Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo 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!
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: Seasonal Construction Revised

 
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: Seasonal Construction Revised Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Design Theory: Seasonal Construction Revised - 2/17/2013 11:23:35 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Spring 1942

Monsoon 1942

Reactivation of minor RR on New Caledonia (1 hex NW from Noumea)

Fall 1942

Winter 1942

Completion of Iranian National RR spur (2 hexes E from Abadan/Khorramshahr)

Completion of ALCAN highway as pioneer road (segments of 10 trail hexes, 8 trail hexes, and upgrading of 4 winter tail hexes to year around trail in 3 segments between existing road and rail lines in Canada and Alaska);

Deconstruction of the Eastern Malaya RR.

Spring 1943

Upgrading of Whitehorse & Yukon RR to main line completed (2 hexes NW from Skagway)

Monsoon 1943

Road along Burma-Siam RR line completed (5 hexes SE from Ye)

Hunan-Guanzi RR [73/55 Monsoon 1943]

Winter 1943

Completion of Burma-Siam RR (5 hexes SE from Ye)

Completion of ALCAN highway as secondary road (segments of 10, 8 & 4 trail hexes upgraded to minor road)

Spring 1944

Monsoon 1944

Upgrading of Bengal & Assam RR to main line completed (15 hexes from existing line near Jessore to Ledo including major river bridging; 8 hex spur to Chittagong) [Takeover 1 March 1944; 59/34 & 59/35 washout in Monsoon until 1944; Entire line upgrades during Spring 1944! Before this year, 59/34 SE & 59/34 are destroyed every Monsoon season!]

Ledo Road completed to Myitkyina [upgrading 4 trail hexes to minor road) [Hex 64/39 Winter 1943; 64/40 Spring 1944; 63/41 & 64/42 Monsoon 1944].

Winter 1944

Completion of the Yellowhead Highway to Prince Rupert (as a Minor Road)

Ledo Road completed to existing Burma Road near Lashio (upgrading 3 more trail hexes between Myitkyina and Lashio). [63/43 & 63/44 Fall 1944; 62/45 & 63/46 Winter 1944]

Spring 1945

Completion of the CANOL road from Camp Canol, Northwest Territory to Whitehorse, Yukon. [188/23 trail Fall 42, SRD Winter 42; 189/24 trail Winter 42, SRD Spring 43; 189/25 trail Spring 43, SRD Monsoon 43; 190/26 trail Spring 43, SRD Fall 43; 189/27 SW, E trail Winter 43, SRD Monsoon 44; 190/27 NW,W trail Monsoon 44, SRD Spring 45; 189/28 SE, NE trail Monsoon 44, SRD Spring 45; 189/29 trail Monsoon 43, SRD Spring 44; 190/30 trail Monsoon 43, SRD Fall 43; 190/31 trail Winter/42, SRD Spring 43; 191/32 trail Fall 42; SRD Spring 43]

Completion of the Longhai Railway to Tanshui. [82/38 SE Fall 1943; 82/38 W Winter 1944; 81/38 Spring 1945]

Completion of Sovietskaya Gavan Railway (from Komsomolsk na Amur) [121/39 SE Spring 1944; 122/40 Monsoon 1944; 123/40 Fall 1944; 123/41 Winter 1944; 124/42 Spring 1945]

Fall 1945

Completion of Sumatra RR (aka 'the second death railway') [46/83 W & 45/84 NE Spring 1945; 45/83 E Monsoon 1945; 45/83 SW Fall 1945; Trail 46/83 W & 45/84 NE Monsoon 1944; 45/83 Fall 1944; SRD 46/83 & 45/84 Winter 1944; 45/83 Spring 1945]

ENH Series: Winter 1945, Spring 1946 and Monsoon 1946 (OPTIONAL)

Completion of Burma-Yunnan RR [62/46 E, 63/46, 63/45 SW, 68/46 NW Fall 1945; 63/45 E, 64/45, 65/45, 67/45, Winter 1945, 66/44, 67/44 Spring 1946] This RR was surveyed and begun in 1941. It generally follows the main road route of the area. It is metric gage and is easier to build through mountains than standard gage would be. This is also the gage of the RR connecting at both ends. This includes extending the primary road from Kunming NW all the way to the mountains as well.

Partial repair of the Kunming-Haiphong RR [68/50 SE Fall 1945; 68/51 NW Winter, 1945; 68/51 SW Spring 1945, 68/52 Monsoon 1945]

Completion of the Liuchow-Kweiyang RR [75/50 SW Fall 1945, 75/50 NW Winter 1945, 74/49 SE Spring 1946]
Early construction of the Kweiyang-Kunming RR. [71/48 NE, 74/49 SW Fall 1945; 71/47, 74/50 Winter 1945; 72/47, 73/50 Spring 1945; 72/48, 72/49 Monsoon 1945]

Upgrading ALCAN to primary road (25 minor road hexes upgraded IF construction not suspended as IRL) [182/30, 183/30, 184/30, 190/32 W, 191/33 E, 192/33, 197/31, 198/31, 199/31 W, 200/31, 201/31, 202/32 Winter 1944; 184/31, 185/32, 189/32, 193/32, 195/31, 196/31 Winter 1945; 185/32, 186/32, 187/32, 194/32, 194/31 Spring 1945]
Completion of the Longhai Railway to Lanzhou [81/34 SE, 81/38 NE Fall 1945; 81/37 SW, 81/35, 81/37 Winter 1945; 81/36 Monsoon 1946]

Completion of the Northern Alberta RR to Fort St John [204/35 W Fall 1945; 205/35 Winter 1945; 203/34 SE Spring 1946]

Completion of the Alice Springs to Birdum RR. This was surveyed from 1939 to 1942 by the Australian Army but never built. Entire line completes by Winter 1945.

Completion of the Mt Isa to Tenant Creek RR. This was surveyed in 1943 by the Australian Army but never built. Entire line completes by Winter 1945. Tenant Creek is on the Alice Springs to Birdum RR listed immediately above.
Partial Completion of the BAM: The Baikal Amur Mainline was not completed until 1991. The first two segments are on the map - Taishet to Bratsk and then to Ust Kut. The last segment is added in 1944-45 - Komsomolsk to Sovietskaya-Gavan. But MOST of the work on the rest was done in 1944-1946 - just not rendered usable in that era. This was a classic "death railway" - about 90% of the 150,000 German and Japanese POWs working on it (until 1954) died. This option shows what a maximum effort could have completed from Fall 1945 through the end of Monsoon 1946. RR Fall 45 107/12 SE & 107/13 NW/SE; Winter 45 108/14 NW/SW; Spring 46 107/15 NE/SE; Monsoon 46 108/16 NW/SE; Fall 45 121/39 NW; 121/38 SE/NW; Winter 45 120/37 SE,NW; 120/36 SE/W; Spring 46 119/36 E/NW; 118/35 SE/NE; Monsoon 46 118/34 SW/NW; 118/33 SW/NW]

House Rule: Do not repair the oil wells and refinery at Whitehorse, Yukon until May, 1945. These model the Canol pipeline and a refinery moved from Texas and it took until June, 1945 to get them fully operational. An ALTERNATE option is to repair the oilfields and oil refinery at Kenai, Alaska. This is probably not feasible in Winter (how could you move enough supplies to even begin?) - but it was a known option not taken (due to greater risk of Japanese capture). In strictly historical scenarios, there is not enough money to do both. If you fix Kenai, do not fix Whitehorse. In Scenario 105, it is an Allied option whether to allocate additional funds and do both?

Special Case: The Copper River RR is present in ALL versions of the pwhex files. It runs from Cordova, Alaska to Kennicot, a wholly undeveloped dot location. This RR was abandoned in 1938 when the copper mines were closed due to low copper prices. Other copper mines were reopened in WWII (for example in Michigan and in Montana). This copper mine can be reopened IF an Allied player moves engineer to the dot location along with lots of supplies – in which case the RR will function. The Million Dollar Bridge remained in tact until the 1964 earthquake. This location and RR may be ignore by any player who does not want to use them – and NOTHING will move along it – since there will be no production unless the damaged resources are repaired.

