Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger

 
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 >> RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/15/2013 7:27:34 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Level I Update Link 2.493
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwgoJwh5X6Cn-3bngEFQ

Very nice hard data. I will use this.

Sid


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I would actually bet on German 15 cm sFH 18 Howitzers. China bought few dozens, when they were still cooperating with Germany.
Have you any information about those "Heavy Guns", when war broke? I have added them to pool, because I have not found any info.




Found a post on the Axis History Forum

The Chinese used the German 10.5cm 1.FH18 and 15cm sFH 18.

There were a total of 44 sFH 18 (48 ordered, 44 received), equipped by the independent 10th and 14th artillery regiments. They played an important part in the victory of the 3rd Battle of Changsha.

The I.FH18 equipped the independent 10th and 13th artillery regiments. It is assumed there were about 48 pieces imported.

Source: Army Weapons during the War of Resistance: Field Artillery


See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=102362

There are more threads on the same topic, and a wealth of other interesting info on this forum.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/11/2016 10:15:22 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 271
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.23 update, AVG, LCU, etx - 5/15/2013 7:29:46 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Hmmm - perhaps not. But I did model the unique "independent mobile squads" intended for guerilla warfare. I interpret the name you provide to imply this was the planning and training organization which may have resulted in them being formed. But I don't know anything about it. Do you have a source I can read?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

These revised files will be part of 5.23 intended for release today.

Other changes include creating of a new pair of devices for UK/CW Commandos - which are not different from UK/CW airborne - both to avoid confusion and because there need to be a lot more commandos but not airborne squads. Stock has woefully too few replacements for the huge number of commando units in the data base. This work led to discovery the British Army 44th Division (somewhat wrongly called para) was badly screwed up (from stock). That is, the 4 components of the division were not structured properly to combine (so what squad you end up with in the parent is different that what you started with). And also the "support battalion" is now called a "support brigade" - it includes several battalions! This unique division has two airborne brigades, one airmobile brigade, and one ground only (support) brigade with things like 25 pounders that don't fly. So once combined, it can not fly any more! But you can take a base in the enemy rear, fly in the heavier airmobile, and then walk in with the heavy brigade and create a division able to now fight better than any airborne anywhere else does. Not all bad. Note the airborne brigades could not fly due to bad device choices - fixed.

Also the KNIL is reorganized based on new data. There are now 3 Divisions on Java - all smaller than the present Java Division but all bigger than you would guess - due to inclusion of the Landstorm with the regulars. We also picked up some 7.5 inch CD guns at Soerabaja - ex British. The Divisions actually included static CD units, but these are separate since a division cannot form up unless it is all in one hex - so they remain independent. The AAA battalion is also separate - because not enough devices to include in First KNIL Division. 2nd and 3rd AAA battalions are now gone - they were companies and part of other formations.

9 RIN and 3 RAN minor escorts added at game start - auxiliaries all called up around 1940.

Sid




Have you also included the Dutch Commando unit Korps Insulinde?



(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 272
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.23 update, AVG, LCU, etx - 5/15/2013 8:29:15 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 665
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Hmmm - perhaps not. But I did model the unique "independent mobile squads" intended for guerilla warfare. I interpret the name you provide to imply this was the planning and training organization which may have resulted in them being formed. But I don't know anything about it. Do you have a source I can read?



Hi el sid again

Here are some links in dutch.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Insulinde

http://www.defensie.nl/nimh/geschiedenis/canons/korps_commandotroepen/traditie/eerstecommandos/trad01b_korps_insulinde

http://www.go2war2.nl/artikel/545

Also had we in the past a discussion about it and you had add Korps Insulinde in RHS for witp


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 273
RE: RHS Design Theory: Urban Hex Definitions and Updat... - 5/18/2013 5:20:15 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
It was such an easy thing to say - go through and define all the hexes which are Urban Light or Urban heavy? But the process was time consuming. For one thing, to use the RHS definitions, I needed to know the population of each city - at the end of 1941. Easy to say, not so easy to figure out.

Nevertheless, the Urban Hex Definition List is completely completed. This permits me to issue "final" versions of the pwhexe files which have city defenses behaving properly. At the same time, I shall fix the Clark & Subic hex so it is clear terrain - I will fix a problem with accessing a minor Dutch port - and I will add Banda - a curiously omitted "spice island" - the original one which long had a monopoly on the trade.

Before describing the 5.24 update - which follows - I will describe how I think the attached document ought to be used. RHS has introduced a defined criteria for what constitutes an Urban hex? This list defines the hexes - in slot order. [Note, however, it is an Excel spreadsheet - so it can sort by name or any other column you wish] For each such hex it lists Axis and Allied Victory Points as well as Axis and Allied Garrison Requirements. [There are a small number of exceptions to the latter in India: places that were not garrisoned for political reasons that only make sense in terms of Indian politics of the period. Nevertheless, these few places were self ruling and not going to contest whoever had the larger Raj, or on what terms?] Most of all, it defines if a hex is Urban Light or Urban Heavy? The list is intended as a playing aid. There is no in game way for a player to know how a hex is coded with respect to terrain. This allows one to understand where the defense will be aided by the city? It also explains the victory point value of the city for both sides. These should be considerations when contemplating wether to defend (or attack) an urban hex?

5.24 is substantially merely the location files reviewed for locations to insure the population, victory points and garrisons are in fact as listed on the attached list? That process caused a surprising number of eratta related to be locations to be discovered and corrected. Much of that was due to differences in time between when the location was created and present standards. Other things were simple data entry errors. But a wide variety of other things were also found.

Most of the other changes are related to Chinese artillery. Two new types were added - more or less the standard German 105 and 155 Howitzers. A Forum member provided their names, numbers and units assigned information - good enough for me to track down the specific range, shell weight, rate of fire, and other data needed to implement this. As from now, medium artillery other than in the four artillery brigades of the NRA (National Revolutionary Army = ROC) is in independent artillery regiments under player control. This required adding two devices - and correcting the upgrade reference of the existing Chinese artillery devices at the same time. So 5.24 includes device files as well as location files.

I found a CAF aircraft had the wrong upgrade. So I reviewed all aircraft upgrades, and found about 5 other CAF types that could be better. And no others - which is good. So 5.24 includes aircraft files as well as location files.

Finally, every pwhexe file needs to be modified to include all these urban hexes. The first one will be included in the update. Others will follow, mostly tomorrow and the next day, as 5.241, 5.242, etc.

At the same time, Mifune is working on a new air art filmstrip. That may mean we change some aircraft art pointers. So I plan for 5.25 to be the update that includes that.

After that I will work on making Scenario 106 (Downfall) work for 1945. And help Mifune with Scenario 99 and perhaps his May 42 Scenario as well.

After than we will take a look at RHS/AE Level II - using the "extended map" system - possibly including a mini map as well if that works as expected.

