Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RHS AE: Strategic and Operational Scenarios

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RHS AE: Strategic and Operational Scenarios Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHS AE: Strategic and Operational Scenarios - 1/27/2012 1:37:47 AM   


Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline
I have split the strictly historical file set into two parts (and no ahistorical scenario is yet in development). Partially to facilitate automated testing,
and partially to serve players who wish to have less economic management required, I have created an "Operational" scenario. In this, production
is substantially automated (so, for example, a player can play solitare - or a tester can have the computer control both sides) - but also so a player who does not attempt Japan because of being daunted by the economic requirements now has that option. The base scenario is called Stragegic - and requires considerable production management by both sides. For the Allies because in RHS there is on map aircraft production - and in the Strategic scenario - the Allied player needs to turn on new types every month they occur - so they will ramp up properly - and so they will not suck too many supplies growing factories before they are needed. [This edition has rather less than the previous one however. Instead of almost everything produced on the map - lots of work is automated when it has no influence on play.]

The next human test series will attempt to measure how well several sweeping technical reforms work?

Perhaps the most important of these is a comprehensive revision of devices. Aside from where new devices were required to model somethign missing (a drop tank, a bomb, a missile, a radar, etc) - there is an attempt to make device values be consistent with each other. Whole new kinds of devices were added - in particular in re ASW weapons - and the land combat units now use a completely different squad philosophy (see below).

Land units now have more purely infantry squads than before. This permits them to be defined at actual squad size - without attachments. And it permits the assignment of anti-tank weapons as separate devices - when they are available - in the actual numbers available. In general, early war squads have no such devices (exceptionally they have anti-tank rifles - particularly in the USSR). But later in the war - weapons like bazooka's and PIAT were never available on a per squad basis - and now we can assign them when they are available. On the Japanese side, the rather unusual Grenade Discharger (or ultra light mortar) device is also removed from the infantry squads - and then assigned as a separate device. This permits the right ratio. Cavalry units - for example - tend to get teams with 2 GD - so often does the militia - while "B" units get 3 GD and "A" units an naval infantry units and motorized "B" units get 4 GD in the GD squad - which is always one per platoon.

Related to both device changes and land unit squad changes is a modification of the constant used in the formulas used to determine the anti-soft values of bombs, shells, mortar bombs, etc. The RHS system set out to address a problem of "nuclear bombardment effects" - and also to better represent the way explosives work re soft targets (where the area affected is proportional to the square root of the charge). This worked - but slightly too well. Here we will double the constants - from 1 to 2 for AP - from 2 to 4 for HE - etc.

Also related to both is the change in re armor. It was found that tanks tended to be under rated in weight - but over rated in armor - with weapons values all over the board (dead on, too big, too small). Armored cars were generally vastly too heavy - but often under armed.

Finally - changes to model the lift cost of units make the cost to move them in shipping terms (or airlift terms) more appropriate. Now a draft unit costs far more to move than motorized - but a pack unit - which tends to have less firepower - more still. And some airborne units (particularly Allied) that had devices to heavy to actually airlift - are redefined so they can move all their devices.

Automated testing seems to indicate the combined effects lead to land combat results more like one would expect.

Similarly, automated testing seems to indicate astonishing improvement in ASW warfare. Escorts have far fewer shots than before - typically 3 patterns for a non specialist vessel to 12 or so for a specialist ship. These shots occur about as often as before - and hit also about as often - but do less damage - and so subs tend to get in trouble from cumulative damage. Later in the war, more effective weapons permit double attacks per ship (ahead throwing weapons and DC patterns) - and even smart weapons (smart DC, homing torpedoes) are modeled - and for planes as well as ships. Lots more effort was put into sensors (generally absent in WITP) and weapons loadouts for aircraft. Escorts now - particularly those with few salvos - report "out of ASW ammo" - which is one of the design intents of the changes. The reason for vast changes in the number of weapons carried, and the great development in ASW weapons (increaing probability of damage and amount of damage) over time is that it was anything but satisfactory at the start. We now hope to demonstrate this in play - with ASW generally getting better over time - and more so for the Allies than for the Japanese. Nevertheless, the broad trends are similar - over a hundred DC mounted in a late war escort - and the individual DC more likely to hit later than sooner. To which end there are whole families of progressively better ASW devices.

Significant nubmers of plane types and sub types were added - and hundreds of absent vessels previously added (but requiring restart to get) - are in the new test data sets.

Significant nubmers of locations have been added. Attention to micro economies has made it clear why some places mattered - and permitting some degree of local living off the land in places previously logistical deserts.

Vast effort went into cosmetic changes - primarily in the form of names of devices, planes, squads, etc - to inform the player more completely - or to create the right flavor.

All this stuff works in the context of the wholly revised RHS pwhexe file sets - which feature seasons and progressive wartime development of road and rail line infrastructures.

I anticipate starting human testing this week.

< Message edited by elcid -- 1/27/2012 1:42:56 AM >
Post #: 1
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RHS AE: Strategic and Operational Scenarios Page: [1]
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