Special Case: The RR tunnel to Whittier Alaska is considered completed if you repair the port (it starts at zero). Because there is no way to have the rail line incomplete and still run its route - we simply have the Whittier hex not function as a port unless you fix it. There is an engineer unit in the hex to do that.
Special Rule: At the start of Fall, 1945 (i.e. after the historical end of WWII), the ALLIED player gets to decide if standard seasonal pwhexe.dat files will be used from then on? Standard files contain strictly historical construction data. The alternative is to use pwhexe.dat files with enhanced construction. The projects are indicated above. All were either contemplated and/or actually completed in time. They are a package deal - take all or none. Most of these projects are in or near China. The exception is the paving of the ALCAN highway.

Rejected historical case: The Haines "Highway" - if we blocked it in Winter and Monsoon, it is hardly worth having! The highway was built by the U.S. Army in 1943 as an alternate route from the Pacific Ocean to the Alaska Highway, in case the White Pass and Yukon Route railway from Skagway should be blocked. The total cost of the construction was US$13 million. In the first decades after the war, maintenance was spotty at best; the road was plagued with blizzards in winter and mudslides in summer, and for a time in the 1960s and 1970s, all vehicles traveling the highway were monitored on radio. Year-round access was not achieved until 1963.
Japan Enhanced Scenario [From Winter 1942] Optional Files

Eastern Malaya RR: Not deconstructed from Winter 1942. Instead, the Burma Siam RR is built with new rails.
North Borneo Road & Railroad Extension: Upgrading of trail to secondary road: 66/87 W, 65/87, 64/87E Winter 1942; 66/87 E, 67/87 Spring 1943; 69/86 SE, 69/87 NW Monsoon 1943; 70/88 NW Fall 1943; 70/88 SW 69/90 NE Spring 1944; 69/89 NE, SW Monsoon 1944; Minor RR 66/87 W Spring 1943; 65/87 E Monsoon 1943; 65/87 W Fall 1943; 64/87 E Winter 1943; 68/86 E Spring 1944; 69/86 W Monsoon 1944, 69/86 SE Fall 1944; 69/87 NW Winter 1944; 69/87 SE Spring 1945; 70/88 NW Monsoon 1945; 70/88 SE, 69/90 NE Fall 1945; 69/89 Winter 1945.

Indochina-Siam RR: Minor RR: 60/71 NW, 60/70, 59/69, 59/68 Entire Line Winter 1942.

Vientiane-Siam RR Extension: Minor RR 62/57 SW, 62/58 NE Entire extension Winter 1942.

South Sumatra RR West Extension: Minor RR 45/91 E, 46/91 W Entire extension Spring 1942.

South Samatra RR North Extension: Minor RR 48/91 NW Spring 1944; 48/90 NW, SE Monsoon 1944, 47/89 SE Fall 1944; 47/89 NE, 48/88 SW Winter 1944

Early Completion of Sumatra RR (aka 'the second death railway') [46/83 W & 45/84 NE Winter 1943; 45/83 Spring 1944; Trail 46/83 W & 45/84 NE Monsoon 1943; 45/83 Fall 1943; SRD 46/83 & 45/84 Fall 1943; 45/83 Winter 1943]
Completion of Nanning-Liuchow RR: Major RR 73/55 Winter 1942
.
Huangchow-Ningpo RR: Minor RR 90/55 SE, 91/56 NW Spring 1943; 91/56 E, 92/56 W Monsoon 1943.
Shou-Hsein RR: Minor RR: 88/49 SW, 88/50 NE Fall 1943.

Nanping RR: Minor RR: 87/56 SW, 86/57 NE Winter 1943.

Ichang RR: Minor RR: 84/49 NW, 84/48 Spring 1944, 83/48, 82/47 Monsoon 1944

Nanyang RR: Minor RR: 85/45 E, 86/45, 87/45 W Fall, 1944

Bohei Gulf RR: Minor RR 95/46 E, 96/46 Spring 1945; 96/45, 97/45 W Monsoon 1945; 97/45 SE, 98/46 NW Fall 1945.

Formosa RR: 87/64 NE, 87/63 SW Winter 1942.

Hainan RR: 69/61 E, 70/61, 71/61 W Spring 1943.

Chifoo Road: Major Road: 98/46 NW Winter 1942.

Kaiyang Road: Major Road: 82/60 E, 83/60 W Spring 1943.

Haichow Road: Major Road 93/48 W, 92/48 E Monsoon 1943

Sakhalin Road: Major Road 126/43 W, 125/43, 124/46 NE, 124/45 Winter, 1942; 125/44 Spring 1943.

Hokkaido Road: Major Road 122/50 Winter 1942; 122/49, 122/48 Spring 1943.

Yinkow Road: Major Road 101/43 E, 102/43 W Winter 1942

Fushun Road: Major Road 104/42 E, 105/42, 106/42 W Spring 1943.

Harbin Road: Major Road 107/41 NE, 108/40, 109/40 W Monsoon 1943.

Taonan Road Link: Major Road 107/39 SE, 108/40 NW Fall 1943.

Konan Road: Major Road 105/47 NW, 105/46 Winter, 1943; 105/45, 106/44 SW Spring 1944.

Tsitsihar Road Link: Major Road 109/38 NW, 108/37 SE Monsoon 1944.

Kuching Road: Minor Road 58/88 SW, 57/89 NE Winter 1943

Burma-Siam Highway: Upgrading to primary road along Burma-Siam RR: Spring 1944.

Early Completion of Glenn Highway: Major Road 181/35 NE, 182/34 SW Winter 1942

Northern Alberta RR: Major RR: 204/35, 203/35 Winter 1942; 203/34 Spring, 1943; 202/33 Monsoon 1943; 202/32 Fall 1943; 201/31 Winter 1943, 200/31, 199/31 E Spring 1944.

BC & Yukon RR: Major RR: 199/31 W, 198/31 Monsoon 1944; 197/31, 196/31 Fall 1944; 195/31 E Winter 1944; 195/31 W, 194/31 E & SW, 194/32, 190/33 E, 191/33 Spring 1945; 192/33, 193/33 W & NE Monsoon 1945.

Seward Highway: Secondary Road 181/36, 182/36 Winter 1942; 181/37 Spring 1943; 182/38 Monsoon 1943; Primary Road 181/36, 182/36 W Spring 1943; 181/37 Monsoon 1943; 182/38 Fall 1943.

Kenai Highway: Secondary Road 181/37 W Monsoon, 1943; 180/37 Fall 1943; Primary Road 181/37 Winter, 1943; Primary Road 180/37 Monsoon 1944. CANOL ROAD cancelled. Do NOT repair refinery or oilwells at Whitehorse. DO repair refinery and oilwells at Kenai.

Kenai RR: Major RR 181/37 W Winter 1943 1943; 180/37 E Spring 1944

Alaska RR Copper River RR Link: 181/35 NE Winter 1943; 182/34, 183/34, 184/34 W Spring 1944.

Copper River & Northwestern RR: Trail 186/34 NE, 186/33 SW NE, 187/32 SW Winter 1943; Major RR 186/34 NE Spring 1944; 186/33 SW Monsoon 1944; 186/33 NE, 187/32 SW & E Fall 1944; 188/32 E & W Monsoon 1944; 189/32 E & W Spring 1944; 190/32 W & SE, 190/33 NW Winter 1943.

Upgrading ALCAN to primary road (25 minor road hexes upgraded IF construction not suspended as IRL) [182/30, 183/30, 184/30, 190/32 W, 191/33 E, 192/33, 197/31, 198/31, 199/31 W, 200/31, 201/31, 202/32 Monsoon 1944; 184/31, 185/32 NW, 189/32, 193/33, 195/31, 196/31 Winter 1944; 185/32 E, 186/32, 187/32, 194/32, 194/31 Spring 1945]
Completion of the Yellowhead Highway to Prince Rupert: Secondary Road 200/41 SW, 200/42, 199/43 Winter 1942
Restoration of Anyox Tramway: Minor RR 199/42 SE, 199/43 NW Winter, 1942.

Completion of the Alice Springs to Birdum RR. This was surveyed from 1939 to 1942 by the Australian Army but never built. Entire line completes Winter 1942.

