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 Order of Battle Development (essay)

 
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 Order of Battle Development (essay) Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Order of Battle Development (essay) - 6/8/2018 4:47:24 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Orders of Battle Development & Economic Development

RHS was born in the days of War in the Pacific (pre Admiral’s Edition) as a limited effort, headed by future AE chief programmer Joe Wilkerson, to define aircraft data in a systematic way, the hope that would yield better combat outcomes. Joe is a mathematician by training, and he defined both how the data should be obtained and defined the sorts of factors that needed to be used to calculate values such as “durability” and “maneuverability.” Briefly accepted for the CHS mod “coordinator” Andrew Brown, internal mod politics permitted a “plank holder” to reject anything. One of these, complaining I had got rid of his “long range Pete” (and nothing else specific), rejected the work. But Andrew believed it was a sufficient improvement he suggested we put the data into its own mod. Disliking the politics of CHS, the RHS team decided to open RHS to ideas from the forums. Roughly have of what is in RHS came from the forums. And even those aircraft data formulas were developed openly, on the forums, and modified many times to improve the realism of the air model. The “RHS philosophy” – explicitly defined in the pre-AE RHS Manual – was that “anything better than what we have is in.” No matter how much effort was put in, we would throw out what we had in favor of even a slight improvement.

Over time, every nation was extensively redeveloped (not to mention several nations were added). Not only did major powers grow in unit counts by 25-50%, virtually all existing units were reviewed for technical improvements. Orders of battle vastly increased in detail. As squad counts and unit counts grew, the logistic demands they make operationally grew exponentially. As well, because Mifune did the “long term verification tests” on the economy for AE, we knew these only ran out six months. It was easy to determine that 1941 supply could never feed 1944 operational requirements. A suggestion from the forums was to build in ways to grow the supply over time. [It appears one stock solution was to send in “convoys” this massive numbers of supply points and fuel points. These work, but only very locally and very briefly.] Taking our clue from the AE Manual – which declares that the economy is “an accurate simulation” – we came up with the idea of doing with locations what we did with air units, naval units and land units: perform a microeconomic analysis of every actual (or missing) named hex on the map. This took years of research. It required defining the meaning of “port build” and “airfield build” in a way that could relate to actual data. But the effort yielded great dividends: many bases that were built from nothing during the war were found and added; many truly major cities that were missing from stock were added; many significant local industries were added – some of them of historical significance about which there is astonishing ignorance in the Western world. At the same time, an experience with a very anti-British Irish nationalist who loved kicking the Allies right off the Western and Southern map edges, caused us to look at areas substantially neglected – in spite of their historical military or economic assets. It was also our (Mifune and I in particular) that adding locations, and units, must benefit the Allies generally. More local supply, more places one can build fortifications, airfields and ports, and more forces that don’t have to be sent from the USA, the UK, etc. While that turned out to be untrue, we make no apology. It turns out that the data is deceptive (Tracker fans beware). Total supply (or resources, or oil, or fuel) in a region is not what matters. Movement of supply (etc.) is not very automated and not on a sufficient scale even when road and railroads exist, or when adjacent ports are Level 3 or above. Far more important than having “more than you need” in a region is having above the minimum you need at each point in that region. Achieving that is far more difficult than we expected it to be. Achieving that generally requires using shipping well: “AKs to burn” do not exist in RHS, even though there are vast numbers of cargo vessels. In particular, it is easy to take an major force somewhere and be unable to feed it – so one loses the campaign.

Page 2

We have found that some RHS concepts – such as the evolution of road and rail infrastructure over time – greatly mitigate the problems of semi-automatic distribution of supply (etc.) as the war progresses. In the big picture sense, it does not really matter which side builds or exploits this infrastructure – both sides did it. In much of the region, the airfield dates from WW2, and it may have been built by either side, or even by both sides. As well, some places not developed might have been. Where this is known to be the case, the more important such locations are also included as undeveloped, but potentially developable dot locations. Depending on the strategy of players in a given game, the significance of a location will vary. RHS tries to present all the options for infrastructure and economic development. Although that is impossible, it was able to include a surprising amount of this.

Order of battle data is as spotty as the information on each hex was. Many hexes had the wrong terrain type, the wrong hex-side, the wrong (or more often zero) industry, the wrong road and rail net. Orders of battle omitted many units, and many elements in the units that were included. No one looked up what LST actually entered PTO, when or where, or in what form? We added vast numbers, and deleted many which never were in the theater at all because some forum member provided us with the data (to which we added material in the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships). Stock provides LSTs as “flavor” but without attention to detail – RHS gives you the vessel when and where it entered the theater, and in what form – or removes them when they never entered the theater at all. As you progress up to larger ships and units, the more work was done. Which is not to say all the eratta has been found: we find more every day. But we always correct errors when reported so that, over time, the data gets better and better.