5.24 will compile within the hour.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 274
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.23 update, AVG, LCU, etx - 5/18/2013 5:21:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I remember the Korps Insulinde now you mention it. That probably means we have it now - I used that OB - with additional materials - in the main. Will check. Thank you.


Hmmm - Good think a German reader can make some sense out of Dutch! I wasn't expecting a non-English reference. Spec ops, I see. The KNIL seems to have been somewhat ahead of its time.

I interpret the listing as officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted -
otherwise as officers, senior NCOs, corporals and enlisted. Rather detailed either way - but can you confirm which?

Based out of Columbo, this is a CW special unit, and more or less is similar to a commando company.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/18/2013 5:26:17 AM >

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 275
RE: RHS Design Theory: Urban Areas defined and 5.24 update - 5/18/2013 5:46:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Slot Name Map X Map Y Manpower Code Pwhexe Axis VP Allied VP Axis Allied


225 Fukuoka 103 57 6 UL 15 150 30 60
228 Hiroshima & Kure 106 58 4 UL 10 100 100 200
231 Kobe 108 59 16 UH 30 300 100 200
236 Gumma Preficture 113 59 6 UL 10 100 20 40
242 Nagasaki & Sasebo 102 58 5 UL 10 100 40 80
243 Nagoya 111 60 22 UH 20 200 40 80
246 Osaka & Kyoto 109 59 68 UH 30 300 80 160
247 Sapporo 120 51 4 UL 10 100 20 40
252 Tokyo 114 60 123 UH 30 300 100 200
254 Ise & Tsu 110 60 5 UL 10 100 10 20
257 Yokohama & Yokosuka 113 61 16 UH 30 300 80 160
312 Keijo 103 50 7 UL 15 45 30 30 Special Case: Capital
329 Taipei 87 63 5 UL 15 75 30 30 Special Case: Capital
330 Takao 84 65 6 UL 15 75 30 30
336 Changchun 106 41 4 UL 15 75 30 30 Special Case: Capital
344 Harbin 109 39 4 UL 10 50 20 20
353 Mukden 104 42 11 UH 20 100 40 40
362 Dairen 100 44 6 UL 10 50 20 20
369 Canton 77 59 10 UH 20 60 40 40
371 Chefoo 98 46 12 UH 20 60 40 40
373 Foochow 86 60 6 UL 10 30 20 20
376 Hankow/Wuhan 85 50 6 UL 15 15 30 30
379 Kaifeng 89 44 9 UL 10 30 20 20
387 Nanchang 85 54 9 UL 10 10 20 20
388 Nanking 91 52 10 UH 20 60 40 40
390 Ningpo 92 56 7 UL 10 30 20 20
391 Paoting 94 40 4 UL 10 30 20 20
392 Peiping 95 39 36 UH 30 90 80 80 Special Case: Capital
393 Shanghai 92 55 62 UH 30 90 80 80 Special Case due to Location
397 Suchow 91 47 21 UH 20 60 40 40
402 Tientsin 95 41 26 UH 20 60 40 40
403 Tsinan 93 44 18 UH 20 60 40 40
405 Tsingtao 95 47 24 UH 20 60 40 40
407 Wuchang/Wulan 84 51 5 UL 15 15 30 30
411 Hanyang/Wuhan 84 50 5 UL 15 15 30 30
423 Hanoi 68 56 13 UH 20 20 40 40
435 Saigon 60 71 13 UH 20 20 40 40
443 Bangkok 56 62 10 UH 20 20 40 40
506 Los Angeles 225 76 30 + 7 UH 300 30 160 80
513 Portland 213 56 8 + 6 UH 200 20 80 40 Special Case: UH due to density.
518 San Diego 227 78 4 + 1 UH 150 15 60 30 Special Case: UH due to density.
519 San Francisco 218 70 6 + 2 UH 150 15 60 30 Special Case: UH due to density.
524 Seattle 212 52 4 + 1 UH 150 15 60 30 Special Case: UH due to density.
527 Tacoma & Renton 211 53 2 + 1 UL 30 3 20 10
584 Pearl Harbor 180 107 3 + 1 TM 75 15 30 30 Special Case due to Loc; Terrain = Mountain Jungle
631 Manila 79 77 10 UH 30 30 120 60 Special Case: Capital
642 Davao 79 91 5 UL 10 10 20 10
706 Rangoon 54 53 16 UH 30 30 30 60 Special Case: Capital
715 Georgetown 49 74 6 UL 10 10 20 20
716 Johore Bahru 50 83 5 UL 10 10 20 20
718 Kuala Lumpur 49 79 5 UL 10 10 20 20
722 Singapore 50 84 10 UH 30 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
810 Hong Kong 77 61 16 UH 60 20 40 40
822 Agra 50 19 5 UL 50 10 10 20
824 Ahmedabad 41 18 9 UL 50 10 10 20
829 Asanol 53 34 4 UL 15 3 10 60
830 Bagalore 32 37 17 UH 100 20 20 40
836 Bikaner 49 13 5 UL 50 10 0 0 No garrison from 1887
837 Bombay 36 24 19 UH 150 30 40 80
838 Calcutta 52 37 10 UH 150 30 30 20
840 Cawnpore 51 23 6 UL 50 10 10 20
841 Chittagong 55 41 5 UL 50 10 10 20
847 Dacca 56 38 9 UL 50 10 10 20
848 New Dehli 52 17 10 UH 150 30 30 60 Special Case: Capital
855 Howrah 52 36 9 UL 50 10 0 0 No garrison from 1760
852 Hyderabad AP 39 42 14 UH 100 20 20 40
857 Hyderabad Sind 42 10 7 UL 100 10 5 10
860 Jaipur 48 17 9 UL 50 10 0 0 Not garrisoned after 1876
865 Karachi 40 8 47 UH 300 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
867 Lahore 55 10 25 UH 100 20 10 20
869 Lucknow 52 23 16 UH 100 20 10 20
870 Ludhaina 55 12 7 UL 50 10 0 0 Not garrisoned after 1854
871 Madras 35 40 15 UH 100 20 20 40
874 Meerut 53 18 8 UL 50 10 5 10
876 Multan 50 9 12 UH 50 10 10 20
879 Patna 54 20 4 UL 10 2 10 40
878 Nagpur 44 28 5 UL 50 10 5 10
880 Poona 36 26 6 UL 50 10 5 10
883 Rawalpindi 58 6 9 UL 100 10 10 20
891 Trichinopoly 31 41 21 UH 100 20 10 20
892 Vitagapatnam 42 37 4 UL 50 10 5 10
893 Peshawar 58 5 7 UL 150 15 15 15
905 Adelaide 75 163 4 + 2 UL 150 15 30 15
913 Brisbane 96 160 4 UL 150 15 30 15
942 Melbourne 82 170 13 UH 300 30 160 80
947 Perth 49 147 5 UL 150 15 30 15
955 Sydney 90 167 16 UH 300 30 160 80
1033 Auckland 115 184 5 UL 150 15 30 15
1045 Wellington 112 191 5 UL 150 15 30 15
1068 Calgary 214 40 4 UL 150 15 60 30
1077 Vancouver 209 49 4 + 2 UL 150 15 60 30
1086 Changsha 82 52 11 UH 30 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
1088 Chengchow 88 44 15 UH 30 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
1089 Chengtu 75 41 22 UH 90 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
1091 Chunking 76 45 100 UH 90 30 80 80 Special Case Capital
1093 Hengyang 80 53 12 UH 20 20 40 40
1094 Loyang 87 43 12 UH 20 20 40 40
1095 Hwaiyin 92 50 6 UL 10 10 20 20
1099 Kukong 79 57 6 UL 10 10 20 20
1101 Kunming 69 48 11 UH 300 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
1102 Kweilin 76 54 9 UL 10 10 20 20
1104 Kweiyang 74 49 6 UL 45 15 30 30
1105 Lanchow 81 34 7 UL 15 15 30 30
1106 Liuchow 74 55 9 UL 10 10 20 20
1108 Nanning 72 55 13 UH 30 30 60 60 Special Case due to Location
1109 Nanyang 85 45 17 UH 20 20 40 40
1111 Pakhoi 72 58 6 UL 10 10 20 20
1114 Pengpu 90 50 9 UL 10 10 20 20
1115 Nanping 86 57 4 UL 10 10 20 20
1116 Shaoyang 80 52 14 UH 20 20 40 40
1117 Sian 83 41 16 UH 60 20 40 40
1118 Siangtan 81 52 6 UL 10 10 20 20
1121 Tsiaotso 88 52 9 UL 10 10 20 20
1124 Dihua 79 11 4 UL 30 10 10 10
1126 Wenchow 89 58 12 UH 20 20 40 40
1127 Wuchow 76 57 9 UL 10 10 20 20
1129 Yenan 88 37 8 UL 30 10 20 20
1134 Djambi 48 88 6 UL 10 10 20 20
1137 Medan 46 76 8 UL 10 10 20 20
1140 Palembang 48 91 5 UL 15 15 30 30
1150 Bandoeng 50 100 4 UL 10 10 20 20
1152 Batavia 49 98 20 UH 20 20 40 40
1059 Semarang 53 102 4 UL 10 10 20 20
1160 Soerabaja 56 104 9 UL 15 15 30 30
1183 Makassar 65 106 5 UL 10 10 20 20
1205 Koeping 116 3 4 UL 10 10 20 20
1375 Krasnyoarsk 101 6 5 UL 150 15 60 30
1392 Ulan Bator 96 23 4 UL 30 10 40 20
1394 Vladivostok 112 46 5 UL 45 15 100 50
1399 Alma Ata 80 3 6 UL 0 10 0 10
1408 Paotow 92 34 4 UL 30 10 20 20
1440 Pingsiang 82 54 5 UL 10 10 20 20
1606 Sui Ning 77 43 9 UL 30 10 20 20
1686 Hofei 88 50 9 UL 10 10 20 20
1728 Baoji 82 39 4 UL 30 10 20 20

