Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RHSCVO Level 7 Observations

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHSCVO Level 7 Observations Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/21/2007 2:14:00 PM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
Just a few observations.

Axis Hawk art is wrong looks like Ki34.
Canton has an aircraft factory indicator but no aircraft factories.
The Japanese have no AD type ships and therefore can not replenish Destroyers with Torpedoes accept at high level ports. Question was this intensional? Historical?
Post #: 1
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/21/2007 7:00:48 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24818
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
The supply sinks still mess things up:

Nauru, defended by 'civilians' eats up the invasion.

Big one - Singapore, supplies get sucked out of Singapore at a prodigious rate and deposited in Kuala Lumpur. There they are captured by the Japanese forces, not used for defending a siege at Singapore.

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 2
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/21/2007 7:23:57 PM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
In every test I have done Nauru falls on the day of the invasion or the day after. I use Maizuri(?) from Kwajalein with almost no prep.
Didn't know about the problem in Malaya.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/21/2007 11:49:05 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Just a few observations.

Axis Hawk art is wrong looks like Ki34.

REPLY: There are several art sets. It may be you don't have the right one installed. Others say it is wrong as well - but still a Hawk. Is it is RTAF colors?

Canton has an aircraft factory indicator but no aircraft factories.

REPLY: Actually correct. The factory moved to India - where you will find it. But the plant itself - and most workers - remained behing. [Hindustan Aircraft - formerly China Aircraft - still exists - still builds fighters] It can be expanded from 0 - but in CVO family it takes some time for enough HI points (or something) to collect to permit it. I intended it as dysfunctional chrome - but it actually works. It comes up building the Axis Hawk at 0 when it appears - but you can change it to a Japanese type and expand it.

The Japanese have no AD type ships and therefore can not replenish Destroyers with Torpedoes accept at high level ports. Question was this intensional? Historical?


REPLY: Historical. Japan had only one true AR, and a few auxiliary ones, several AS and a few auxiliary ones (several were lost by conversion to CVL/CVS), and no AD. I cannot rationalize changing that - so I didn't.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/21/2007 11:51:34 PM >

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 4
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 12:26:48 AM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
Thanks for the reply on the other topics, as to the Axis Hawk, no it is the same grey transport aircraft art as the K-34. No color to it at all. Just started my game with Mistmatz and will post any peculiarities here for comment and as maybe a heads up if you find that something is wrong. What are the chances I can steal an AD from the allies.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 6:57:34 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The supply sinks still mess things up:

Nauru, defended by 'civilians' eats up the invasion.

REPLY: Nauru is a small problem: it defends slightly more than I like. But not for long. It will fall to the original landing party if you either wait it out or if you support the landing with air strikes/serious ship bombardment. Or you can send a larger/second landing party. I wish they would fix this problem - but I am not sure if it will be done in the final patch - or not? It is very tolerable now: I saw Hong Kong fall in one day in one test! [Which must be a die roll - usually it lasts longer than history - Christmas Day] I don't see what more we can do - other than say "free supplies are free to screw things up" or remove the resources? Besides - it is good discipline to build proper attacks against places with clever engineers around - witness IRL events on New Guinea screwed up by much smaller numbers of "civilians".


Big one - Singapore, supplies get sucked out of Singapore at a prodigious rate and deposited in Kuala Lumpur. There they are captured by the Japanese forces, not used for defending a siege at Singapore.



REPLY: This is not entirely under my control. They have addressed this in AE - with player settable buttons. But at least Kauala Lumpur is not hard to take any more - and you can actually use those supplies yourself - if you FIGHT FOR the place instead of run. Singapore fell in 100 days - are you sending reinforcements TO Malaya - and holding out that long?
You should do better than history - as the real commander was perfectly awful. Sending less forces - running for Singapore instead of fighting - is not exactly the fault of the system. Kuala Lumpur should be a place you want to defend for political and economic reasons - and if this effect makes you need to do that - I am not sure it is not a boon - even if it is not exactly what I want either.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 9:32:24 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24818
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
The original landing force on Nauru was wiped out, by attrition I think. I realize this is both minor and an issue of chance - Okami had Nauru fall promptly. I had Wake fall promptly, which sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

Regarding Singapore and KL, I know those game mechanics are not under your control. However, the problem is caused by all the extra 'civilians' in the unit at KL. Your comments about fighting for the place etc., have nothing to do with this. KL pulls almost all the supplies out of Singapore. Singapore will not hold out as long when the LCU's starting there and retreated there all begin starving practically right away. Let alone last 100 days.