Disclaimer: RHS CAN fix data issues as such. It can not fix code issues. That WITP and WITP/AE have a poor land combat model is beyond our remedy. We CAN mitigate the effects of air power with too much impact. We created different bombs when on ground attack missions These are dropped in groups because “each hit is essentially one squad or device disabled or killed” (Joe Wilkerson). It also helps to add missing squads – more squads makes it harder to wipe out a ground unit. In particular, we added logistic squads, in pairs. “Transportation squads” (bearers, pack mule strings, horse or mule drawn carts or wagons, trucks) were added with an equal number of support (or motorized support) squads – so they are support neutral. These are almost unarmed squads too – a bold action rifle or so per squad. But they do increase squad count which affects combat algorithms. But more important, the logistic fingerprint is now “right” for every unit: some units have no transport at all – these are static of course; the smallest units of any given kind are also the most powerful (motorized units can tow big artillery pieces). The largest units are “pack” – their animal drawn transport units require more lift and “more food” (supply points). But paradoxically, they have the smallest artillery – so less firepower than motorized units do.

A special case is airborne units. A variety of different kinds is included. The Allies ultimately field more of them in more robust forms, but the Japanese have a few when it matters most – at the start of the war. RHS has perhaps spent too much time (and too many slots) related to this – because WW2 offers a great variety of different versions. Some units were formed but not used, or misused as heavy infantry (which they are not). Some units are both air and ground units – an idea that still exists – where the PLAAF “owns” the “Airborne Corps” (renamed in 2017), and has organic transport aircraft. In WW2, Germany advocated this organization, but did not itself adopt it. IJN took the training, but ignored the advice on combined units. IJA, however, did create what was ultimately a de facto airborne brigade with organic transport and glider organizations. IJN trained three airborne SNLF’s – but only used two of them for airborne operations – and never did try to form larger than battalion formations, nor any with aircraft. IJA ultimately formed the Raiding Group. This consisted of two Raiding Forces, two Glider Forces, an airborne Engineer Unit, an airborne Tank Unit, and an airborne Machine Cannon Unit. [A force is a baby regiment of two battalions. A Raiding force is pure light infantry. A Glider Force is sort of medium weight infantry with heavy weapons, but not as much as first line, ground heavy infantry has.] But the entire Group – if one waits until all its elements are available and combines it up – can fly as a single, lightweight fighting team. And substantially using Raiding Regiments of Army transport planes, and Glider Regiments using Army gliders. [In Japan enhanced scenarios, we do not take the time to develop gliders, and so the Raiding Group consists of four Raiding Forces and no Gilder Forces. It is available somewhat sooner, but is a much lighter and less powerful unit.] Note that most Japanese airborne operations are never reported because they were not opposed landings, and so, are not technically combat drops. Japan occupied most of the Eastern NEI in this way, with tiny packets of troops landing to take over a district headquarters. Leaving local police in place (which was their norm), they just said “we are in charge now.” And beheaded any who objected. Contrast this with the peculiar form of the Indian Army 44th Division (airmobile??). It has para units, glider units, and a “support brigade” – which if it combines up with the other brigades PREVENTS them from ever performing an airborne operation again! But it is the only partly air droppable unit that has a chance in sustained combat against enemy heavy forces. In between we have US and British airborne divisions, and Soviet Parachute Brigades. Each has its actual internal order of battle, and each represents a very different school of thinking about air droppable ground combat units. Because we cannot know what will happen in a game “universe” – we present the fully developed units as assets for players to try to use – if they are so inclined. That most of them were not used fully as intended is not a reason not to let players use them if they want to try. The main difference between Axis and Allied airborne units is that Allied ones are generally available later in the war, are generally much better outfitted with heavy weapons, and are supported by larger numbers of air transport and glider units. [RHS gliders are always “combinations” of a “tug” and one or two gliders. They carry more than an air transport can, over less range, with less speed and maneuverability. In PTO, British and Indian forces use the same glider as the US does.] Just because Japan has all the fun (if it wants to) with airborne in 1941, the Allies have much more robust options eventually. By that time, they probably control the sky well enough the Japanese won’t be able to use their airborne. [Japanese gliders WERE used – but for rear area logistical support – notably between Formosa and Luzon in a way submarines could not torpedo. Not in combat operations. Which would be suicide for such cumbersome “combinations” by the time they existed. Due to fighter opposition.