Garrison Scale: Base Value for Pre War Owning Nation

10+ Population Centers (700+ Industry) 40 "Industry" = HI + LI + Shipyards + Refineries
10+ Population Centers (Normal Case) 40
4-9 Population Centers 30 When a location is of unusual economic significance
4-9 Population Centers 20
0-3 Population Centers 15 When a location is of unusual economic significance
0-3 Population Centers (Special Case) 10 When politically vital to defend location
0-3 Population Centers (Normal Case) 0
Level 10 Port in Hex 20
Level 9 Port in Hex 10
Level 10 Airfield in Hex 20


< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/18/2013 5:47:46 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 276
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.23 update, AVG, LCU, etx - 5/18/2013 9:38:27 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 665
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I remember the Korps Insulinde now you mention it. That probably means we have it now - I used that OB - with additional materials - in the main. Will check. Thank you.


Hmmm - Good think a German reader can make some sense out of Dutch! I wasn't expecting a non-English reference. Spec ops, I see. The KNIL seems to have been somewhat ahead of its time.

I interpret the listing as officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted -
otherwise as officers, senior NCOs, corporals and enlisted. Rather detailed either way - but can you confirm which?

Based out of Columbo, this is a CW special unit, and more or less is similar to a commando company.


It's Officers, NCOs, Corporals and Enlisted

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 277
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/18/2013 11:31:43 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1502
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

I would actually bet on German 15 cm sFH 18 Howitzers. China bought few dozens, when they were still cooperating with Germany.
Have you any information about those "Heavy Guns", when war broke? I have added them to pool, because I have not found any info.




Found a post on the Axis History Forum

The Chinese used the German 10.5cm 1.FH18 and 15cm sFH 18.

There were a total of 44 sFH 18 (48 ordered, 44 received), equipped by the independent 10th and 14th artillery regiments. They played an important part in the victory of the 3rd Battle of Changsha.

The I.FH18 equipped the independent 10th and 13th artillery regiments. It is assumed there were about 48 pieces imported.

Source: Army Weapons during the War of Resistance: Field Artillery


See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=102362

There are more threads on the same topic, and a wealth of other interesting info on this forum.

Thanks, nice post. I was actually using AXISHISTORY quite a lot, but I always thought it deals only with European theatre

I made more research, and it seems the problem with China is that there was like actual TWO Chinese pools:
One for forces in Burma (seems to be British 18pdr, and those US WWI era 155mm)
Second for mainland China

And they were not interchangeable. I am guessing MAO forces would even have its own (read - no access to anything, until Russia enters war).
I see, that I correctly guessed 75mm as Pack Howitzer, but heavy guns were delivered much later, and only to Burma.


I am wondering if all those pre-war 105mm guns were even used in front units. As there was only few of each type, and probably not much ammunition (and parts). Maybe they were used as permanent defensive emplacements in important (and no-likely targetted) areas?


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Betty could not carry torpedoes - but I do agree the loadout seems incorrect. The standard bomb of a Betty was the 100 kg - it could carry 14. I am not sure if it could carry a 250 kg bomb at all - need to check. If it could, then the loadout may be correct for a large armored ship target.