Completion of the Mt Isa to Tenant Creek RR. This was surveyed in 1943 by the Australian Army but never built. Entire line completes by Spring 1943. Tenant Creek is on the Alice Springs to Birdum RR listed immediately above.

Upgrading of Bengal & Assam RR to main line completed (15 hexes from existing line near Jessore to Ledo including major river bridging; 8 hex spur to Chittagong) [Takeover 1 March 1943; 59/34 & 59/35 washout in Monsoon until 1943; Entire line upgrades during Spring 1943! Before this year, 59/34 SE & 59/34 are destroyed every Monsoon season!]

Ledo Road upgraded to primary road to Myitkyina: Winter 1944
.
Ledo Road upgraded to primary road to Lashio: Spring 1945.

Ledo Road extension to Lao Wing: Monsoon 1945
.
Ledo Road extension to Paoshan: Fall 1945.

Ledo Road extension to Tsuyung: Winter 1945.

Dimapur-Ledo Road: Spring 1945
.
Modified Partial Completion of the BAM: The Baikal Amur Mainline was not completed until 1991. The first two segments are on the map - Taishet to Bratsk and then to Ust Kut. This option assumes a modified plan and maximum effort to work on the Northern segments of the line due to increased concerns about the Japanese in the Far East. RR Winter 1942 107/12 SE & 107/13 NW/SE; Spring 1943 108/14 NW/SW; Monsoon 1943 107/15 NE/SE; 108/16 NW/SE; Fall 1943 108/17 NW/SE; Winter 1943 109/18 NE/SW; Spring 1944 109/19 NW/SE; Monsoon 1944 110/20 NW/SE, 110/21 NW/E; Fall 1944 111/21 W/E; Winter 1944 112/21 W/E; Spring 1945 113/21 W/SE; Monsoon 1945 114/22 NW/E, 115/22 W/SE; Fall 1945 114/23 NW/SE; Winter 1945 116/24 NW/SE, 116/25 NW/SE; 114/27 E, 115/27 W/NE; Spring 1946 117/26 NW/SE/W, 116/26 SW/E; Monsoon 1946 117/27 NW/SW, 118/28 NW/SW, 117/29 NE. The farthest segment of the line to Sovietskaya Gavan is NOT build when this option is in play.

Extension of ALCAN to Nome: Pioneer Road (trail) 171/30 SW, E to 179/30 W, 169/30 NE, 169/31 SW, E, 170/31 W/NE Spring 1944; Secondary Road 179/29 SW, 179/30 NE, 169/30 NE, 169/31 SW Spring 1944; 176/30 to 179/30 W, 169/31 E, 170/31 W/NE, 171/30 SW/E Monsoon, 1944; 172/30 to 175/30 Winter 1944; Primary Road Spring 1945.






< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/22/2013 10:21:57 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 241
RE: RHS Design Theory: Why the focus on map edge devel... - 2/20/2013 5:26:00 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Mifune wrote, not too long ago, an eloquent description about ancient RHS history - from WITP days - which apparently was somewhat famous, but which few in the AE world will know about.

It concerns a failed attempt to play a tag team game. At that time, I was getting along with an Irish doctor whose handle is Nemo - a truly committed anti-British player. In fact, his mod is based on RHS concepts. He is without doubt a brilliant Japanese player. In that game, Nemo and I tried to form a team to be Japan - one playing IJN commands and one playing IJA commands. The entire idea ultimately failed - we could agree on nothing! Mifune write some people thought it was a nearly ideal demonstration of how hard it would be for IJN and IJA to get along!

One of the lessons I learned from that was that some players want to drive the Allies right off the map. For example, he proposed to invade New Zealand. At that time there was virtually nothing of the NZ home defense units in the game. Once we added those, most mods, and eventually stock, also picked them up. Similarly, he wanted to drive the Indians right out of India. Again, there were few locations and very few of the local ISF (Indian States Forces) assets in the game. I have continued to this day to add locations, infrastructures, and units along that front. The same thing is true of Canada and Alaska. RHS offered the potential to invade - not only along the Aleutians and Gulf of Alaska coasts - but also deep into the interior. But the dirth of locations and infrastructures and defense units meant such a lodgement would be a real problem. I argued these peripheral areas were intended to be Allied bases - not targets of Japanese invasions - and the game system (then) could not properly deal with such. Since I would not back down, we never did develop a strategy.

One thing Nemo did not propose was driving the Russians off the map. Sure, he wanted to invade - but he didn't think it feasible to drive them all the way off. So on that front too, I have long focused on adding locations and units and infrastructures - with a view to increasing defense in depth.

My goal has been to insure the Allies almost always have a fall back position which is viable for at least some units to operate from. I don't think it should be easy to drive the Allies off any map edge - so that whatever the situation, the Japanese must worry about enemy attacks from that direction. Basically I don't believe it is possible to get to the "edge" of the map - that there should always be a point beyond which it is impractical to go. And those map edge points should be of extra political significance - if they are lost. They have grave strategic implications if they are taken. Thus, I was pleased to learn about the possibility of locations in Somolia as Allied bases. I have reviewed many times the map edge locations and off map edge locations to insure we are not short changing the assets available there. Since RHS has an economic/logistical focus, mostly these reviews are in terms of supply and similar considerations. I consider map edge locations to be de facto connected to the off map world - and so I model what appears in them automatically - every day - beyond what they actually make at each such location. These automatic supplies (or whatever) do not require any action on the part of the player. They get there regardless of the operational situation on the map - and without requiring shipping or other assets. So even when their backs are to the wall, as it were - some "food" is coming from the wall - no matter what else is available to the units involved. And each new location is also a potential fort, and an additional airfield - at least. Larger ones also require garrisons - or they will self destruct their infrastructures.

I no longer fear a Nemoesque strategy: New Zealand has a very strong defense force, historical but probably excessive for any possible requirement - and relatively more than practically anywhere else has. India has a very strong defense as well. Russia has immense strategic depth combined with a force too large and too strong to be defeated by Japan at any time - provided only competent play. Canada and Alaska are no longer - like say the South Pacific - a total desert. They may be vulnerable - and the US Army may have been right to build a base at Nome and a station at Barrow - to at least detect and harass any invasion force. But they are no longer all but defenseless. In Level 2, we will show the situation in the Indian Ocean even if the enemy holds the "other side" as a potential base? But there was never much risk of Axis victory near the map edge in that area - even if they start out controlling the islands. That area is simply too far from core Japanese interests to permit a major investment of units for long. From mid-1942, the US will become too strong to ignore in the PTO. I don't worry too much about the SW map corner - wether with the stock map or with Madagascar added.

I believe the "main game" remains in the SRA - with important contests in the Nanyo (Pacific Ocean South of Japan) - in China - in what Japan considers its Northern Area - and in Burma. Potentially also in the South between Australia and Fiji - and in Northern Australia as well. The areas farther out are mostly to be Allied base areas for most of the war. There might be exceptional incursions into them, or rare campaigns to take over parts of those areas - but they ought to be expensive and uncommon options - undertaken for cause in a particular game strategy - and very likely to demonstrate how impractical they are to sustain?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 242
RE: RHS Design Theory: San Francisco (in Future) - 2/22/2013 10:42:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Working on the pwhexe file

on the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento River system

I learned that San Francisco isn't really the port nor the airfield
it looks like on our game map

The main port - the MAIN port - is at Alameda and Oakland -
a hex SE of the city proper. That is why RHS permits deep
draft ships to enter the hex. The MAIN airfield is Fairchild
Army Airfield - TWO hexes to the NE. The city itself could
never support a level 10 airfield. In future, San Francisco
will be more spread out - just as LA is now - with significant
industry in adjacent hexes. As well, Sacramento is a
significant river port - and river landings even farther North
are possible for small craft. As far North as Marysville.
Fairchild - in a hex called Fairfield - is between Sacramento
and what we have been calling Mare Island - yet another
inland port on the system.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 243
RE: RHS Design Theory: San Francisco (in Future) - 2/23/2013 8:05:59 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 624
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: online
El Cid,

There might be a reason for consolidation of Oakland ports and Oakland Airfields, Alameda civilian ports, NAS Alameda, Naval Station Alameda, Port of San Fransico, Mare Island, Suisan Bay, Treasure Island, Richmond, etc that make up the San Fransico Bay area is for sake of data tracking. There are some sites there like NAS Alameda and Naval Station Alameda which have been on the maps since the 20's or mid 30's. Then there were sites like Treasure Island seaplane operations dual hatted between Pan Am Air and USN/USCG seaplane ops. Other places like Pier 70 in San Fransico have had naval construction yards there since the 1800's which supplied a good majority of Naval shipping during buys of things like Cruisers, Destroyers and even a few battlewagons if I remember. Let alone there were all the aux fields which were converted over from muni fields or were just straight new builds during the 40's and have now become muni fields.