Japanese armor is unique. Since IJA was not organized to support motorized units, and most Japanese could not drive, they had to train their own crews and provide “rear area” support at the front. It also was designed for use on the roads and bridges of Asia of the time. Japanese tanks were quite successful, as was the US built Start – because they did not overwhelm the roads and bridges of the area. The anomaly of the battle in 1944 between a Japanese and a US tank division is very misleading – the Japanese had pre-war tanks, not their newer ones. The US just stood off and attacked out of range of the Japanese low velocity guns! See RHS Scenario 125 Tank Logic for more detail JES Scenarios 125 and 129 fully implement General Yamashita’s 1941 recommendations.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 6/8/2018 4:48:02 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 541
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.02 - 6/10/2018 8:04:39 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 4.02

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update has only late war pwhexe.dat files and
location files. The latter concern unit name eratta
and inconsistencies between units and their parent
formations. Also, a tiny number of land unit record
errata was corrected.

Some documentation files were updated and one was added.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 542
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.02 - 6/10/2018 3:09:50 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8355
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS Update 4.02

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update has only late war pwhexe.dat files and
location files. The latter concern unit name eratta
and inconsistencies between units and their parent
formations. Also, a tiny number of land unit record
errata was corrected.

Some documentation files were updated and one was added.



Thank you as ever Sid, and I did get the recent e mail...We both use the same carrier apparently, and since a couple of years ago, my ability to e mail you drectly is always an "iffy" proposition.
Your ability to get to me is reliable as ever...




Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 543
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.03 - 6/20/2018 8:53:50 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 4.03

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update mainly concerns scenario files:

class, ship and location - with respect to minor eratta on
both sides.

It also has new pwhexe.dat files for the first year of the war.
These mainly deal with corrections to half hex road and trail links -
up to eight per file - so the map art matches the pwhexe.dat file better.
The estuary at Sinkawang - just defined - was not consistently a narrow
strait - now it is consistent in all files. The Grand Canal from Peking
to Tientsin was not properly defined in various ways in various files -
now it is consistently a navigable river through coastal hexes.

Two or three documentation files were updated slightly.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 544
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 6/25/2018 12:04:12 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 4.04

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update concerns only scenario and pwhexe.dat files.

Pwhexe.dat files are updated through 1943. Unfortunately,
some files, including all Winter files, had a significant
problem at Kuala Lumpur. So the start of game file is reissued,
as indeed are all 1942 files. 1943 files were brought up to date
with the latest round, mainly minor road corrections to match map
art.

Only device and location files were updated. Most device updates
were cosmetic, meaning name changes. This is done for clarity, to make
display more readable, and/or to adopt an official name. However, a
couple of date changes were detected, one important: in strictly historica
scenarios the Chi Ha tank was not produced in 1942, but it should have been
until the Type 1 begins production. Rather more work went into location files
with respect to correcting eratta, mainly mismatches between land units and
the formations they point at. A few improvements were made in the formations
data as well.

Next, apart from any reported eratta (which are always investigated and corrected
if necessary), we will bring late war pwhexe.dat files into sync with early ones.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 545
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 7/19/2018 5:20:18 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1954
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
How does one use the installer. I have the files, can I just paste them into the designated locations?

Buck

While still a bit confused, I am up and running with mod.

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 7/19/2018 6:20:48 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 546
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 7/19/2018 6:39:11 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5127
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
So you have installed it successfully then?....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 547
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 7/19/2018 6:53:33 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1954
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
yep, I think except for maybe Seasonal Art, RHS Installers, etc. Maybe I should Read the instructions dummy.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 548
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 7/19/2018 8:45:33 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5127
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
With in the file is a folder called installers, I think. Open the folder and near the top you will see a install file which is an application. Double click on it and install to a clean installation of the game. That will get you there. There is a new version coming out soon by the way....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 549
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 7/20/2018 3:15:13 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1954
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Thank you.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 550
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.05 - 7/30/2018 9:08:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 4.05

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update includes a new start of game pwhexe.dat file. It corrects a
few minor things - mainly half hex road eratta. Also a narrow strait is defined.

It is mainly a new set of aircraft, class, device, leader, location and ship files
for the SCEN folder.

There is also some updated documentation - mainly related to aircraft.

This is the file set used for a new test of Scenario 129 as a tag team game.
Absence of city bombing missions required reworking aircraft files to include a new filter.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 551
RE: RHS Microupdate 4.04 - 7/30/2018 9:22:57 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
In the Installer folder there are several other folders

RHS Documentation is pure documentation - it has no game function. But it explains a LOT.