I am not sure about those numbers. Does Navy used 100kg bombs? They even had their own 250kg, to not use Army model.
And it seems a lot. All desriptions are pretty generic, but all of them shows that first BETTY model could not carry 1000kg (but later, with better engines could)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 278
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/20/2013 10:04:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

The NRA (National Revolutionary Army) tended to hold artillery in reserve, but did commit it to battle. They could make ammunition if they needed to. The artillery was also effective if used. See in particular the Third
Battle of Changsha, early in 1942, where the "heavy guns" were committed, and the battle was won decisively.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/20/2013 10:06:37 AM >

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 279
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde - 5/20/2013 10:21:02 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The Korps Insulinde was a special operations force of Dutch troops sent to Ceylon from the UK.
It had two operational components: No 1 troop (completing training sometime in 1942), which had
154 men (17 officers, 37 senior NCOs, 28 corporals, 70 privates) conducted commando style landings
on Sumatra in 1943 and 1944; No 2 troop (also 154 men), conducted airborne or naval landings from
May, 1945. While the first troop arrived at Columbo on 7 March, 1942, it had not yet been trained
as commandos. The two units were considered part of the Princess Irine Brigade.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/20/2013 10:22:29 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 280
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde & Update 5.241 ... - 5/24/2013 2:45:15 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
5.241 mostly involves updating really small things

pwhex eratta

a strange kind of ship eratta - only affecting even numbered scenarios -
eliminating ships from landlocked river systems and from the most Northerly
of the riverine systems (those that only are open to the Arctic Ocean in
the Fall season). No game but RHS has these vessels, and they are the
most marginal even in RHS. Usable as land locked vessels only in Monsoon,
and as ocean access only in Fall. Land locked vessels confuse AI, and 102
and 106 are AI oriented. 104 isn't, but is still simplified to the same degree (having
active Russians, that makes it not suitable for AI either) but some players may like no training air units, and elimination of small sail ships, no RR units, and other features of "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios.

there is also a very small amount of new material

a few, mostly US Army, sailing ships - including one new class - and a couple of PG - one sold by the Army to the Chinese before WWII - and another operated by USCG - similar to USS Lanokai (which is USN and already present)

the addition of the Korps Insulinde - two Dutch SOF units - one in 1942, the other in 1945 -

three new locations in Alaska - one on the Yukon River, two on its tributary the Tanana River - all very near to Fairbanks - to facilitate airfield construction or logistic flows - these meant to enhance the otherwise fully developed Alaska/Canada defensive set of units and locations. We already have the wartime mobilization of Canadian and US airlines - similar to the Japanese airline system - which was almost entirely used to feed the war effort NW of the NW USA. Together with massive infrastructure projects, the addition of local defense forces in Alaska and Canada, the area has substantial development over the starting point of stock: It is almost as badly defended as the South Pacific, and much worse than the SRA is, but there were some capabilities and these are now substantially modeled. A similar, and larger, effort was made in Siberia - which is now developed all the way to the map edge - although wether this is actually needed is hard to say. Japan never hoped to advance much past Chita - but if it did - the Russians should have a series of fall back positions and supporting airfields - such that there should not be any end to them until pushed off the map.

The real purpose of 5.241, aside from improving the details of pwhexe files, is to make the AI scenarios run better, and to get rid of all sorts of minor eratta.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 281
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde - 5/24/2013 2:52:25 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 665
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Korps Insulinde was a special operations force of Dutch troops sent to Ceylon from the UK.
It had two operational components: No 1 troop (completing training sometime in 1942), which had
154 men (17 officers, 37 senior NCOs, 28 corporals, 70 privates) conducted commando style landings
on Sumatra in 1943 and 1944; No 2 troop (also 154 men), conducted airborne or naval landings from
May, 1945. While the first troop arrived at Columbo on 7 March, 1942, it had not yet been trained
as commandos. The two units were considered part of the Princess Irine Brigade.


The No 2 Troop is no part of the Irene Brigade. But 2nd Dutch Troop 10th Inter Allied Commando, who after VE Day is send to the NEI.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 282
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde - 5/25/2013 6:00:00 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3268
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Pardon my ignorance, but does RHS mod have AI files for both sides of the conflict? Can human opponent play the whole campaign against Jap/Allied AI?

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 283
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/25/2013 7:59:19 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1502
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

I think I have seen report from initial Malaya invasion, which mentions use of 250kg bombs, but I have also seen pamphlet from 1942, which claims NELL bombload as 2x1000lb+2x500lb, so who knows? There is also mention of probably 800kg bomb, which do not penetrated ship.

Anyway, it seems you have few more bombload errors. It may be because you use filters with/without beta, because they works differently in official, and beta:
quote:

9 x B5N2 Kate TB launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb, 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val DB releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb

As you can see, your KATE carries BOTH bomb, and torpedo, and VAL carries 250 lb bomb, instead 250 kg, however it may be intentional. I was also going to give VAL 3 bombs on normal range, as half of sources claim it carried that, but I was unable to find SINGLE PHOTOGRAPHY with 3 bombs.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 284
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde - 5/26/2013 7:24:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Pardon my ignorance, but does RHS mod have AI files for both sides of the conflict? Can human opponent play the whole campaign against Jap/Allied AI?



First of all, I don't actually believe in AI. It is a misnomer - there is no actual AI at all in the formal meaning of the term. There is, however, a script, which is moderately functional for Japan and hopeless for the Allies. In spite of its simplicity, it does somewhat attempt to do many things Japan attempted - and some things (like circumnavigate Australia) it never even considered doing!

Second, like it or not, AI is necessary for automated testing purposes. It is the only way to get enough data to detect some problems. To the extent it is useful for this, there is no need to modify the existing scripts. They remain as functional (and dysfunctional) as they ever were.

Third, like it or not, some players feel unable to play vs human opponents, which is vastly better in terms of quality of play. Some do that because they don't feel reliable enough to commit to a regular schedule, and AI does not care how long it is between turns. Some perhaps love to beat up the enemy, and are fine with a truly incompetent enemy. Regardless of motive, there is a "market" for games vs AI.

Both because I have a background in test, and because I believe in freedom for players, RHS has always featured an "AI Oriented" scenario - both with AE and in its former incarnation for WITP. As well, in AE, there is a scenario in development called Downfall, which is also intended for play vs AI if no opponent is needed. However, at the present time, "AI Oriented" means mainly that RHS features which confuse the code, which require human players, are simply not present. There are no RHS scripts. I don't know how to write one and expect it to take years to write one for even one scenario. I might do that - years from now.

An example of RHS features omitted from AIO and the future Downfall Scenario is active Russians. Only humans grasp what it means to be active but not at war?

Another example is RR artillery. Only humans grasp that it is supposed to move on a rail line.

Inland waterways also have no ships - as in stock and almost all other mods. They confuse AI.




(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 285
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/26/2013 7:25:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

I think I have seen report from initial Malaya invasion, which mentions use of 250kg bombs, but I have also seen pamphlet from 1942, which claims NELL bombload as 2x1000lb+2x500lb, so who knows? There is also mention of probably 800kg bomb, which do not penetrated ship.

Anyway, it seems you have few more bombload errors. It may be because you use filters with/without beta, because they works differently in official, and beta:
quote:

9 x B5N2 Kate TB launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb, 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val DB releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb

As you can see, your KATE carries BOTH bomb, and torpedo, and VAL carries 250 lb bomb, instead 250 kg, however it may be intentional. I was also going to give VAL 3 bombs on normal range, as half of sources claim it carried that, but I was unable to find SINGLE PHOTOGRAPHY with 3 bombs.



Why would there be a difference between stock and beta?

Regardless of why, what is the difference?