I would suggest you take a look at your source material and maybe ask the original design team as to why San Fran was consolidated into a megabase of deep draft ports and large airfields. Since if you want to go that way, you are going to have to break up a number of the larger of these megabases all over the map to satisfy your need for massive amounts of "accuracy" in this simulation. You would have to do the same, if not done so already, for Seattle, Vancouver, Victoria, Eastern US, Stockton, etc.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 244
RE: RHS Design Theory: San Francisco (in Future) - 2/26/2013 1:46:24 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
It is pretty clear - the absence of both Fairchild AAF and Oakland means they consolidated the industry into a single whole. That, in turn, means the considerable construction during the war - which in particular maximized the port capacity - is not possible during the game. On the whole, to save time
(which is money in the software business), they did the entire game on a one size fits all basis. "It is a game, not a simulation" has been officially posted.
Thus - one map with an average infrastructure for the whole war - no construction of anything - no matter how significant. That forces compromises -
and we see they at several points. The same for logistics - supply sources are fixed - and do not "grow" - in particular as the US economy grew. My time
is free - well - unpaid; I have the luxury of working in more detail. We all have - because of the wonderful decision to make the game modable. I only post here for those who care about why the changes are being folded into the mod?

And you are right - 'you never want to be involved in an international incident.' I confirm your assertion.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/26/2013 1:47:15 AM >

(in reply to YankeeAirRat)
Post #: 245
RE: RHS Design Theory: A new kind of seasonal pwhex files - 3/22/2013 4:36:03 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS is in the final stages of issuing fully developed, Level One, seasonal pwhex files.

For clarity, Level One is the stock map system file set. Just as in WITP days (when there were three RHS "levels" - and "Level One" was the stock map system, so now we are contemplating a revised map system. Level Two will be an extended map, possibly with a mini-map similar to (and indeed using the same art, rescaled) as WITP RHS used. I am issuing the "final" edition of Level One pwhexe.dat files, incorporating all the features (like fully developed river systems) we have done in every area of the map.

For clarity, RHS uses four basic seasonal files, Winter, Spring, Monsoon and Fall - corresponding exactly to definitions used by code
for what is Monsoon and Winter (and therefor Fall and Spring) files. These involve primarily changes in where waterways are able to be
navigated by ships. There are seasonal changes involving frozen ocean, lakes and rivers in the Northern part of the map. There are also
changes due to natural events in other areas - too much water on the upper Irrawaddy (North of Mandalay) prevents navigation in the gorges
during Monsoon, too little water prevents access to the ocean from the Murray River except in Monsoon, etc. There are also seasonal changes
to roads: mainly ice trails and ice roads in winter, and the disappearance of trails in much of the SRA during Monsoon. There are also special
cases - trails representing minor river traffic routes which may change seasonally.

However, these are issued in 19 forms, because of construction of roads and rail lines during the war. The first RHS season is 41WINTER,
and the last is 46MONSOON. On the first day of each new season, the player renames the appropriate file pwhexe.dat and puts it in the top level
AE folder.

In addition, there are four Enhanced seasons - the last four of the war - from Fall 1945 through Monsoon 1946. These are optional files for use if the Allies (alone) wish to use them in games where the war has lasted longer than history. Presumably since the war has gone on so long without a Japanese surrender, the Allied situation may be worse than history. So construction projects not completed because we were winning the war are now available to complete. At the end of Monsoon 1945, the ALLIES get to decide if they want to use the standard pwhexe files, or the Enhanced ones. It is a one time, package deal: once made the Enhanced files must be used from then on

Yesterday, with the issuing of 42WINTER, I introduced a new, companion pwhexe.dat file for that season. It is called JES42WINTER. JES = Japan Enhanced Scenario. This was considered for some time for use with Mifunes (not yet issued) GAP scenaro (Greater Asian Prosperity). It is also suitable to use with Scenarion 105 - EOS (Empire of the Sun - in playtest).

JES pwhexe files assume different priorities for the construction of infrastructure as strategic policy, by both sides. None of these changes take effect in game terms before Winter, 1942, so there is no need for earlier JES files. From that season on, there is (or shortly will be) a JES version for every season. These files are optional. But IF JES 1942 is used, continue to use JES files for the rest of the war - to give continuity to construction projects. In this case, the Allies to NOT get to elect to use Enhanced files at the end of Monsoon, 1945. Nor do they need to or want to: in general they get most of those projects sooner using JES files. [The exceptions are things like the CANOL project is not built at all - in favor of a historical alternative considered. These projects were ways to get oil and fuel to Alaska.]

In general, Japanese projects are short, and tend to extend or connect existing infrastructure, and at least in theory do not require any new rolling stock or vehicles. They follow the existing standards of the road or RR being extended. Allied projects tend to be longer, and may involve entirely new lines. One example is a line (surveyed from 1938 to 1942) connecting North Australia to the Alice Springs railhead - something not completed during the war (and when done, done to a different gage). Another is a line joining that North South line with Eastern Australia - surveyed during 1943 - but never ever built. These were contingency projects which might be appropriate in a Japan Enhanced Scenairo, when persumably Japan is a bigger threat than in history. Another example is the conversion of the ALCAN to primary road - abandoned because the war was going so well. A similar plan to upgrade the Ledo Road to primary road is included here. In spite of the greater cost and scope of the Allied infrastructure changes, the Japanese projects represent important potential improvements in economic efficiency, and for strategic movement of troops, all without risk of exposure to submarine or mine warfare - and are well worth doing. [Of course, if the industry that might benefit from the extended or connected roads and rail lines is damaged, or if the troops don't exist - or if the Allies capture them - they don't benefit the Japanese.]

There are (or will be) 15 JES files. Added to the 19 standard seasonal files and the 4 Enhanced files, that means the Level One RHS pwhexe.dat file set includes 38 different files. The folder created by the installer adds one more - 41WINTER is presented ready for use at the start of a game simply in the form pwhexe.dat.

The details of JES infrastructure changes are presented here:

Japan Enhanced Scenario [From Winter 1942] Optional Files

Eastern Malaya RR: Not deconstructed from Winter 1942. Instead, the Burma Siam RR is built with new rails.

North Borneo Road & Railroad Extension: Upgrading of trail to secondary road: 66/87 W, 65/87, 64/87E Winter 1942; 66/87 E, 67/87 Spring 1943; 69/86 SE, 69/87, 70/86 NW Monsoon 1943; 70/86 SW, 69/87, 70/88 Fall 1943; Minor RR 66/87 W Spring 1943; 65/87 E Monsoon 1943; 65/87 W Fall 1943; 64/87 E Winter 1944; 68/86 E Spring 1945; 69/86 W Monsoon 1945, 69/86 SE Fall 1945; 69/87 NW Winter 1945; 69/87 SE Spring 1946; 70/88 NW
Monsoon 1946.

Indochina-Siam RR: Minor RR: 60/71 NW, 60/70, 59/69, 59/68 Entire Line Winter 1942.

Vientiane-Siam RR Extension: Minor RR 62/57 SW, 62/58 NE Entire extension Winter 1942.

South Sumatra RR West Extension: Minor RR 45/91 E, 46/91 W Entire extension Spring 1942.