Whatever good modeling is being achieved by having that big civilian unit in KL is wiped out and more by the bad modeling of Hoovering all supplies out of Singapore.

BTW, I have a bunch of units in KL defending, and it has not fallen yet. It will, and then Singapore is doomed quickly thereafter. An IJ division made a run down the middle of the peninsula and split the CW forces. Being the AI, the unit then made for the north coast (east in the game). A human player would have been able to seize that opportunity and keep the CW forces split or turning north and hitting KL from two directions. The point is that because the supplies are pulled out of Singapore and stuck in KL, they will be captured there and will not contribute to a 100-day simulation of Singapore holding out (all other things being equal).

I'm not going to belabor the point, just wanted to report that this issue has not changed and does not provide a good simulation of the situation on the peninsula.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 7
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 12:55:28 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Thanks for the reply on the other topics, as to the Axis Hawk, no it is the same grey transport aircraft art as the K-34. No color to it at all. Just started my game with Mistmatz and will post any peculiarities here for comment and as maybe a heads up if you find that something is wrong. What are the chances I can steal an AD from the allies.


If only Cobra were alive an well...

We need to check pointers and art - I think the right image is there - maybe I can figure it out?
But I can only fix pointer issues.

We DO have 4 or 5 art issues with the EOS plane art set - I just duplicated the closest art pending the right stuff being plugged in.


(in reply to okami)
Post #: 8
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 12:58:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The original landing force on Nauru was wiped out, by attrition I think. I realize this is both minor and an issue of chance - Okami had Nauru fall promptly. I had Wake fall promptly, which sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

Regarding Singapore and KL, I know those game mechanics are not under your control. However, the problem is caused by all the extra 'civilians' in the unit at KL. Your comments about fighting for the place etc., have nothing to do with this. KL pulls almost all the supplies out of Singapore. Singapore will not hold out as long when the LCU's starting there and retreated there all begin starving practically right away. Let alone last 100 days.

Whatever good modeling is being achieved by having that big civilian unit in KL is wiped out and more by the bad modeling of Hoovering all supplies out of Singapore.

BTW, I have a bunch of units in KL defending, and it has not fallen yet. It will, and then Singapore is doomed quickly thereafter. An IJ division made a run down the middle of the peninsula and split the CW forces. Being the AI, the unit then made for the north coast (east in the game). A human player would have been able to seize that opportunity and keep the CW forces split or turning north and hitting KL from two directions. The point is that because the supplies are pulled out of Singapore and stuck in KL, they will be captured there and will not contribute to a 100-day simulation of Singapore holding out (all other things being equal).

I'm not going to belabor the point, just wanted to report that this issue has not changed and does not provide a good simulation of the situation on the peninsula.


Well - you could MOVE the supplies OUT of KL - once it is isolated. They can be flown of course - but ship is better. Once the rail line falls I send lots of supplies to Singapore - from Sumatra - and I have had it hold into 1943.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 9
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 1:57:56 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
In my current game, Singapore fell approx 031242 and the Allies still hold Kuala Lumpur on 040142..RHS 7.7872...
I had been having issues with supply even going to inner towns in Australia, but Sid fixed them, (or justified the lousy supply for Alice Springs, which historically was your basic hole in the ground that had to be there)..

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 3:52:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I have an idea. It needs testing. If I send you (WITPQS) a pwhex file, will you tell me if you like the effects - or not? It is an almost invisible change - but it might just do what you want. At the price that - Singapore is more port oriented - less land LOC oriented. I lack the confidence to issue a general change if it does not address this matter in a way you like.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 11
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 11:01:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24818
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I think it's impossible to effectively move supplies as you suggest because A) Japanese air power won't allow it, and B) supplies moved to Singapore will promptly leave again. I have proved this in continental USA by trying to air-transport supplies around. It's useless because the rail lines are faster! Shipping them does work, but on the Malay Peninsula the dynamics would cause them to almost immediately flow right back to KL. The ships wouldn't make it through the air gauntlet anyhow.