The ART folder is important. Copy EVERYTHING in it to the ART folder of the install you want to use for RHS Level II

The SCEN folder is important. Copy EVERYTHING in it to the SCEN folder of the install you want to play from.
It installs 7 scenarios - 121 to 126 and 129. 126 is a 1945 TEST bed only - so you can look at an mess with
ships, planes, units in that year. It needs man-years of work to update all records involved with a full map,
1945 Downfall Scenario. Like stock downfall, it includes kamakazes and atom bombs. Except these are RHS atom
bombs that kind of work (taking out many targets potentially). There are two kinds - gun type and implosion type.
If the Japanese manage to keep their economy working, and dedicate aircraft factories to one or two kinds of bombers
(Ki-91 Army, G8N Navy - special dedicated atomic bombers like B-29 Silverplate bombers - not ordinary Ki-91 or G8N1)
they might be able to field gun type bombs in the fall of 1945. And there is no political effect - the Allies can use
up to 3 a month without any impact on victory level.

One more thing is CRITICAL. Go to the RHS PWHEXE & PWZLINK folder and find pwhexe.dat - put it in the TOP LEVEL
AE folder.

IF you get to a later season - that file is where you find the pwhexe.dat file for it. Both weather effects
and construction are modeled. Notice the ice in the Arctic. It disappears over time. By Fall, you can sail in
the Arctic Ocean - and both the Northwest and Northeast Passages work (kind of). Only Russia can use the NE Passage.
And the Northwest Passage is barely feasible to use if you have a fast enough vessel and start at the beginning
of September. As in real life, you might get stuck by Winter! The Arctic, however, provides access to half a dozen
major river systems in North America and Siberia. Mainly of logistic significance to the Allies - the main way to
get any significant amount of troops or things to the far North - they CAN be Japanese invasion routes! The US
Army built a radar station at Barrow because of that possibility. In RHS, Japanese ships can sail deep into Canada,
Alaska or Siberia - a bit in Monsoon - and a lot in Fall.

Seasons are

Winter November 1 to February 28
Spring March 1 to April 30
Monsoon May 1 to August 31
Fall September 1 to November 30

Winter and Monsoon are defined in code. Spring and Fall are the transitional periods in between them.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 552
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.06 - 8/5/2018 7:04:30 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 4.06

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This update mainly updates bomb filters for JAAF aircraft, and to a lesser degree,
for JNAF aircraft, relative to air ASW weapons. This because some of the weapons
in the device list were not used. This permits slightly better modeling of the aircraft.
Slightly because Japanese AS weapons are very marginal, often with an accuracy of only one.

It also updates the single "river" hexside between Leyte and Samar Islands, at Tacloban.
It is now a major river rather than a navigable river. Never mind ships may pass through
the hex. They enter or leave via the SE, NE and NW hexsides - but not the E hexside. Otherwise
a task force can "sail right through" Southern Leyte Island instead of being forced to use
the narrow channel between the islands.

In JES scenarios 125 and 129, a tiny Japanese AKL (cargo capacity 170 tons) had a corrupted class pointer,
and it was classed as a British E class light cruiser. This is fixed.

There are also a number of corrections of land unit pointers at formations which define units and sometimes
their upgrades. A number of these formations, and sometimes the land units, were also corrected. In particular
some flaws in Japanese armor formations were corrected.

This update is mainly a product of the current test game. Because of the bomb filters, which did not permit
city bombing, that game is now restarting. All relevant bombers on both sides may conduct city bombing.
That process caused numerous other eratta related to aircraft data to be detected and corrected.

What is missing is an update to all pwhexe.dat files after the game start one. That will follow soon. There
are only a handful of corrections, but all the files should be in sync with respect to the improvements or
corrections.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 553
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.06 - 8/6/2018 12:07:18 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1954
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Are there any AARs of RHS vrs AI, I sure would like to review them to see which (if any) allows for AI play and some strategies. Once upon a time (maybe it was back in the WITP days before AE), there were such options and maybe with CHS. Yes I remember those days and I miss old Cobra's work.

Just to avoid the rant, yes I know there is no such thing as an AI in AE. In a perfect world everyone play's PBEM, which in my mind is almost as binding as a marriage. Who wants to call a game or life together quits on someone who spends months and years cultivating a common cause.

Anyway a response will be appreciated.