South Samatra RR North Extension: Minor RR 48/91 NW Spring 1944; 48/90 NW, SE Monsoon 1944, 47/89 SE Fall 1944; 47/89 NE, 48/88 SW Winter 1944

Early Completion of Sumatra RR (aka 'the second death railway') [46/83 W & 45/84 NE Winter 1943; 45/83 Spring 1944; Trail 46/83 W & 45/84 NE
Monsoon 1943; 45/83 Fall 1943; SRD 46/83 & 45/84 Fall 1943; 45/83 Winter 1943]

Completion of Nanning-Liuchow RR: Major RR 73/55 Winter 1942.

Huangchow-Ningpo RR: Minor RR 90/55 SE, 91/56 NW Spring 1943; 91/56 E, 92/56 W Monsoon 1943.

Shou-Hsein RR: Minor RR: 88/49 SW, 88/50 NE Fall 1943.

Nanping RR: Minor RR: 87 56 SW, 86/67 NE Winter 1943.

Ichang RR: Minor RR: 84/49 NW, 84/48 Spring 1944, 83/48, 82/47 Monsoon 1944

Nanyang RR: Minor RR: 85/46 E, 86/45, 87/45 W Fall, 1944

Bohei Gulf RR: Minor RR 95/46 E, 96/46 Spring 1945; 96/45, 97/45 W Monsoon 1945; 97/45 SE, 98/46 NW Fall 1945.

Formosa RR: 87/64 NE, 87/63 SW Winter 1942.

Hainan RR: 69/81 E, 70/81, 71/81 W Spring 1943.

Chifoo Road: Major Road: 98/46 NW Winter 1942.

Kaiyang Road: Major Road: 82/60 E, 83/60 W Spring 1943.

Haichow Road: Major Road 93/48 W, 92/48 E Monsoon 1943

Sakhalin Road: Major Road 126/43 W, 125/43, 124/46 NE, 124/45 Winter, 1942; 125/44 Spring 1943.

Hokkaido Road: Major Road 122/50 Winter 1942; 122/49, 122/48 Spring 1943.

Yinkow Road: Major Road 101/43 E, 102/43 W Winter 1942

Fushun Road: Major Road 104/42 E, 105/42, 106/42 W Spring 1943.

Harbin Road: Major Road 107/41 NE, 108/40, 108/40 W Monsoon 1943.

Taonan Road Link: Major Road 107/39 SE, 108/40 NW Fall 1943.

Konan Road: Major Road 105/47 NW, 105/46 Winter, 1943; 105/45, 106/44 SW Spring 1944.

Kuching Road: Minor Road 58/88 SW, 57/89 NE Winter 1943

Burma-Siam Highway: Upgrading to primary road along Burma-Siam RR: Spring 1944.

Early Completion of Glenn Highway: Major Road 181/35 NE, 182/34 SW Winter 1942

Northern Alberta RR: Major RR: 204/35, 203/35 Winter 1942; 203/34 Spring, 1943; 202/33 Monsoon 1943; 202/32 Fall 1943; 201/31 Winter 1943, 200/31, 199/31 E Spring 1944.

BC & Yukon RR: Major RR: 199/31 W, 198/31 Monsoon 1944; 197/31, 196/31 Fall 1944; 195/31 Winter 1944; 194/32, 193/31 Spring 1945; 192/31 Monsoon 1945; 191/31, 190/31 E Fall 1945.

Seward Highway: Secondary Road 181/36, 182/36 Winter 1942; 181/37 Spring 1943; 182/38 Monsoon 1943; Primary Road 181/36, 182/36 W Spring 1943; 181/37 Monsoon 1943; 182/30 Fall 1943.

Kenai Highway: Secondary Road 181/37 W Monsoon, 1943; 180/37 Fall 1943; Primary Road 181/37 Winter, 1943; Primary Road 180/37 Monsoon 1944.
CANOL ROAD cancelled. Do NOT repair refinery or oilwells at Whitehorse. DO repair refinery and oilwells at Kenai.

Kenai RR: Major RR 181/37 W Winter 1943 1943; 180/37 E Spring 1944

Alaska RR Copper River RR Link: 181/35 NE Winter 1943; 182/34, 183/34, 184/34 W Spring 1944.

Copper River & Northwestern RR: Trail 186/34 NE, 186/33 SW NE, 187/32 SW Winter 1943; Major RR 186/34 NE Spring 1944; 186/33 SW Monsoon 1944; 186/33 NE, 187/32 SW & E Fall 1944; 188/33 E & W Monsoon 1944; 189/34 E & W Spring 1944; 190/34 W & SE, 190/33 NW Winter 1943.

Upgrading ALCAN to primary road (25 minor road hexes upgraded IF construction not suspended as IRL) [182/30, 183/30, 184/30, 190/32 W, 191/33 E, 192/33, 197/31, 198/31, 199/31 W, 200/31, 201/31, 202/32 Monsoon 1944; 184/31, 185/32, 189/32, 193/32, 195/31, 196/31 Winter 1945; 185/32, 186/32, 187/32, 194/32, 194/31 Fall 1944]

Completion of the Yellowhead Highway to Prince Rupert: Secondary Road 200/41 SW, 200/42, 199/43 Winter 1942

Restoration of Anyox Tramway: Minor RR 199/42 SE, 199/43 NW Winter, 1942.

Completion of the Alice Springs to Birdum RR. This was surveyed from 1939 to 1942 by the Australian Army but never built. Entire line completes Winter 1942.

Completion of the Mt Isa to Tenant Creek RR. This was surveyed in 1943 by the Australian Army but never built. Entire line completes by Spring 1943. Tenant Creek is on the Alice Springs to Birdum RR listed immediately above.

Upgrading of Bengal & Assam RR to main line completed (15 hexes from existing line near Jessore to Ledo including major river bridging; 8 hex spur to Chittagong) [Takeover 1 March 1943; 59/34 & 59/35 washout in Monsoon until 1943; Entire line upgrades during Spring 1943! Before this year, 59/34 SE & 59/34 are destroyed every Monsoon season!]

Ledo Road upgraded to primary road to Myitkyina: Winter 1944.

Ledo Road upgraded to primary road to Lashio: Spring 1945.

Modified Partial Completion of the BAM: The Baikal Amur Mainline was not completed until 1991. The first two segments are on the map - Taishet to Bratsk and then to Ust Kut. This option assumes a modified plan and maximum effort to work on the Northern segments of the line due to increased concerns about the Japanese in the Far East. RR Winter 1942 107/12 SE & 107/13 NW/SE; Spring 1943 108/14 NW/SW; Monsoon 1943 107/15 NE/SE; 108/16 NW/SE; Fall 1943 108/17 NW/SE; Winter 1943 109/18 NE/SW; Spring 1944 109/19 NW/SE; Monsoon 1944 110/20 NW/SE, 110/21 NW/E; Winter 1944 111/21 W/E; Spring 1945 112/21 W/E; Monsoon 1945 113/21 W/SE; Fall 1945 114/22 NW/E, 115/22 W/SE; Winter 1945 114/23 NW/SE; Spring 1946 116/24 NW/SE, 116/25 NW/SE; 114/27 E, 115/27 W/NE; Monsoon 1946 117/26 NW/SE/W, 116/26 SW/E.

Extension of ALCAN to Nome: Pioneer Road (trail) 171/30 SW, E to 179/30 W, 169/30 NE, 169/31 SW, E, 170/31 W/NE Spring 1944; Secondary Road 179/29 SW, 179/30 NE, 169/30 NE, 169/31 SW Spring 1944; 176/30 to 179/30 W, 169/31 E, 170/31 W/NE, 171/30 SW/E Monsoon, 1944; 172/30 to 175/30 Winter 1944; Primary Road Spring 1945.






< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/26/2013 11:57:14 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 246
RE: RHS Design Theory: Allied ECM gear & Aircraft; Up... - 4/3/2013 6:00:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
As previously described, RHS has introduced a new concept for seasonal pwhexe.dat files - and there are now to be 38 of these for the 19 seasons of the war. 19 are standard and feature strictly historical changes to infrastructure along with seasonal variations - infrastructure meaning roads and railroads.
4 are optional for the Allies if the war extends past its historical ending - the ALLIES alone may decide if they want to build certain projects which were not build because they were "winning the war." At the start of Fall, 1945 it should be clear if they want these or not? If so, they can "build" them. It is an all or nothing, one time, package deal. IF they opt to use them THEN the ENH (Enhanced) files for 45FALL, 45WINTER, 46SPRING and 46MONSOON must be used. If not, standard files are used. The rest are JES files for use in the Japan Enhanced scenarios. They actually involve even more Allied construction than Japanese, but the Japanese do gain significantly from improved efficiency because of extensions or links between various road or (mostly minor) RR systems. In this case, the Allies do not get to make the choice in Fall 1945 - and anyway get all but one of those projects even sooner. [CANOL - an oil pipeline and minor road in Canada - is not built at all. Very expensive, it took until almost the end of the war to complete. The money and engineering effort is expended mostly on the ALCAN, which is paved, as well as on connecting four different rail systems from Alaska to Canada.] All but the last five of these files are now completed. All these revised pwhexe files are in installer release 5.170

In addition, I have added aircraft and ECM sets, as follows - Allies only:

I decided to model ECM equipment with two technical generations using the names of famous radar intercept sets - however they each represent about five equipments and these include other kinds of intercept (e.g. communications) and countermeasures capabilities. The first generation is called SCR-587, dating from 7/43, and the second is the SCR-717, dating from 7/45. These are mostly fitted on USAAF F series aircraft. However, the PB4Y-2 is also fitted. This is a special case. The Navy was Johnny come lately to the idea, and it had its own approach. This plane is a major redesign of the B-24 with a different tail and other features - including provision to mount the ECM gear in every plane. I am modeling it as a separate type because, when operating for ELINT missions, the plane has more range. Also because many planes did not have the gear fitted. Yet the name wasn't changed. For game purposes we will call them the PB4Y-2 AS (for Antisubmarine loadout telling you that for naval missions it carries things like ASW torpedoes and depth charges, where as a normal bomber carriers AP or SAP bombs for anti-naval missions) and the PB4Y-2 RC (for Reconnaissance).

One reason the planes were not given special names - USAAF called them F for photo recon just like camera equipped planes - was that the very term ECM was classified - it was still SECRET when I went to ECM school. But it makes sense a B-24 or B-29 stripped of armament (in the Air Force case) could have a lot more than a camera or six added. A difference in service philosophy is that the Navy "B-24s" which had this gear were armed just like regular bombers, but the Air Force planes were not armed at all.

The BOAC C-87 was also added to the plane list.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 4/3/2013 6:15:48 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 247
RE: RHS Design Theory: USAAF Plane Art w ECM aircraft - 4/3/2013 6:08:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
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 3:18:44 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 248
RE: RHS Design Theory: Plane List 1 Slot Order w ECM ... - 4/3/2013 6:10:04 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
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 3:19:29 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 249
RE: RHS Design Theory: USN, USMC, FF & RTAF w ECM air... - 4/3/2013 6:17:58 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
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 3:19:43 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 250
RE: RHS Design Theory - 4/3/2013 8:20:55 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1087
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Hey Guys, Couldn't fine the link to this mod.. Can someone provide it. Thanks AND
Cheers

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 251
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 4/6/2013 11:34:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
A very experienced playtester, in charge of the China campaign in two RHS test games, felt that the Chinese are not strong enough.
He pointed out they won the Third Battle of Changsha early in 1942. I read about it - and concluded that the "bringing up of the heavy guns"
which won the battle (along with good maneuvering and Japanese errors) - was not possible in AE because the ROC OB lacks the actual
artillery units it had. AE credits ROC Army with artillery regiments, but in fact it had four artillery brigades. It also credits them with
75 mm guns. But that was not the standard. China adopted a WWI vintage 77 mm German gun as its production standard. And it also built
Krup 10.5 cm guns - these were probably the "heavy guns" of the battle for Changsha. Also, since this was the third time Japan failed to take
the city, defenders should be credited with preparations, and with fortifications.

I looked at the pwhexe file UNDER the city. It said UL = Urban Light. It SHOULD say UH = Urban Heavy. A test just run concludes it matters - it is
approximately equal to a column shift in the odds. More generally, I believe there are many medium and large cities in China (and India and elsewhere)
which lack UL and UH classification in the pwhexe file below them. Changing that will make China (and other places) stronger. To that end, I shall review ALL map locations and issue an entirely new set of pwhexe seasonal files.

Another change is re ROC guerillas. They no longer will try to plant. While I think that is a fair model of how they operated, there is no way for a player to say "go there, then plant" - and so they get "stuck" and cannot get to the assigned district.

Another change is that artillery and many other units should not start at 50% disabled.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 252
RE: RHS Design Theory - 4/7/2013 3:03:07 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2880
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Hey Guys, Couldn't fine the link to this mod.. Can someone provide it. Thanks AND
Cheers

RHS is still in testing... we have several test games w/ muti player roles...If interested pm Sid for a position and he will send u some game files.

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 253
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger 2 - 4/12/2013 9:14:17 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Whoever designed the Chinese army for stock had a theory that the Chinese were and ought to be at a serious disadvantage in combat. Never mind that many units start at a fraction of their OB size - sometimes a tiny fraction. Never mind that many of their fields specify "disabled" squads either. Typically that is compounded by 30% exhaustion rates and 50% disabled field values as well. This means

1) The Chinese are going to do bad relative to the nominal squad count of a unit no matter what

2) That the Japanese who WAIT to attack in China will find a much tougher Chinese opponent because

A) he isn't as exhausted

B) He is vastly less disabled, over time.

It is a massive undertaking to revise the huge Chinese army but, if you divide fatigue and disabled values by about ten, you get reasonable values, and combat performance is significantly better.

Additional issues are omissions from the order of battle, or incorrect unit definitions. For example, the Chinese had artillery brigades, rather than battalions, and these were effective (see, for example, The Second Battle of Changsha in early 1942). Locations also should be coded for their real urban value - for example Changsha should be Urban Heavy. As well, defended points with long preparations (like Changsha where the ROC defended it twice already before the game begins) should have some fortification value.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 254
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger 3 - 4/13/2013 7:52:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
There is a word in Chinese which is like many in English - it has multiple applications causing no end of confusion. In this case, the word is Jun. It is literally translated "army" and it is common in Chinese based languages, including Japanese.

Part of the problem is command and control. Classically, a Chinese army was very much like what came to be called a "corps" in Europe - the largest formation that can move from line of march to line of battle in a single day. In China, the basic "army" came to be called a "field army" - and it had two divisions. Alternatively, if it had three divisions, it was called a "route army." As part of the NRA (National Revolutionary Army or KMT) reforms of the 1930s, the ENGLISH translation of this term was officially changed to "corps" - at least in theory. But the Chinese term (and pictogram) remained the same. To make it more complicated, units with famous names continued to be better known by their traditional name. RHS reflects this by mixing official names as the standard with special cases, where the unit is better known by its traditional name - thus we have some "Route Armies" and "Field Armies" in addition to many "corps."

But a different usage for Jun also evolved. This was similar to the use of "army" in Europe and the USA - a collection of corps. One of the scholarly treatments of the NRA makes clear that this is a layer between the "War Area" command and the "corps" command. In AE it was present and called a "group army" - which I though was a mistaken translation for the other usage "group army" described above. But in the scholarly treatment, the term "army group" is used - and that is actually possible in AE - which has "group" as a LCU suffex. I removed this layer from RHS orders of battle. In practice, it had the same function as a War Area anyway - it was composed entirely of support squads and had a limited command radius. I have learned that the "army group" was not just a command level, but also a military force in its own right. It had a cavalry regiment, an engineer battalion, an anti-aircraft battalion and possibly a tank unit, anti-tank unit and/or armored car unit. It might additionally have one or two infantry regiments under direct command. In a study of the history of the relatively elite 200th Division - formerly a tank division but by 1941 a motorized infantry division - I learned that an army group might attach its assets to a division for an operation. This caused me to understand this formation in a different sense - it is a way for high command to attach critical specialist units to any field corps or division - and no doubt provide command guidance as well - in an army too poor to put them into every major unit. For this reason, I am reinstating the echelon with the title changed from "group army" (which might be confused with the few corps level units using that title) to "army group" - and adding a real OB to it - so it is both a command unit (with 0 command radius) and a unit with combat and construction capabilities in its own right. The War Area remains the operative command echelon for a region, and all units in the area report to it. The War Area also has a command radius of 1 - making it like other LCU HQ above division level in most cases.

