Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CHS errata

 
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 >> CHS errata Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CHS errata - 6/30/2006 12:56:14 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1748
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Andrew noticed a couple of minor errata things on the scen155 from your site. I mentioned to you about adding No107 RAAF Kingfishers (which was added) at Newcastle which was a large seaplane training base but there is no base force there nor does the fort unit there have any air support. Shouldn't some RAN base force be added to the DB there or change the fort unit to a different TOE/unit type? Also shouldn't Canada have a large base force similar to the US or other West Coast base forces to represent all the troops in the rest of Canada?
Post #: 1
RE: CHS errata - 6/30/2006 2:24:18 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Andrew noticed a couple of minor errata things on the scen155 from your site. I mentioned to you about adding No107 RAAF Kingfishers (which was added) at Newcastle which was a large seaplane training base but there is no base force there nor does the fort unit there have any air support. Shouldn't some RAN base force be added to the DB there or change the fort unit to a different TOE/unit type? Also shouldn't Canada have a large base force similar to the US or other West Coast base forces to represent all the troops in the rest of Canada?


You are right. I wasn't sure what to do about Newcastle, so delayed doing anything, then forgot about it. Given Rathmines was pretty much a static facility, I have decided to add some aviation support to the static CD unit at Newcastle.

I have also added a static base force at the Canada base - another oversight.

Andrew

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 2
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 3:49:57 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
More CHS data (2.05, Scen156) that caught my attention:
  • Device 267 "IJA Engineer Squad" has a replacement rate of 0 and a pool of 0. So Japan does not receive any Combat Engineers at all during the war?! Those numbers are the same as in the stock game, so I guess it's not a bug...
  • VVS-TOF HQ*, a Soviet HQ unit (LocationID 2459) has a value of "221" in HQType. This value is invalid. It must be either 100 (Command HQ), 0 (Corps HQ), 50 (Air HQ), 20 (Naval HQ) or 30 (Amphibious HW), with a number between 1 and 9 added to this value to indicate the impact range.
  • Christmas Island (Pac): Nation = British, but attached to CentPac?
  • Magwe: located in Burma, but attached to India Command
  • Port Alice is attached to North Pac, should be Canada
  • Ramree Island: should this island really be attached to India Command and have Nation = Indian? It's off the coast of Burma
  • 7th Indian Air Base Force (LocationID 3489) does not have a LCUFormation (TO&E Standard) set like all other Indian Air Base Forces
  • LCU Type: according to the editor manual, this field helps the AI to determine what to do with INF units. It should be a number from 1 to 3, but CHS uses only 0 and 1
Sorry for nitpicking; all those are of course minor points, but they caught my eye while working on some spreadsheets.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 3
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 4:20:18 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
In 155 (and 156, for that matter), CV Midway is set up to appear with two squadrons (VF and VBF) of Corsairs, and two of Helldivers. Is VT-74 meant to have dive bombers?

< Message edited by Terminus -- 7/5/2006 4:21:00 AM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 4
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 4:48:44 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
  • Device 484 "Stuart I LightTank" -> "Stuart I Light Tank"
  • Device 485 "Stuart VI LightTank" -> "Stuart VI Light Tank"
  • Device 490 "Marmon-Hrringtn Tank" -> "Marmon-Herrington Tank"


< Message edited by VSWG -- 7/5/2006 4:50:08 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 8:29:18 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

More CHS data (2.05, Scen156) that caught my attention:
  • Device 267 "IJA Engineer Squad" has a replacement rate of 0 and a pool of 0. So Japan does not receive any Combat Engineers at all during the war?! Those numbers are the same as in the stock game, so I guess it's not a bug...
  • VVS-TOF HQ*, a Soviet HQ unit (LocationID 2459) has a value of "221" in HQType. This value is invalid. It must be either 100 (Command HQ), 0 (Corps HQ), 50 (Air HQ), 20 (Naval HQ) or 30 (Amphibious HW), with a number between 1 and 9 added to this value to indicate the impact range.
  • Christmas Island (Pac): Nation = British, but attached to CentPac?
  • Magwe: located in Burma, but attached to India Command
  • Port Alice is attached to North Pac, should be Canada
  • Ramree Island: should this island really be attached to India Command and have Nation = Indian? It's off the coast of Burma
  • 7th Indian Air Base Force (LocationID 3489) does not have a LCUFormation (TO&E Standard) set like all other Indian Air Base Forces
  • LCU Type: according to the editor manual, this field helps the AI to determine what to do with INF units. It should be a number from 1 to 3, but CHS uses only 0 and 1
Sorry for nitpicking; all those are of course minor points, but they caught my eye while working on some spreadsheets.


