty torpedos a day forever. There should be some limitation on how many of those missions can be flown in a given month or from a given base per time period - or they had better increase the pay rate at the IJN torpedo factory. Those guys are putting in some serious overtime. Have to go back and re-read Frank. Seems to me that there is a lot more torpedos launched in the game than ever recorded. Would be nice to have some real data on that.

Signed;
Frustrated Invasion Force Commander.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 39
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/29/2006 10:56:54 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Yea, this was my fault. I woke up and said 'Lets scare the hell out of Andrew today!'.

The weapon loads are as correct as they can be all things considered.
Any Matrix people listening; Please consider making max load the default load against land targets while the weapon load can be used against naval targets
This has been done before in Pacific games and works very well.

Mike


_____________________________



(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 40
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 1:46:49 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4924
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
No more nerfed Allied bombers?

It figures, right after I start playing the Japanese.

_____________________________

AE WITP Land Air Bitmap downloads

https://sites.google.com/site/aewitplandairartwork/home/ae-witp-bitmap-downloads

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 41
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 2:22:37 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
Actually the allied bombers will be less useful as they will now need bigger bases to operate from. Course the allies get a gajillion engineers.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 42
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 5:45:19 AM   
Jagdfluger

 

Posts: 102
Joined: 11/10/2004
Status: offline
So will there be a 2.06 soon?  It does not look like it from everything I read, but I want to make sure. 

Also, is there a difference between stock and CHS 2.05 in terms of how large an airbase must be to support bombers?

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 43
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 6:21:29 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdfluger

So will there be a 2.06 soon? It does not look like it from everything I read, but I want to make sure.


There will be a 2.06. And there will be at least one more revision after that, as I still hope to add the long delayed Soviet OOB changes. The 2.06 revision is, so far, only a collection of minor fixes. To help you decide, here is the list I have so far:

Changes in CHS Revision 2.06

  1. Canada base now has its own (static) base force.
  2. Port Alice Base Force renamed to Coal Harbour Base Force.
  3. The Fort Scratchley CD unit at Newcastle, Australia, now has 30 aviation support, to represent the seaplane base (Rathmines) located near Newcastle.
  4. All Indian Air base forces renamed using the format "No. 1xx RIAF Base Force".
  5. All RAF base forces are now using a consistent naming format "No. 1xx RAF Base Force".
  6. All RAF Groups renamed using the format "No. 2xx RAF Group".
  7. No.457 Squadron RAAF changed to appear at Sydney on 420901.
  8. The Spitfire Vb has been provided with a starting pool of 11 aircraft. These now allow for some replacements to No.457 Squadron RAAF before January 1943, which is the availability date of the aircraft as of CHS 2.04.
  9. The "Max Load" value of the Liberator III has been corrected from 8000 to its original value of 8800 (All other aircraft have already been corrected in a previous update).
  10. Two duplicate leaders have been removed - D'Albiac, J.H. (15667) and Peirse, R. (18484).
  11. The later Essex class carriers have been split off into the separate "Ticonderoga" class. The class is identical to the Essex class, except for the addition of two 40mm Bofors quad mounts forward. The Essex class carriers are dividied between the two classes as follows:

    Ship
    Class
    Essex
    Essex
    Bunker Hill
    Essex
    Intrepid
    Essex
    Franklin
    Essex
    Hancock
    Ticonderoga
    Randolph
    Ticonderoga
    Ticonderoga
    Ticonderoga
    Bennington
    Essex
    Boxer
    Ticonderoga
    Bon Homme Richard
    Essex
    Antietam
    Ticonderoga
    Shangri-La
    Ticonderoga
    Lake Champlain
    Ticonderoga

    Replacement carriers for sunk US Navy carriers will still be Essex class.
  12. Type STS Japanese submarines had duplicated Type 22 radar. Fixed.
  13. Tench Class US submarines had duplicated Type SJ radar. Fixed.
  14. Japanese DD Hatsuharu 9/43 upgrade had duplicated Type 22 radar. Fixed.
  15. Port Alice renamed to Coal Harbour.
  16. Baguio and Lucena in the Philippines have been changed from "Philippines" to "US Army" nationality.