Val carried only 1 x 250 kg bomb to extended range
but 1 x 250 kg plus 2 x 60 kg bombs to normal range.
It could not carry three 250 pound bombs, but could carry
three 60 kg (110 pound) bombs I suppose.

Kate is supposed to carry a bomb for some missions and a torpedo for other missions.
The filter rules are supposed to determine which weapon for which mission.
Does it not work?

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 286
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/26/2013 8:19:09 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Yes, it works. But this is a game and not a pre-teen kiddle OOB testerone exercise.

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 287
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/26/2013 8:23:46 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1502
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Later in the war the Navy and Army got together - and even flew the same bomber. But in general,
the Navy uses 30kg, 60 kg bombs and 250 kg bombs, and in a few cases 500 and 800 kg bombs. The Army
tends to use 50 kg and 100 kg - and also 15 kg bombs. Eventually the move up to 250 kg bombs too - so
the big bombers standard load is with them. But the start of game bombers tend to carry 100 kg to normal
range and 50 kg to extended range, and have no ability to carry 250 kg bombs at all apparently.

I think I have seen report from initial Malaya invasion, which mentions use of 250kg bombs, but I have also seen pamphlet from 1942, which claims NELL bombload as 2x1000lb+2x500lb, so who knows? There is also mention of probably 800kg bomb, which do not penetrated ship.

Anyway, it seems you have few more bombload errors. It may be because you use filters with/without beta, because they works differently in official, and beta:
quote:

9 x B5N2 Kate TB launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb, 1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
5 x D3A1 Val DB releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb

As you can see, your KATE carries BOTH bomb, and torpedo, and VAL carries 250 lb bomb, instead 250 kg, however it may be intentional. I was also going to give VAL 3 bombs on normal range, as half of sources claim it carried that, but I was unable to find SINGLE PHOTOGRAPHY with 3 bombs.



Why would there be a difference between stock and beta?

Regardless of why, what is the difference?

MODding enhancements.
First - there is extra bit used (or even two IIRC for city attack). There is change in code for checking alternative for torpedo in port attack (previously it was always hardcoded exchange, but you can use torpedoes on port attack, so why not different bombload for it?).
AND now aerial weapons upgrades works. I have left few such fields in my old MOD versions, because they had no function then, but with BETA this can cause strange results.

quote:

Val carried only 1 x 250 kg bomb to extended range
but 1 x 250 kg plus 2 x 60 kg bombs to normal range.
It could not carry three 250 pound bombs, but could carry
three 60 kg (110 pound) bombs I suppose.

I thinlk it could carry only 2x60kg on extended range, but who knows about second model? Engine was quite stronger.
As I said - half of the sources claims it carried only 1x250kg bomb on normal range, but other half shows 2x60kg+1x250kg. And I have not seen any picture of this second configuration. Do you have any - preferably in flight?

quote:

Kate is supposed to carry a bomb for some missions and a torpedo for other missions.
The filter rules are supposed to determine which weapon for which mission.
Does it not work?

This text I pasted is directly from your AAR (but you are using probably older MOD version there). I am just saying, that your KATE in that version seems to carry both torpedo AND bomb in the same attack. Game will show only weapon currently used, so you will see whole unit using ONLY torpedoes, or ONLY 800kg bombs. If there are TWO weapons listed, both were used in this attack by ALL planes in unit.

And this VAL lb can be a typo for kg, but you better check device if it have correct statistics.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 288
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/27/2013 5:40:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Yes, it works. But this is a game and not a pre-teen kiddle OOB testerone exercise.


I am sorry. These two sentences are unclear to me. What works? What is a kiddle?
And what has pre-teen or testerone got to do with anything?

It does appear the filters work with beta. RHS always uses the latest release of code,
and the official code eventually catches up with beta. I suppose the problem posted above
may be using RHS files with non-beta official releases which did not yet activate the filters.
Perhaps that is what you were trying to say, in too cryptic a form to be understood?

If you wish to be unhappy with my writing style, don't read what I post. If you wish to comment,
always be constructive, complete, as clear as possible, and honor the forum rules - which means
be civil. This is indeed a game. There is no place in it for anything impolite or uncivil.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 289
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/27/2013 5:50:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The Val had different listings on different lines for different targets.
It had the 250 kg AP for naval/port attacks
but the 250 lb HE for land attacks, which was an error:
it should have read 250 kg HE for land attacks.

I am not following your discussion of different weapons on different lines.
Surely the point of the filters is that we can use torpedoes, AP, HE,
or in my case, other weapons (mainly ASW types) on a given target.
If we cannot list weapons for only certain targets, what is function of a filter.
Also, I am not showing a problem with tests using beta code and filters.
Looks like they drop torpedoes on naval targets unless there are no torpedoes
available for example. But thanks for pointing out possible issues. I will
continue to look at this until I fully understand it.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 290
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde & Update 5.241 ... - 5/28/2013 5:55:59 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 665
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

5.241 mostly involves updating really small things

pwhex eratta

a strange kind of ship eratta - only affecting even numbered scenarios -
eliminating ships from landlocked river systems and from the most Northerly
of the riverine systems (those that only are open to the Arctic Ocean in
the Fall season). No game but RHS has these vessels, and they are the
most marginal even in RHS. Usable as land locked vessels only in Monsoon,
and as ocean access only in Fall. Land locked vessels confuse AI, and 102
and 106 are AI oriented. 104 isn't, but is still simplified to the same degree (having
active Russians, that makes it not suitable for AI either) but some players may like no training air units, and elimination of small sail ships, no RR units, and other features of "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios.

there is also a very small amount of new material

a few, mostly US Army, sailing ships - including one new class - and a couple of PG - one sold by the Army to the Chinese before WWII - and another operated by USCG - similar to USS Lanokai (which is USN and already present)

the addition of the Korps Insulinde - two Dutch SOF units - one in 1942, the other in 1945 -

three new locations in Alaska - one on the Yukon River, two on its tributary the Tanana River - all very near to Fairbanks - to facilitate airfield construction or logistic flows - these meant to enhance the otherwise fully developed Alaska/Canada defensive set of units and locations. We already have the wartime mobilization of Canadian and US airlines - similar to the Japanese airline system - which was almost entirely used to feed the war effort NW of the NW USA. Together with massive infrastructure projects, the addition of local defense forces in Alaska and Canada, the area has substantial development over the starting point of stock: It is almost as badly defended as the South Pacific, and much worse than the SRA is, but there were some capabilities and these are now substantially modeled. A similar, and larger, effort was made in Siberia - which is now developed all the way to the map edge - although wether this is actually needed is hard to say. Japan never hoped to advance much past Chita - but if it did - the Russians should have a series of fall back positions and supporting airfields - such that there should not be any end to them until pushed off the map.

The real purpose of 5.241, aside from improving the details of pwhexe files, is to make the AI scenarios run better, and to get rid of all sorts of minor eratta.




Hi el cid again

Where can I download the scenario and art files?