Thanks for the list. Just when I thought that 2.06 was ready.

Taking these in turn:

- I have no idea about the IJA Engineer squad. As you say it is the same in stock so I guess it has never been changed. Something for an IJA expert to comment on (i.e. not me)

- "VVS-TOF HQ*" is not a real HW, despite the name, as it is not in a HQ slot (because there are no free HQ slots in CHS). However I changed its HQ type anyway, just in case.

- Christmas Island is meant to be British.

- Magwe and Ramree Island should both be "Commonwealth" nationality, the same as the other bases in Burma, so I have changed them. India Command HQ is correct.

- I fixed the Indian base force anomoly.

- I don't know anything about the LCU types. I'll take a look.

Thanks,
Andrew

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 6
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 8:29:45 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

In 155 (and 156, for that matter), CV Midway is set up to appear with two squadrons (VF and VBF) of Corsairs, and two of Helldivers. Is VT-74 meant to have dive bombers?


As far as I am aware this is correct.

Andrew

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 8:42:00 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10262
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
quote:

- I have no idea about the IJA Engineer squad. As you say it is the same in stock so I guess it has never been changed. Something for an IJA expert to comment on (i.e. not me)


Japan replacements are handled by the Japanese production system. The allies have no production system, hence they have "rates". For Japan they have manpower, vehicle and gun points which are then combined into replacements.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 8
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 12:34:09 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

In 155 (and 156, for that matter), CV Midway is set up to appear with two squadrons (VF and VBF) of Corsairs, and two of Helldivers. Is VT-74 meant to have dive bombers?


As far as I am aware this is correct.

Andrew


Okay...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 9
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 6:27:04 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 251
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline
Andrew - a couple of potential issues with the chs 2.05 data for you to think about:

Hong Kong Fortress land unit has two sets of support - each strength 420 - total 840 support - is this a duplication as there are far more support points than necessary ? I would have thought the extra size of this unit would help use up the limited supply at hong kong much faster.

British 3" mortar production has always been far too low ever since the game was released. The result is that british units can never rebuild their mortar strength - yet this is a very basic weapon with no known supply shortages for the allies in ww2.
Device 426 - 3" mortar - build 14 - shoould be nearer 100 ??
USA equivalent - device 428 - 81mm mortar - build 189

I also have a question about the static base forces in india eg madras - at some point chs included some infantry to represent a permanent military garrison - now there are no infantry which means the bases are very vulnerable to paras or sub commandos. Why did you decide to remove the combat strength from these static base forces ?

Thanks again for all your work on chs - my current chs 1.6 pbm game is now in july 42 and it is great.


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 10
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 10:29:14 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
According to the editor, the "4th Marines Rgt" starts Scen156 in Bataan with 99xUSMC Rifle Squad and 99xSupport. However, if I start the scenario (non-hist. first turn) in a head-to-head game, there are only 46 Squads and Support Units present, the rest are disabled. Is this some kind of bug, or is it possible that a unit loses devices before turn 1 is run? If so, isn't this loss quite drastic (almost 50 % in 1 turn)??

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 11
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 10:31:43 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

According to the editor, the "4th Marines Rgt" starts Scen156 in Bataan with 99xUSMC Rifle Squad and 99xSupport. However, if I start the scenario (non-hist. first turn) in a head-to-head game, there are only 46 Squads and Support Units present, the rest are disabled. Is this some kind of bug, or is it possible that a unit loses devices before turn 1 is run? If so, isn't this loss quite drastic (almost 50 % in 1 turn)??



It starts life with 54% disablement, so 46 squads sounds about right...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 12
RE: CHS errata - 7/5/2006 11:06:54 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
Ah, thanks Terminus. I overlooked the "Disabled Percent" field, probably because it is under "Base Only" in the editor.