This is far more easy to say than to implement in a giant army like the ROC - which probably should be renamed NRA (its real initials) but that is too much work to implement. When finished - likely today - I will issue RHS 5.20 - and a new installer. When the pwhexe updates are completed, it will probably be about 5.22 - we will terminate test six and start test nine - to measure the impact of all the things that we have been changing. And that will be the semi-final form of RHS Level 1 - needing (if indeed it does still need) only a few changes like revised air art filmstrips - which are in the works. We will then consider an extended map RHS Level 2 project in detail.
We will also round out the scenario set - completing 106 so it is playable - adding 99 and possibly a Spring 1942 scenario (both by Mifune) as well.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 255
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger 4 - 4/14/2013 7:52:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The NRA - in China anyway - means National Revolutionary Army - the army of Dr Sun Yat Sin of the Chinese revolution aka ROC in AE.

After working with the data and testing I have concluded that the echelons above corps (traditionally called "army" and in some cases retaining the title as an honorific) should have

Army Group = Command Radius 1 [HQ Type 1]
[This is similar to an IJA Army HQ or an Allied Corps HQ]

War Area = Command Radius 3 [HQ Type 73]
[This is similar to but less effective than other hither HQ]

The War Area HQ is somewhat similar to other high HQ in RHS, with support,
transport units, and a token AAA - but it has an entire infantry battalion for security
and twice the customary two AAA guns - which are, unusual in China but actually
traditional for the ROC Army - four 40 mm. The transport regiment is also unusual in
China - it is motorized - in a country which (except for specialist units) is almost entirely unmotorized. [In RHS/AE, transport units mainly serve to increase the cost to lift and feed various units to realistic levels. However, motorized transport units also contribute slightly to combat in that they are counted as AFVs. Like pack and draft transport units, they also have very marginal value as infantry - something that shows up only in aggregate but still matters in combat.] Instead of experience ratings of 30, they get 45, and typically start with a morale level of 50 (also instead of 30).

The Army Group HQ is a hybrid unit - at the same time it is a minimal HQ and provides some support to other units - it also is a true combat unit. It has a regiment of infantry, a recon "regiment" (battalion), a mortar regiment, an AT company, an AAA company, an engineer battalion, and (draft) transport regiment. [One - the 5th - has armored recon with T-26 tanks and Soviet armored cars, and a motor transport regiment. Not all start up to TO&E of course.] Instead of experience ratings of 30, they get 40, and typically start with a moral level of 50 (also instead of 30).

These changes, plus the addition of a few more specialist units, and the wholesale (usually divide by ten) reduction in disabled and fatigue ratings, combine to make a Chinese army that can win some battles. As well, HQ and many other units are now Restricted 1 - meaning they can "buy" different commands with political points. There is no increase in Allied pp - and the Chinese army is large - so no great amount of change is likely in a game in any short period. But it does give the Allies options and, for example, may permit assignment to an unrestricted command (e.g the ROC Navy) - permitting water transport - in China's case - particularly on rivers

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 256
RE: RHS Design Theory: Pitcairn and Henderson Islands - 4/15/2013 2:46:08 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Pitcairn Island is on the very bottom row of our map - and will appear in future games. Two hexes to the East of it is Henderson Island - this island is 100 feet above sea level - flat - and quite large - suitable for a major airfield. [Level 4?] Pitcairn can barely support an airfield - so it is airfield build level 1 with 0. It has no port potential, so it is port build level 0 with nothing built - but is still rated as a port. Henderson has port build potential of 1. Both have 1 "damaged" resource center - if you invest they can provide resources to a small degree. Henderson has one "damaged" light industry - representing the potentially to process half the resources if you invest in the place. It used to have a population - although it grew too large for local resources and starved to death.

NW of them is an island not properly developed in the game - Mnngareva - which is 18 miles long and 7 miles wide - a bit like a giant version of Iwo Jima with a mountain on one end. It is suitable for an even larger airfield, supports a population, and has good port potential - and is in fact a level 1 port already. Future games will feature the proper infrastructure on this island as well. It should have 1 resource center, 1 light industry center (turning half the resources into supplies, leaving half for export), and 1 daily supply point (modeling the local fishing and gathering industry - and a small amount of inter island trade from nearby islands which have nothing shown in game terms).

Pitcairn is at 188,201
Henderson is at 200,201

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 257
RE: RHS Design Theory: Bali - 4/15/2013 12:23:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Looking at a modern map, it is logical to assume that Denpassar is the main port and city of Bali. It is, however, incorrect before 1953, when Denpassar and the region of Southern Bali was developed. The center of both Dutch and Japanese administration, and the principal port, before that, was Singaraja - in hex 58/107.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 258
RE: RHS Design Theory: Bali - 4/18/2013 6:54:25 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5157
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Cid,

Have a good hard look at Pitcairn and Henderson, they are far from being usable, Pitcairn was a rock that Bounty crashed into, no port. Henderson may be reasonably flat, exept fot the limestone outcrops and the fact that your "100 feet above sea level" is because of the 100ft cliffs all around the island, with only a few small beaches.

Most of these islands have no "continental shelf and have no ability for a port. If they were so good, why aren't they occupied. When Pitcairn reached 500+ people they had to relocate to Norfolk Is to ease the overcrowding.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 259
RE: RHS Design Theory: Carriers as AKVs - 5/3/2013 1:06:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Matrix code does not permit the use of carriers as transport ships. Never mind they are superb transport ships. Operation Magic Carpet, the return of millions of overseas military men to the United States in 1945 and 1946, involved substantial numbers of carriers in the transport role. As well, the CVE was invented in part to serve as an auxiliary aircraft transport, and a significant number of them operated mainly or even entirely in that role.

Now we can use carriers to carry multiple air units, provided the number of aircraft does not exceed the ship's capacity. In WITP, you could exceed the ship's capacity - but if it got too big (more than 7/6 of capacity), the planes would not fly. We also can use carriers to move non-carrier aircraft, or non-carrier qualified air units. But not in the correct numbers: the actual aircraft capacity of a carrier is 200% of its RHS rating (somewhat less than that if "deck park" ratings are used to define capacity). [RHS only uses hanger deck capacity because, if a deck park is used IRL, the planes on deck are lost in a storm. Code does not permit that, so we cannot permit the extra planes without the risk of loss.]

But what if you want to move units or cargo? Carries have no way to do that. Not even if we assign troop and cargo values to them - because no mission that allows such transport also allows carriers in the task force.

So RHS invented the "special AKV" - and at present it just applies to Allied CVEs. As of tomorrow, it will include some CVs and CVLs, and some Axis ships (indeed, Japanese CVEs mainly operated as transports). The carrier AKV variant ONLY can carry one air unit, but it has the advantage of the aircraft are not "crated" and when unloaded are not damaged. And that even for large aircraft. It otherwise can carry troops and cargo, and if it is an ex tanker, also fuel or oil (some of the cargo is liquid and some of the range of the ship is traded for fuel cargo - reducing the bunker storage for own operations). The "conversion" mainly involves offloading the air group and all its special equipment, and the air group birthing spaces, as well as much of the hanger spaces, can be used by troops. The AKV has no aircraft capacity, and does not operate any aircraft, but it has a large troop and cargo capacity, and is otherwise identical to the ship in its carrier form.

The first form of a carrier to appear may convert to an AKV, in ten days, in a level 5 shipyard (except a CV, level 6 shipyard). The AKV may also convert back to the CVE/CV/CVL or CVS form in ten days, at the same size shipyard. This system means that as soon as a carrier class appears, the option to convert one or more exists. This never goes away UNLESS you upgrade the carrier to a more advanced form. Thus only the older, unimproved carriers of any given class can be selected later in time to become AKVs.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 260
RE: RHS Design Theory: Tankers as transports? - 5/3/2013 6:22:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
A question was asked by one of the list members

can a tanker carry aircraft?