As far as changing the pwhex, I think that cure would be worse than the ill. Singapore needs to be accessible per historical capability by both attacker and defender. It's really too late to help my current game anyway, which I plan to run for long term (hopefully until the new code is out!). I appreciate the offer, but I'll pass this time around.

Hopefully AE will greatly improve this mechanism.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 12
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/22/2007 11:08:21 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24818
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
In my current game, Singapore fell approx 031242 and the Allies still hold Kuala Lumpur on 040142..RHS 7.7872...
I had been having issues with supply even going to inner towns in Australia, but Sid fixed them, (or justified the lousy supply for Alice Springs, which historically was your basic hole in the ground that had to be there)..


I definitely could defend Malay better than in my current game. I decided to try a middle-ground strategy this time. It's really just the supply vacuuming issue I wanted to report, the rest is context.

It looks like the supply movement issue will be improved in AE. Also, if they get the improved CS convoy system working the way they hinted at the player's task load will be a whole lot less to move around all those resources, et al in the rear areas.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 13
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 12:36:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think it's impossible to effectively move supplies as you suggest because A) Japanese air power won't allow it, and B) supplies moved to Singapore will promptly leave again. I have proved this in continental USA by trying to air-transport supplies around. It's useless because the rail lines are faster! Shipping them does work, but on the Malay Peninsula the dynamics would cause them to almost immediately flow right back to KL. The ships wouldn't make it through the air gauntlet anyhow.

As far as changing the pwhex, I think that cure would be worse than the ill. Singapore needs to be accessible per historical capability by both attacker and defender. It's really too late to help my current game anyway, which I plan to run for long term (hopefully until the new code is out!). I appreciate the offer, but I'll pass this time around.

Hopefully AE will greatly improve this mechanism.


If we code Singapore as road instead of as RR - the supplies won't flow OUT as fast. But everything will flow IN just fine. Further - Singapore is a conjested place - so it might be good simulation. I note that Kyushu and Hokkaido have no primary RR at all - and neither does Shikoku - but things flow adequately. I decreased the RR from primary to secondary to help supplies not leave major cities so fast - and it worked.

What is the point of saying "we have a problem" if you don't want it to be addressed? AE is a different game - granted it is related. WITP will remain - and if we can make it work better - why not?


< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/23/2007 12:37:16 AM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 14
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 3:08:13 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24818
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
What is the point of saying "we have a problem" if you don't want it to be addressed?


For the benefit of others. As I mentioned, it's too late too make any difference in the game I am currently running. I do not want to restart right now.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 15
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 6:48:16 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Don't do a restart. Do a quick and dirty test - local units only - using your earlier save game files - to get a sense of it. you know what you saw you didn't like - I want to know how a single hex change affects that?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 16
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 8:39:54 AM   
okami


Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline
Is there respawning in CVO? I just sank the Marblehead and Boise and I wonder if I will see them down the road.

< Message edited by okami -- 12/23/2007 8:40:16 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 9:27:58 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24818
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Don't do a restart. Do a quick and dirty test - local units only - using your earlier save game files - to get a sense of it. you know what you saw you didn't like - I want to know how a single hex change affects that?


Eh, I only save three versions back. Unless I'm testing something specific that is. Malay is gone already.

If you want me to test I'll be happy to fire up a new game and test 10 or 20 turns or something. Let me know.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 10:37:47 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2243
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
Hi El Cid,

In a stock game with DBs, when you fly them at targets in a high altitude they attack in strings of 9 (for the most part). When I attack around 9k I normally get DB groups of 3 planes.

My preference normally is to run the DBs so they attack in groups of three but I'm finding the AAA murderous over PH. Any suggestions in attaing smaller attack groups w/o getting creamed by flak?

Just curious - do the flak guns have an accuracy level? If we reduced the accuracy level a little of AAA guns what would be the effect on flak losses?