Buck

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 554
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.06 - 8/6/2018 12:16:13 AM   
btd64


Posts: 5127
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
I believe that the even numbered scenarios are Ok vs the AI. Buck, if you want Long road to Tokyo, email me....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 555
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.06 - 8/6/2018 1:00:00 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1954
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Thank you, will email.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 556
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.06 - 8/6/2018 6:40:11 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3202
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Are there any AARs of RHS vrs AI, I sure would like to review them to see which (if any) allows for AI play and some strategies. Once upon a time (maybe it was back in the WITP days before AE), there were such options and maybe with CHS. Yes I remember those days and I miss old Cobra's work.

Just to avoid the rant, yes I know there is no such thing as an AI in AE. In a perfect world everyone play's PBEM, which in my mind is almost as binding as a marriage. Who wants to call a game or life together quits on someone who spends months and years cultivating a common cause.

Anyway a response will be appreciated.

Buck


Larry had played scen 129 versus AI before he moved to TOAW IV
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4346175

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 557
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.06 - 8/6/2018 11:17:46 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1954
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Thank you. I play versus Japan but this gives me a ton of areas or things to check up on.

Buck

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 558
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.07 - 8/8/2018 9:13:15 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 4.07

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhPxFuII1ZkrVQefJBQ

This microupdate mainly changes location files with respect to two locations in
Korea and one in Cambodia. The two Korean locations had swapped hex coordinates
and had some name confusion. Both called Shirotsu (with a different Korean
translation), they should be Sieshin (Chongjin) and Shirotsu (Kimchaek). As well,
Siem Reap in Cambodia should be a port, but it was not so defined. As well,

pwhexe.dat changed a blocked hexside into an ocean hexside to allow Siem Reap to be
a port, and the hex itself went from being land to being coastal.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 559
RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/8/2018 9:22:58 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Are there any AARs of RHS vrs AI, I sure would like to review them to see which (if any) allows for AI play and some strategies. Once upon a time (maybe it was back in the WITP days before AE), there were such options and maybe with CHS. Yes I remember those days and I miss old Cobra's work.

Just to avoid the rant, yes I know there is no such thing as an AI in AE. In a perfect world everyone play's PBEM, which in my mind is almost as binding as a marriage. Who wants to call a game or life together quits on someone who spends months and years cultivating a common cause.

Anyway a response will be appreciated.

Buck


RHS has three major variations - Full RHS (odd numbered scenarios) with ALL features but a lot of little things
needing management - Simplified RHS (even numbered scenarios) absent a lot of features to simplify play - and
Japan Enhanced Scenarios which are Full RHS with non-strictly historical orders of battle.

The basic Simplified RHS Scenario is 122 and it is specifically designed to work with AI as Japan. It uses EXACTLY
the same AI as stock does - because I never altered it. This scenario is named RHSAIO = RHS AI Option - to make
this clear. It has NO features that confuse AI - like inland waterways not connected to the sea, railroad units
that only a human knows must move along a rail line - etc. Scenario 124 is virtually identical EXCEPT the Russians
are active. We find active Russians is a lot more fair and permits proper management of the USSR. Players never
have much trouble with it. But AI has no idea how to manage Russians active but not at war - so 124 will NOT work
vs AI - in spite of every other detail being the same.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 560
RE: RHS Comprehensive Reworking Bombs - 8/11/2018 5:13:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16313
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Device 212

This device almost certainly is the Mark 29 bomb which weighs 500 pounds vice 400 pounds.

It contains 90 bomblets of roughly 2 pounds (1.8 pounds).

Device 211, described as a 100 pound bomb, is almost certainly the Mark 28, which indeed weighs
100 pounds.

Device 197 is new. It is a 50 kg German BSK bomb containing 36 1 kg bomblets.

Otherwise, we are converting the former "ground support packages" to
Ground and City Bombing Packages (of four HE bombs of various sizes from 20 pounds to 242 kg).
UNLESS a bomber uses the ICB packages listed above (which is rare), it generally will use
the Ground and City Bombing package of appropriate size for its bomb bay.

The exceptions are

The B-25G Mitchell ICB, the B-29B Superfort ICB, the RAF Lancaster PFF and the Ki-80 Helen ICB. These will use
the same ICB used for most land attacks on cities as well. The Mitchell and Helen can still
make ground support attacks. The B-29B cannot - due to doctrine and control by a separate
air force dedicated to strategic rather than tactical bombing. [On that basis, it likely should
not have an anti-naval capability either, but we cannot know if in a game Japan might not still have
significant ship assets late in the war - so the capability was left in].

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/11/2018 9:54:06 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 561
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS Order of Battle Development (essay) Page: <<   < prev  15 16 17 18 [19]
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

0.129