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 291
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/29/2013 11:54:28 AM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



If you wish to be unhappy with my writing style, don't read what I post. If you wish to comment,
always be constructive,
complete, as clear as possible, and honor the forum rules - which means
be civil. This is indeed a game. There is no place in it for anything impolite or uncivil.


You should take heed of your own advice. You are rarely constructive (and rarely correct) when you toss out criticism of the game and the development choices.


_____________________________

[image]Freedom's back in style[/image]

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 292
RE: RHS Design Theory: China, Mines and 5.25 Update Plan - 6/4/2013 8:12:44 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
One of our testers is on the road until Wednesday. Tests will resume probably on Thursday or so.

I am using the time to integrate extensive official information from what turns out to be official ROC history - The History of the Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945 turns out to be a one volume summary of the 100 volume version of the same name - and the formal name of the short version isn't used in translation! ["A Concise History of the Sino-Japanese War" was supposed to be its name]

This material is extensive and includes economic, technical, unit and situation map data.

Perhaps the most significant finding is that Sinkiang (and the Northern part of Kansu) provinces should start the game as Soviet controlled. Still classified as Chinese territory, but under the Soviet Far East Command. There is only one Soviet military unit in the area - an NKVD regiment at Hami - which guards vital enterprises in tin, tungsten and petroleum (and which for that reason should be modeled in the location data - but were not). The "Chinese troops" in Sinkiang are actually Chinese - but loyal to the USSR - until late in the war. These units are brigades with simple numbers - e.g. Sinkiang First Brigade, Sinkiang Second Brigade - not the numbers listed in stock OBs. Some units previously shown in the area were removed - e.g. the 9th Separate Brigade went to defend Nanking years before the game began - and never returned to Sinkiang. I also learned that these brigades have only two "regiments" (battalions) - possibly related to why Japanese cavalry "brigades" have two battalions.

Another interesting finding is that there was a ROC First Separate Marine Brigade under ROC Navy command. Unlike the brigades described above, this one has four 'regiments' (battalions). The few non-Chinese references that mention them maintain they were just regular soldiers. That isn't quite right - they were riverine marines.

The biggest naval finding is that the ROC Navy was very successful with mine warfare. The NRA (ROC Army's official name is National Revolutionary Army) also had specialized coast defense units - composed mainly of combinations of 3 inch naval guns and similar caliber (actually 77 mm) Army howitzers. A "regiment" generally had around 5 batteries in the sense we use the term - but often these were broken into what were called 2 "batteries" each of 2 or 3 different firing units - a modern Chinese term that does not translate well (sections perhaps?). Typically each firing unit would have at least 3 guns. A typical regiment would then have about 15 mixed weapons, all substantially 3 inch caliber, but not identical in range or shell weight or even shell type (naval guns have AP, but river craft often are better engaged with HE anyway). The regiment also would have minimal security troops for each battery - perhaps a MMG and a platoon of infantry - as well as a proper fixed optical fire control position for each - networked by telephone. These regiments were in most cases not tested (the First was defeated at the battle of Ichang in 1940) - because ROCN mine warfare was so successful the enemy never proceeded far enough upriver to engage them.

I also learned the details of a typical Chinese river steamer. Two such, being converted to minelayers, were captured at Hong Kong and given to Japanese forces. Their details permit a general definition of the type. The AKL form is pretty efficient as a transport. It will be allowed to convert to gunboat or to coastal minelayer forms. I have selected a Russian WWI vintage river mine (formally called R no less) for general use by the ROC Navy.

The mine review was comprehensive. Both Allied and Japanese players have noted it is excessively hard to rearm minelayers in many cases. While SOME of those cases are justified - in others there were thousands of mines available. So ALL mine inventories and production rates have been reviewed, and several new ones added. I found stock data also failed to properly relate the influence mine chances of a hit relative to other influence or to contact mines - and introduced a uniform rating system (instead of just accepting the data as was). IF you use the attached device files, the mine reload situation will be even better than it was with the previous releases, which substantially addressed this issue.

I have twice in the last week issued revised device files, reflecting mainly

1) changes in names, for clarity and/or flavor

2) additional mines or Chinese weapons (today a 20 mm AAA gun)

3) corrections to certain technical eratta in the data set

Both times I thought it was final - but I found cause for more changes last night - so the new "final" device file for 5.25 are attached here. Some of these changes will impact ongoing games - and that is better than not having them.

Another change was in the nature of ROC AAA. There were very few AAA guns in China - and only seven AAA regiments (battalions). There were so few heavy AAA guns that each "regiment" got only one battery (probably excepting the first, at the capital, which probably controlled the one extra battery). But each regiment also got a battery of medium AAA, and two more of light AAA guns (20 mm and .50 cals). On top of that, NRA had a very efficient .303 or 7.92 mm AAA gun, and each regiment had perhaps ten of these - possibly divided up with two per battery of larger guns rather than operating as an independent battery. This understanding caused me to create more AAA regiments (up from three) - but to strip or reduce AAA in other units. Thus ROCAF units generally have no heavy or medium AAA at all at start (there are exceptions, for example at Chunking) - and eventually get only tiny amounts of these weapons. Some start with 1 to 4 AAMG - and all eventually end up with numbers of both .50 cal and .30 cal class weapons - as they become available. Similarly, I have had to reinterpret the AAA unit organic to Army Group "Headquarters" units - which have organic infantry, cavalry and other units - not like most game HQ. These are now single companies entirely of AAMG - not battalions. And War Area HQ lost their 40 mm in favor of .50 cal AAMG - the .40 mm became popular after the war and one always finds them to this day outside a ROC HQ building - often in singles and twins. But in WWII the "standard" ROC AA gun was the .50.

In a similar way, China had astonishingly few engineers. There were three regiments - again a term meaning battalion. So now we have two flavors -- engineer regiments and construction regiments (some of the latter are also included in Army Group HQ units). This has some impacts on combat. RHS pioneers will build - but cannot reduce fortifications as well as "proper" engineers can (the anti-armor rating is 7 mm - the penetration power of a .30 cal rifle or MG. Proper engineers are rated at 25 mm - based on stock - and assumed to represent explosives. Pioneers build with hand tools - and don't have explosives.)

I still expect to issue the update "tomorrow" - which I have said for three days or so. But this time I mean it I think. I am running out of material.

We have updated locations in Northern China (Sinkiang) not only to be under Soviet command (but ROC command for the downfall scenario - ROC takes it back in 1944) - but also with respect to what is where? Hami has some oil, for example, giving the NKVD what it was there to protect. The "Chinese" units in Sinikang are also under SOVIET command! But this can be changed by paying political points - and that is how we model when they change commands. The Allies - which have lots of reasons to spend pp - must invest them to convert these guys back. A location will revert to China command if a suitable unit is present in it (I think). It doesn't matter much - economics works for the allies in any case.

The arrival of Idaho, New Mexico and Mississippi will all now be at Panama on 20 January 1942 - instead of different dates and locations - because this is firm data.