Apart from this list there are a few minor tweaks I have yet to add. These are all minor changes. I will probably release 2.06 in the next few days.

There are also a couple of larger changes I may add as well, given that I have the time now while the Soviet OOB changes are still being worked on: I may possibly add a small number of additional Japaneses ships that were being built but were not completed, and I may do a revision of the USAAF recon and transport air units.

quote:

Also, is there a difference between stock and CHS 2.05 in terms of how large an airbase must be to support bombers?


No, there shouldn't be any difference.

Andrew

(in reply to Jagdfluger)
Post #: 44
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 12:02:36 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2357
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?


Its range is already reduced over stock, I believe.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 45
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 2:26:09 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Hi,

I'm playing my "own" version of scenerio 159 (with other personal changes and with the addition of Ron's "no-respawn ships) and am at 17 Dec 41. One of the changes I made was to create in device slot 144 a new Betty/Nell torpedo which has a dud rate of 50%, and I also set the dud rate of the Beaufort to 50%. This was done in the hopes of getting away from the super torpedo bombers. I made an error when I set up device 144 and left it to upgrade to device 101 (the standard torpedo). So the betties/nells reverted back to their old torpedos. However, I have not seen a single torpedo attack by these planes to date. Perhaps it is because of the lowered experience of the pilots for this particular scenerio, altho I believe that effects the Allies more at the start of the game. I did switch over on the 16th and took a look at the Japanese side and found that the Betty/Nell squadrons were suffering from low morale. In previous games I had reduced the accuracy rating but failed to see any significant change.

So, because I do not have an InGame Editor which would allow me to make a simple change to fix the problem I caused, I now have to restart the game in order to get it fixed. This is what I truly love about this game.....always restarting. I am sure that on my deathbed I will be mumbling "No, not now! I must restart the game one more time"!


I think that dud-rate thing can be very useful. I have been toying with the idea of giving for example aircraft weapons a dud rate to reduce lethality of A2A. Actually, in real life most WWII weapons should have dud rate of at least 10 %.

(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 46
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 2:46:22 PM   
DD696

 

Posts: 657
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline
I really have no idea what the "appropriate" dud rate should be for these aerial torpedos, but I do know that their effects need to be reduced somehow and this is just my way of trying to do so. With every flight of 4 Betties/Nells/Beauforts scoring 1 or more torpedo hits while Kates and TBDs are not nearly so effective, I find that they must be tamed.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 47
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 2:52:01 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 860
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


I just did another check of the Max Load values. I only found one error, and it is a small one. The Liberator III was 8000 instead of 8800. That will be fixed in the next CHS update. So there is no problem with the CHS Max Load values

Andrew


There is no difference between the max load of 8000 or 8800. The manual states the formula for minimum base size for bombers is 4 + Max Load/6500 (rounded down). So a max load of 8000 and 8800 will still be 5.


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 48
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 3:32:00 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4874
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I think that dud-rate thing can be very useful. I have been toying with the idea of giving for example aircraft weapons a dud rate to reduce lethality of A2A. Actually, in real life most WWII weapons should have dud rate of at least 10 %.


There is scope to play with dud rates and/or air-to-surface weapon accuracy in the experimental CHS scenario. In fact I almost did this. Maybe I should try something along these lines after all?

Andrew

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 49
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 3:34:15 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Probably won't hurt, and might even produce some good results...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 50
RE: Important CHS announcement - 6/30/2006 3:38:16 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

There is scope to play with dud rates and/or air-to-surface weapon accuracy in the experimental CHS scenario. In fact I almost did this. Maybe I should try something along these lines after all?

Andrew


I'd like to see if it works. I think it may be more "game-engine friendly" way to tweak results to be more realistic.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Important CHS announcement Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.094