So there are two ways to disable devices in the editor: "Diabled Percent" and using the wpn-dev slots. You learn something new every day...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 13
RE: CHS errata - 7/6/2006 1:06:16 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1748
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
Also Andrew I noticed that you added US Ranger Squads to the devices, are you going to add 6th Ranger Btn?

VSWG - for Port Alice yes that is correct for it to be NoPac as if it's assigned to Canada Command the port will need to have & stay over 60k supply to have a normal supply level else unit will slowly dissappear due to being out of supply so it's a work around to not have to fool with that.

Terminus - the naval air units at that time were going from F/2DB/TB setup to F/FB/DB/DB setup even though units would be VTxxx they would actually have DB as a/c or a VBxxx might be a FB type a/c though most units of that type were VFBxxx.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 14
RE: CHS errata - 7/6/2006 1:10:44 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Hmmm, interesting... Might prompt some modifications to my own mod...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 15
RE: CHS errata - 7/6/2006 4:03:37 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
  • 66th IJA Division (ID 1673) is set to arrive in hex 47,46, the very southern tip of Formosa (no base hex). I guess this should be Takao (47,45)
  • The following IJA units arrive in hex 64,23, which is a wooden hex 120 miles east of Hailar:
    • 1691    125th Division
    • 1692    80th Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1693    133rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1694    130th Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1695    136th Division
    • 1696    138th Division
    • 1697    148th Division
    • 1698    79th Ind.Mixed Brigade
A question: If a LCU with delay is slated to arrive in hex 0,0, does that mean it will arrive at the default entry port for this nation? If so, where can I find a list with these ports?


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: CHS errata - 7/6/2006 4:08:58 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41377
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Check section 15.5 in the manual...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 17
RE: CHS errata - 7/6/2006 4:14:52 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Andrew - a couple of potential issues with the chs 2.05 data for you to think about:

Hong Kong Fortress land unit has two sets of support - each strength 420 - total 840 support - is this a duplication as there are far more support points than necessary ? I would have thought the extra size of this unit would help use up the limited supply at hong kong much faster.


Oops. Fixed.

quote:

British 3" mortar production has always been far too low ever since the game was released. The result is that british units can never rebuild their mortar strength - yet this is a very basic weapon with no known supply shortages for the allies in ww2.
Device 426 - 3" mortar - build 14 - shoould be nearer 100 ??
USA equivalent - device 428 - 81mm mortar - build 189


Seems odd, but I am not a TO&E expert. I will have to ask around to see whether this is a fault, or intended.

quote:

I also have a question about the static base forces in india eg madras - at some point chs included some infantry to represent a permanent military garrison - now there are no infantry which means the bases are very vulnerable to paras or sub commandos. Why did you decide to remove the combat strength from these static base forces ?


Hmmmm. They must have been "overwritten" when fortification devices were added to the units. I have reviewed tham all, and I have put some inf squads back in. The numbers are different though - 1 battalion equivalent (44 squads) at smaller bases and 2 at bigger bases (e.g. Madras, Bombay).

Thanks!
Andrew

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 18
RE: CHS errata - 7/6/2006 4:23:20 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

  • 66th IJA Division (ID 1673) is set to arrive in hex 47,46, the very southern tip of Formosa (no base hex). I guess this should be Takao (47,45)
  • The following IJA units arrive in hex 64,23, which is a wooden hex 120 miles east of Hailar:
    • 1691 125th Division
    • 1692 80th Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1693 133rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1694 130th Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1695 136th Division
    • 1696 138th Division
    • 1697 148th Division
    • 1698 79th Ind.Mixed Brigade


The first one should probably be Takao as you say. The others may be a map translation issue? I will have to ask Joe about the placement of all of these LCUs.

Andrew

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 19
RE: CHS errata - 7/7/2006 3:28:20 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5995
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
Why is the production of Catalina I so low ?? Since it's used at least by Brits and Australians, it doesn't quite cover any losses. OTOH, PBYs there are plenty, but Brits and Autralians cannot upgrade with those.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 20
RE: CHS errata - 7/7/2006 8:21:40 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
The Catalinas are more or less my fault. There had been a great deal of discussion about production numbers, armament etc of various European Allies flying boats/pat planes way back when and i just took the recomendations from those discussions and put them in Lemurs mod. I never went over these aircraft with Don when we were putting together CHS.

Andrew, the Catalina I should have it's build rate adjusted to either 10 or 11.