The location files have most of the changes. Also ship files. But some additions occurred to leader (H) files, class files, and device files - the latter attached here. This is formally microupdate 5.243 - but these files should be part of 5.25 tomorrow. We also will update air groups - adding one.



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 293
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 6/4/2013 8:19:42 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Dear Sulu Sea:

Unfortunately, communication is subjective as well as objective. I hope it helps you to know that I always intend any criticism to be constructive. I understand the cost prohibition, not just in money but time, to do exhaustive research for such a vast data set. I also understand information theory says that it is never, ever possible to get it perfect. Most of all, I understand that only negative feedback can improve any system. It is not useful to read into a statement "this isn't correct" to be somehow derogatory. As for being "rarely correct" - I suppose that might also be subjective. Just because I read something different from what you think you know or even have read doesn't mean my information is wrong. But at least I will listen to CONSTRUCTIVE comments - offered WITHOUT insults - and fold them in where I can justify them. I estimate slightly more than half of RHS came from non-RHS team members suggestions - openly and privately. Because it is RHS policy - in the RHS manual of old in fact - to listen to information from anyone. We are not defensive about our data. Even if something isn't entirely appropriate for a strictly historical scenario, we may well use it in a variant scenario. All we ask is (a) be nice and (b) help us understand why you think your understanding is better than ours is (plural because we are a team, not a single person; it isn't a royal we).


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again



If you wish to be unhappy with my writing style, don't read what I post. If you wish to comment,
always be constructive,
complete, as clear as possible, and honor the forum rules - which means
be civil. This is indeed a game. There is no place in it for anything impolite or uncivil.


You should take heed of your own advice. You are rarely constructive (and rarely correct) when you toss out criticism of the game and the development choices.



(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 294
RE: RHS Design Theory: Korps Insulinde & Update 5.241 ... - 6/4/2013 8:22:47 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

5.241 mostly involves updating really small things

pwhex eratta

a strange kind of ship eratta - only affecting even numbered scenarios -
eliminating ships from landlocked river systems and from the most Northerly
of the riverine systems (those that only are open to the Arctic Ocean in
the Fall season). No game but RHS has these vessels, and they are the
most marginal even in RHS. Usable as land locked vessels only in Monsoon,
and as ocean access only in Fall. Land locked vessels confuse AI, and 102
and 106 are AI oriented. 104 isn't, but is still simplified to the same degree (having
active Russians, that makes it not suitable for AI either) but some players may like no training air units, and elimination of small sail ships, no RR units, and other features of "simplified" (even numbered) scenarios.

there is also a very small amount of new material

a few, mostly US Army, sailing ships - including one new class - and a couple of PG - one sold by the Army to the Chinese before WWII - and another operated by USCG - similar to USS Lanokai (which is USN and already present)

the addition of the Korps Insulinde - two Dutch SOF units - one in 1942, the other in 1945 -

three new locations in Alaska - one on the Yukon River, two on its tributary the Tanana River - all very near to Fairbanks - to facilitate airfield construction or logistic flows - these meant to enhance the otherwise fully developed Alaska/Canada defensive set of units and locations. We already have the wartime mobilization of Canadian and US airlines - similar to the Japanese airline system - which was almost entirely used to feed the war effort NW of the NW USA. Together with massive infrastructure projects, the addition of local defense forces in Alaska and Canada, the area has substantial development over the starting point of stock: It is almost as badly defended as the South Pacific, and much worse than the SRA is, but there were some capabilities and these are now substantially modeled. A similar, and larger, effort was made in Siberia - which is now developed all the way to the map edge - although wether this is actually needed is hard to say. Japan never hoped to advance much past Chita - but if it did - the Russians should have a series of fall back positions and supporting airfields - such that there should not be any end to them until pushed off the map.

The real purpose of 5.241, aside from improving the details of pwhexe files, is to make the AI scenarios run better, and to get rid of all sorts of minor eratta.




Hi el cid again

Where can I download the scenario and art files?



Anyone who wants scenario and art files may contact Mifune or myself. Mifune manages a download site, but it is generally not as up to date as what I can send out on any given day. The project is winding down (for Level 1),
but still changing daily with new data, or with reported eratta or issues. That is general information - I will contact you directly now.


(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 295
RE: RHS Design Theory: Bomb Filters and 5.251 Update Plan - 6/7/2013 4:50:08 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS: 5.251 Plan and Aircraft Loadout Codes


There were a couple of different issues involved in the problem of some attacks carried duplicated weapons. Although there appear to be code issues, the greater portion of these are my fault.

First, so many of the technical changes in the beta updates work so well, I trusted too much, and ignored Joe Wilkerson's Law - TEST, TEST, TEST. Don't trust until you build a box and see it work, if it is new.

Second, every last air unit using a changed aircraft needs to be updated - or the code never sees the right data at all. Sometimes I changed a plane but not every unit using it (there are after all thousands of slots times six scenarios). That led to inconsistent code execution of attacks masking other issues - and making them harder to understand.

Third, it appears that the new code has some limits. It DOES work, at least if you keep it simple. I tried, in many cases, to get a little too sophisticated - with three, four or even five different weapon codes for a single type. Code more or less expects to manage two per aircraft. You may have more than one line with the same code - so for example 250 HE plus 100 pound HE coded for land (40) and 250 AP and 100 SAP coded for sea (22) - no problem. But try to make it a torpedo, an alternate to the torpedo, big bombs for some land targets and little ones for airfields or troops - it gets mixed up.

Bottom line - I need to revise every aircraft with bomb codes. I need to revise every air unit using those aircraft in every scenario.

The aircraft will instantly update and backfit into existing games - but ONLY get used when you upgrade aircraft in an air unit. Of course, new games will always be right in respect to both aircraft and air groups.

For this reason, I will issue a 2.251 update - likely tomorrow - and any game about to start should wait for that. Test 9 will not start construction of the start turn until after that.

Meanwhile, we have had a few eratta reports and a couple of enhancements. Two Chinese gunboats - fine ones - of WWI construction (six were built but only 2 survived 1938) - have been added. If we get real lucky we will also fold in revised aircraft filmstrips of an updates sort - luck is required because Mifune is having hardware issues.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 296
RE: RHS Design Theory: The Felix (US Smart Bomb) - 6/12/2013 6:18:04 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS runs to the end of Monsoon 1946. It features late war aircraft, ships and weapons - including exotic weapons under development. Many of these were Axis, which had a lead in jet and rocket propelled aircraft, and in missiles. But SOME Allied weapons were developed - so were some aircraft but mostly they are not worth as much as the fine piston engine types of the period. We have the first practical USN SAM - the Taylos and Terrier systems had origins in WWII but took a decade to field - and still didn't work well for a decade after that (I served on a SAM ship in the 1960s). But to deal with kamakazes we did devise a simple, subsonic SAM - with radio control - that could work - so we have it. The first SSM was a copy of the V-1 - we have it too. And Bat was a practical ASM - we have that as well. But I didn't know about Felix- it is described here;

The VB-6 Felix was a precision guided munition developed by the United States during World War II. It was one of the precursors of modern anti-ship missiles.