As is, no. Nor troops nor cargo.

But IRL tankers are fine transports.

So I wondered - IF a tanker was given troop and bulk cargo ratings AND IF it was assigned to a transport (vice tanker or replenishment) task force - could it load an air unit - or troops - or cargo?

Yep.

So that will be part of the 5.22 update.

All Allied tankers are already done - you don't have to update ships - class data is dynamic (thank goodness). But I am holding off until more is done and also to give players a chance to adjust to new requirements for garrisons in test games.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 261
RE: RHS Design Theory: Carriers as AKVs - 5/3/2013 6:57:41 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1404
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
So RHS invented the "special AKV" - and at present it just applies to Allied CVEs. As of tomorrow, it will include some CVs and CVLs, and some Axis ships (indeed, Japanese CVEs mainly operated as transports).

You mean like how some of the CHS mods did it for WiTP? Or like how early Babes did it in AE in 2008 before settiling on AVs for specific ships for code reasons? Boy !!! What an invention !!! Good on you !!! Glad to see that you are, at last, reading our errata from 4-5 years ago.

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 262
RE: RHS Design Theory: More Reconfigurable Ships and 5... - 5/5/2013 6:04:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Not only will update 5.22 include revised pwhexe files (bringing seasons later in the war to current standard and getting rid of eratta in them)

it will feature more cases of "special AKVs" rapidly reconfigured from carriers, with the ability to rapidly convert back

and tankers able to carry troops and cargo and aircraft IF they are assigned to transport missions

but it will also have special cases.

Chitose (and similar) seaplane tenders, instead of reconfiguring to AKVs, will instead reconfigure to LSDs. They really could do that. The sloping decks with narrow gage RR tracks on them permitting easy launch of seaplanes or landing craft (or even mines) via stern doors are precisely the system pioneered by the Akitsu Maru before WWII - a ship AE defines as an LSD in spite of having no dock - as it functions the same way (or actually better - faster in use - less "partly pre sunk" displacement safety margin risks). Which means the Akitsu Maru and Shinshu and other ships may also finally have their special abilities - simply reconfigure the LSD as AKV for example. And the Chitose at start - and Nisshin in 1944 - can reconfigure in forms using midgets.

The midget solution is based on how the second German raider is defined by whoever defined it (not an RHS solution). It's PT boat is modeled in the form of a "very long range 18 inch torpedo." The midgets can be done the same way. Attempts to use at long range are very unlikely to work - but closer range attempts may succeed regularly and long ones very rarely - well modeling the concept. Two new devices model the Type A midgets in this role (using the Type 97 18 inch torpedo) and the later Types (using the Type 98).

Otherwise 5.22 includes some redefined locations or LCU, mainly in re victory points and garrison levels - to meet the new RHS definitions. Note that my previous comments were misleading somewhat: while there is a ratio between the two sides with respect to both pp and garrison requirements, which varies from area to area, the ratio between the two is not always identical. In general, the stock ratios are preserved.

5.22 should release tomorrow.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 263
RE: RHS Design Theory: More Reconfigurable Ships and 5... - 5/10/2013 2:35:57 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2755
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The midget solution is based on how the second German raider is defined by whoever defined it (not an RHS solution). It's PT boat is modeled in the form of a "very long range 18 inch torpedo."


Mmh, sounds familiar...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 264
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.23 update, AVG, LCU, etx - 5/12/2013 7:51:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Our decision to permit drop tanks on P-40s in AVG being confirmed,
and based on photographic evidence below, I revised the (inherited stock data) date the P-40E is available to AVG - from April 1942 to game start. In addition to changing the location file (re production) I will change the group file (re which units have what plane - so that one AFG squadron will start with this aircraft).

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



In a message dated 5/12/2013 4:29:25 A.M. Alaskan Daylight Time, mifune7@bellsouth.net writes:
http://www.sandbagger.uk.com/flyingtiger/HRP40EAVG104##.zip This model depicts a Curtiss P40E-1 / Kittyhawk Mk I American Volunteer Group (AVG) Kunming, China 1941 Serial No: 104.

This HR skin was created by Flying Tiger, based on original files by Captain Kurt.
(HURR, SPIT14 and TEMP Slots)
http://www.sandbagger.uk.com/flyingtiger/HRP40EAVG112##.zip This model depicts a Curtiss P40E-1 / Kittyhawk Mk I American Volunteer Group (AVG) Kunming, China 1941 Serial No: 112.

This HR skin was created by Flying Tiger, based on original files by Captain Kurt.
(HURR, SPIT14 and TEMP Slots)


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 265
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/12/2013 8:07:52 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

He pointed out they won the Third Battle of Changsha early in 1942. I read about it - and concluded that the "bringing up of the heavy guns"
which won the battle (along with good maneuvering and Japanese errors) - was not possible in AE because the ROC OB lacks the actual
artillery units it had. AE credits ROC Army with artillery regiments, but in fact it had four artillery brigades. It also credits them with
75 mm guns. But that was not the standard. China adopted a WWI vintage 77 mm German gun as its production standard. And it also built
Krup 10.5 cm guns - these were probably the "heavy guns" of the battle for Changsha.

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.


Also, it seems you have small error in your early BETTY bombload:
quote:

19 x G4M1 Betty TB bombing from 4000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

I am guessing, the latter part is replacement for torpedo, which you can switch off only using profiling in beta.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 266
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/15/2013 8:40:17 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2755
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline
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 LargeSlowTarget -- 5/15/2013 8:41:18 AM >


_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 267
RE: RHS Design Theory: 5.23 update, AVG, LCU, etx - 5/15/2013 3:23:22 PM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 479
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

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?


_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
The CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 268
RE: RHS Design Theory: The Problem of Clark - 5/15/2013 7:19:14 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Why is the Japanese Army so unable to take Clark when it attacks in force?

Because the hex is wrongly coded as "rough jungle."

This was explained years ago "because there is jungle in the hex, the hexes are large."



Yet the Central Luzon plain is the key fact - the good road infrastructure with open country - and IRL it was not possible to stop the IJA even with nominally superior numbers of troops. The exception was the Philippine Scouts, armed with the M-1 Garand - who consistently could stop any Japanese unit. But they were always flanked and the flanking (not Scouts) units could not hold, so they too had to fall back. [Hex 79,76]

Regretfully, I have concluded this means we must reissue pwhexe files with this hex recoded as clear terrain.

At the same time, I found that Samulaki is improperly coded in pwhexe. The ONLY directions from which a ship can really approach the port is shown as a blocked hex side! So along with urban hex definition updates, the "final" pwhexe set will correct these issues. [Hex 78, 117]



< Message edited by el cid again -- 5/15/2013 7:35:16 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 269
RE: RHS Design Theory: Making China Stronger - 5/15/2013 7:24:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14987
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I have an astonishing list of Chinese artillery at the start of the War of Resistance provided by a historian of the PLA. There were about 800 pieces and there were dozens of models. I settled on modeling two standard designs put into production in China - both German - a 77 mm and a 105 mm. But yes - I see your 15 cm model - as well as a couple of other European 15 cm types.

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.


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

He pointed out they won the Third Battle of Changsha early in 1942. I read about it - and concluded that the "bringing up of the heavy guns"
which won the battle (along with good maneuvering and Japanese errors) - was not possible in AE because the ROC OB lacks the actual
artillery units it had. AE credits ROC Army with artillery regiments, but in fact it had four artillery brigades. It also credits them with
75 mm guns. But that was not the standard. China adopted a WWI vintage 77 mm German gun as its production standard. And it also built
Krup 10.5 cm guns - these were probably the "heavy guns" of the battle for Changsha.

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.


Also, it seems you have small error in your early BETTY bombload:
quote:

19 x G4M1 Betty TB bombing from 4000 feet
Naval Attack: 3 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 2 x 250 kg SAP Bomb, 4 x 60 kg GP Bomb

I am guessing, the latter part is replacement for torpedo, which you can switch off only using profiling in beta.


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Design Theory: Seasonal Construction Revised Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.141