Mike


_____________________________



(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 21
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 1:09:10 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
Air Group ID 1453, No.358 Squadron RAF, is scheduled to arrive in 1944 at Location ID 299, which is an empty location.

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 22
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 1:30:37 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
The following ship-based air groups are scheduled to arrive on ships that are 9999ed:
  • 750    Shinano-1 Chutai
  • 751    Shinano-2 Chutai
  • 2019    VMF(CVS)-216
  • 2020    VMTB(CVS)-624
This probably does not cause any problems, but maybe you need air group slots.

Another question: all ship-based air groups have "0" as their HQ-ID, except groups that arrive on (some, not all) US CVEs, which have CentPac as their HQ. Why?

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 23
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 3:20:50 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The Catalinas are more or less my fault. There had been a great deal of discussion about production numbers, armament etc of various European Allies flying boats/pat planes way back when and i just took the recomendations from those discussions and put them in Lemurs mod. I never went over these aircraft with Don when we were putting together CHS.

Andrew, the Catalina I should have it's build rate adjusted to either 10 or 11.

Mike



OK. I have increased the rate for the Catalina I. Are there any others that need adjusting Mike?

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 24
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 3:21:48 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Air Group ID 1453, No.358 Squadron RAF, is scheduled to arrive in 1944 at Location ID 299, which is an empty location.


I changed all of the squadrons arriving at the Middle East base to Aden, but this one seems to have slipped through the net. It is now fixed.


(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 25
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 3:37:19 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

The following ship-based air groups are scheduled to arrive on ships that are 9999ed:
  • 750 Shinano-1 Chutai
  • 751 Shinano-2 Chutai
  • 2019 VMF(CVS)-216
  • 2020 VMTB(CVS)-624
This probably does not cause any problems, but maybe you need air group slots.

Another question: all ship-based air groups have "0" as their HQ-ID, except groups that arrive on (some, not all) US CVEs, which have CentPac as their HQ. Why?



The first two are for the variant Shinano BB (see the house rules notes in the CHS documentation).

The Rendova was removed as a reinforcement because we got rid of all reinforcement ships appearing in 1946. You are right in that we can recover the slots by removing the air groups, but I will only do this as a last resort in case the Rendova is restored to the database for some reason.

Thanks,
Andrew

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 26
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 3:44:14 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
I'm glad I can help. One more:

Is the 14th Bombardment squadron (ID 1151) in Cagayan supposed to have "West Coast" as HQ?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 27
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 3:59:46 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

I'm glad I can help. One more:

Is the 14th Bombardment squadron (ID 1151) in Cagayan supposed to have "West Coast" as HQ?


No, they shouldn't, and I have changed it to USAFFE.

Thanks,
Andrew

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 28
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 4:15:04 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: VSWG

  • 66th IJA Division (ID 1673) is set to arrive in hex 47,46, the very southern tip of Formosa (no base hex). I guess this should be Takao (47,45)
  • The following IJA units arrive in hex 64,23, which is a wooden hex 120 miles east of Hailar:
    • 1691 125th Division
    • 1692 80th Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1693 133rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1694 130th Ind.Mixed Brigade
    • 1695 136th Division
    • 1696 138th Division
    • 1697 148th Division
    • 1698 79th Ind.Mixed Brigade
A question: If a LCU with delay is slated to arrive in hex 0,0, does that mean it will arrive at the default entry port for this nation? If so, where can I find a list with these ports?




I've just looked into this a bit more. It seems that the LCUs appearing in hex 64,23 are not simply due to a map translation error after all. These LCUs also appear in an empty hex next to Hailar in the stock scenarios. My map translation script must have moved them to 64,23 - also a blank hex (but 2 hexes from Hailar which is not quite right, so my script does need tweaking).

I am moving all of those LCUs into Hailar itself in CHS.

Andrew

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 29
RE: CHS errata - 7/8/2006 11:55:23 PM   
fremen


Posts: 1234
Joined: 7/19/2004
From: Iliaca, Spain
Status: offline
I've noticed the japanese submarine D1/2 Class, slot 134 (in scenario 155) use the bmp 158. This bmp is the fact the graphic ship side of the japanese Type STS.
Of course, the slot 158 use the bmp 158 acordingly.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> CHS errata Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.162