Created by the National Defense Research Committee, Felix relied on infrared to detect and home on targets, in clear weather, especially ships at sea at night. It was this property which earned the weapon its name, after the ability of cats to see in the dark.

Felix was a 1000 pound (454 kg) general purpose (GP) bomb with an infrared seeker in the nose and octagonal guidance fins in the tail. Unlike other weapons, such as the German Fritz X, Felix was autonomous (what a later generation would call fire-and-forget), though there was a flare in the tail for tracking.

Successful trials led to Felix being put in production in 1945, but the Pacific War ended before it entered combat.
It will be part of update 5.26




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 297
RE: RHS Design Theory: Smart bombs, carriers and pwhex... - 6/14/2013 7:50:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
A) Turns out the US started smart weapon development BEFORE WWII - and at the same time Germany did. There were at least 13 different weapons - the last being a multi-sensor package for a winged 16,000 pound Tallboy - which gave the beaste a 11 km range and the ability to home on a target.

I have selected three early generations of these weapons and carriers for them -

the VB-1 Azon radio controlled bomb

the VB-3 Razon radio controlled bomb with slightly more sophisticated electronics

and the VB-6 Felix infra red homing bomb

all based on the standard 1000 pound bomb with attachments able to fit in the space of a 2000 pound bomb (requiring a special mounting rack, limiting number carried)

These were generally carried by B-24s, but the B-29 could also be fitted for them. Trained crews were limited - starting with ten.

These weapons all have 1945 operational dates in PTO (although VB-1 was operational in the fall of 1944 in ETO and so gets that in Scenario 105).

As well, certain naval aircraft fitted for Bat at normal range carry a Azon or Razon at extended range. Again, not many of these special aircraft are produced - but there are enough to keep at least one squadron operational per type no matter its losses.

These changes have delayed issuing of 5.26 - research and modeling take time.

Yesterday, similar data on Japan came in - so 5.27 will be a few days later - to fold it in. In general, there was even more cooperation with Germany than I understood - starting well before WWII. Some decisions not taken will be revised for Scenario 105.


B) I have found that there is a hex side pair error in Japan

between 103/58 NW and 102/57 SE

The pair is coded as Ocean but should be blocked.

This error permits to sail through land from Iki Island to Kurume Kyushu.

It is probably an error in every AE pwhexe.dat file of every kind - since it is inherited by RHS from stock, and presumably every other pwhex file also has the same coding.

C) There is a problem with all RHS winter files in the Winter areas of the map, in ports which have naval units in them (locked in place for the season). With a couple of mysterious exceptions, such ships are teleported out of the hex at the end of turn one, to the default location for their nation. This is because of the way code treats hexes with certain seasonal codes in Winter seasons. It is much more significant in odd numbered scenarios, because even numbered scenarios have no ships at all in the Northern most river systems (those which open on the Arctic Ocean, directly or indirectly). Still - even the even numbered files have some vessels at Fairbanks, Whitehorse, Magadan and other locations which are affected by this problem.

I can fix it. And will. But it is one reason why all winter files must be reissued.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/14/2013 7:57:44 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 298
RE: RHS Design Theory: Revised aircraft documentation - 6/15/2013 2:54:36 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
These documents affect USAAF and JNAF aircraft

Adding four kinds of B-24 and B-29 variants with smart bombs. [A few USN aircraft add smart bombs, but as alternates at extended range to carrying BAT at normal range, so no new types were added]. These carry three generations of Radio Controlled or Infra-Red guided bombs - limited here for anti-shipping use (although the R/C types were also used vs bridges, these are not possible targets in AE).

Changing the nature of G7M1 variants and (scenario 105 only) adding two more.

At long last, I have been able to sort out the three G7M1 designs - I did not even realize there were three! I had, in fact, detected elements from each design, and could not reconcile them!

I selected two to present in RHS.

For strictly historical scenarios, I selected the final Mitsubishi design, the one that was fully developed and ultimately rejected. This is a twin engine aircraft very similar to the He-177 in appearance, but smaller and using an 18 cylinder 2000 hp radial engine available in Japan. The long gestation of the design, and war experience, led to it being the most heavily armed for defense. The weight and drag of these weapons ultimately caused it to be rejection for production. At the same time, it had the least amount of offensive armament - an identical bomb/torpedo load as the Betty (although truly interior). Think of it as a faster, well armed, armored G4M with hardly any more range. Because it is the third design, I designate it G7M1c - although the c isn't official. There are three variants - bombs only (with AP or HE bombs), torpedo bomber (with AP at extended range and HE for non-naval targets - but not many - only large 250 kg bombs), and recon variant (with cameras, similar to the Nell G3M2 KAI).

For Japan enhanced scenarios, I selected the original Mitsubishi proposal for a four engine configuration. This was immediately rejected, partly because it was assumed (in 1941) that the G5N project would work out sooner. I worked it up with the same engine as was used by Mitsubishi for the second version of the Betty - except four of them - and honoring the original specification - which only demanded speed (313 knots) and range (about 4000 nautical miles). It remains primarily a naval attack bomber, but is large enough to permit a range/payload tradeoff unusual in Japanese bombers of the period: it can carry to extended range the normal load of a Betty, but it carries twice as much to normal range. It is able to lift a 21 inch torpedo with five times the standoff range as an 18 inch torpedo has - at normal range - or carry an 18 inch torpedo all the way to extended range. And for land targets, it adopts the standard of 16 bombs - although in this case smaller 100 kg (or 60 kg) bombs - not 250 kg like the later G8M uses. Being an early design, and not constrained by specification requirements, the defensive armament is very light (actually derived from the second design, since this one never got fleshed out). There are only 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 7.7 mm MG. By the time it enters service, in 1943, it will be obvious this is a mistake, so a later version appears in 105 with the 7.7 mm guns upgraded to 13 mm,
and also adding radar, which by then is available. It has virtually the range of a G8N1, but less than half the payload and not much defensive armament: the specification for speed and range being too literally honored. Even so, it carries twice the warload of the twin engine version.

The second design was a proposal which required development of a "Nu" engine - a pair of horizontal stroke engines each with 12 cylinders - 24 total - arranged back to back. This was not possible to develop for lack of machine tools when the invasion of the USSR prevented their import from Germany. It also might have been plagued by heat issues like the He-177 - with its dual engines of a different sort. It was a remarkably specialized aircraft built around delivering a single standoff weapon - a torpedo and it had early war ideas of minimal defensive armament - but at least had armor.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 299
RE: RHS Design Theory: Air Art List 2: Bitmap Order (U... - 6/15/2013 2:59:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16335
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
This material reposted after significant updating at the end of the thread.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/18/2014 3:20:25 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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

0.180