When attacking enemy shipping what was the standard doctrine with TBs and DBs? Was the intent to perform a High/Low attack with DBs and TBs to split the number of AAA guns and make them choose between DBs and TBs?

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 19
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 11:02:34 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

In a stock game with DBs, when you fly them at targets in a high altitude they attack in strings of 9 (for the most part). When I attack around 9k I normally get DB groups of 3 planes.

My preference normally is to run the DBs so they attack in groups of three but I'm finding the AAA murderous over PH. Any suggestions in attaing smaller attack groups w/o getting creamed by flak?

I think you do know, but if you don't (or for others), the number of DB's attacking together IS dependent on the altitude you attack from. The larger plane groups will attack from 16,000 ft+, but the lower altitude attacks (with smaller number of planes) have a higher percentage to hit, (if you are willing to take the AAA risk).
It is a trade off.





_____________________________




(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 20
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 4:44:32 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Is there respawning in CVO? I just sank the Marblehead and Boise and I wonder if I will see them down the road.


no

(in reply to okami)
Post #: 21
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 5:00:46 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

In a stock game with DBs, when you fly them at targets in a high altitude they attack in strings of 9 (for the most part). When I attack around 9k I normally get DB groups of 3 planes.

My preference normally is to run the DBs so they attack in groups of three but I'm finding the AAA murderous over PH. Any suggestions in attaing smaller attack groups w/o getting creamed by flak?

Just curious - do the flak guns have an accuracy level? If we reduced the accuracy level a little of AAA guns what would be the effect on flak losses?

When attacking enemy shipping what was the standard doctrine with TBs and DBs? Was the intent to perform a High/Low attack with DBs and TBs to split the number of AAA guns and make them choose between DBs and TBs?


There is a difference between the game and real life

and we don't entirely know how the game works

but I have just learned a little about the AAA from Matrix

and I have learned some from testing.

The point is - what works in game terms is only loosely related to what works IRL. The game system is very, very, very simple - and for its simplicity it works remarkably well. But it does not do all we might wish. It will be slightly better in AE: apparently facing is not used in WITP I - and will be in AE for example. But in theory, what guns can shoot should matter! WITP I just assumes half of them can - a crude but not horrible assumption. [Sometimes ALL the guns can bear. Sometimes 1/3. Half is in between.]

In general, the object is to maximize the attack (of course). Your observation - higher altitudes permit bigger strings - is astute, correct, and well modeled by WITP. You only face the AA one time if you use bigger strings, and you have more survivors, so you are more effective. Your preference is the problem here: you should NOT want to have strings of 3 - unless you face huge numbers of tiny, almost unarmed targets (e.g. landing craft).

Another object is to run em out of ammo. This is hard to do - but if you have truly gigantic forces - it works superbly well. The first time it worked decisively IRL was at Midway. It was accidental - as so many things were in that battle. "Ineffective" air attacks were said by one IJN officer (Adm Yamaguchi) to be "brilliant" - he thought it was on purpose - because they DID run them out of ready ammunition and combat air patrol. Just as these reached close to zero - a single squadron managed to get into an effective position to dive on three of the four carriers.
[The fourth was under clouds and not sighted] The attack was not badly cut up by either CAP or AA - because there was virtually none of either to cut it up - and of course that would be the idea - if indeed it were not an accident. While WE didn't do things that way, during the Cold War the Soviets formalized it doctrinally (and the Soviets thought long and hard about attacking carrier forces even if not from other carrier forces). Their idea was "simultaneous, multiple engagement on several vectors, in waves, the best wave last" so (a) the CAP had to choose which en engage - or split up so much as to risk being combat ineffective; (b) the surface weapons risked being "saturated" (run out of the ability to fire aimed shots or, failing that, run out of ready rounds - a big deal in the modern age which lacked the many mounts of WWII ships) and finally (c) the last wave - with the best pilots/weapons - is least likely to suffer any attrition - it is most likely to face damaged ships which are probably on fire - so infra red homing weapons may be used - weapons difficult to defeat with electronic countermeasures.

In WITP we can run em out of ammo - if not in a single attack then in a voyage - and if you have done the Midway thing - hit em over and over and over again - you just might do that. IF you think you did - THEN send in the good stuff.

But basically - overwhelm by numbers at one moment. Dive Bombers should go in at 13 or 14 000 feet - and you want strings of 9 every time - which that altitude almost insures.




(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 22
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 5:56:57 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2243
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

In a stock game with DBs, when you fly them at targets in a high altitude they attack in strings of 9 (for the most part). When I attack around 9k I normally get DB groups of 3 planes.

My preference normally is to run the DBs so they attack in groups of three but I'm finding the AAA murderous over PH. Any suggestions in attaing smaller attack groups w/o getting creamed by flak?



I think you do know, but if you don't (or for others), the number of DB's attacking together IS dependent on the altitude you attack from. The larger plane groups will attack from 16,000 ft+, but the lower altitude attacks (with smaller number of planes) have a higher percentage to hit, (if you are willing to take the AAA risk).
It is a trade off.




Hi m10bob,

I'm not sure about improved accuracy with 3-plane groups vs 9-plane groups but what I've experienced for the most part in other games/mods is about the same number of hits with either attack method. 9-plane groups are great if I want to put multiple hits on a target while 3-plane groups hit more targets with less hits. Also, at least from the manual, DBs/TBs run thru multiple levels of flak as they come down to their attack altitude.

In initial Naval Attack operations with DBs/TBs I like to spread the number of hits out and slow down as many enemy ships as possible. After that I like to come in with 9-plane groups the next day and try to clean up. What I'm noticing is a much stronger loss rate of TBs and DBs in RHS EOS. Maybe the losses are realistic from a historical perspective but in other mods and the stock game I don't think I've experienced DB/TB losses as heavy as what I'm noticing in RHS EOS.

I just wanted to ask if the loss ratios are modeling the intent of the mod designers. It is not my intent to nit-pick; I just noted that El Sid is planning test games and I'm asking if the results I've experienced so far coincide with the intent of the AAA warfare modifications that have been designed into this mod.

From the manual:
Altitude also affects airstrikes as follows:

Planes on a Search Mission will have a greater chance to bomb the target when flying at lower altitudes, but will suffer from more flak.

Dive bombers and fighter bombers always automatically dive down to 2,000 feet to release their bombs, which means that they will first suffer flak at their assigned altitude and then take flak at their lower diving altitude (note that fighters bombers dive bomb, but not as well as dive bombers).

Torpedo bombers must drop down to 200 feet to engage their targets, so they also suffer flak at their assigned altitude and then eat flak again at 200 feet.

fighters flying escort will automatically fly a few thousand feet above the bombers they are escorting.

Planes that are assigned an attack Mission at an altitude of 100 feet will bomb and strafe their target.

Planes on a Sweep Mission will always drop to 100 feet and strafe (taking flak at their set altitude and again at 100 feet).

Planes flying Recon Missions are more likely to detect the enemy at lower altitudes.

Planes flying a Naval Attack Mission with an altitude of 100 feet will skip bomb and strafe their target. Skip bombing is a very accurate way to bomb a ship if the experience of the pilots is over 60, but the accuracy falls when their experience is below 60 and very dramatically below 50. Of course, flak from ships will be very intense at 100 feet.

Planes that strafe a base will attack aircraft on the ground, support troops at the base (HQ, AA, ART, ENG, and CD type ground units), ships at anchor in port, and they can also reduce the morale of aircraft stationed at the base. Strafing occurs during a Sweep
Mission, or during an airfield or port attack where the altitude of the attacking planes is set to 100 feet. Strafing may also occur during an attack on ships if the altitude is set to 100 feet, in which case they also attempt to skip bomb the target. Strafing may also occur when attacking a ground unit and the altitude is set to 100 feet.

Aircraft that are not Fighter-bombers or Kamikazes must be given an altitude of 100 feet in order to be eligible to attack a TF of all barges or PT boats. Fighter-bombers or Kamikazes will automatically dive down to 100 feet when attacking one of these TFs.

When a group flying CAP attacks bombers, they reset their altitude to that of the bombers.

When fighters attack other fighters, the fighters deemed to have initiative will change their altitude to that of the fighters they are attacking.

If a group flying escort is flying over 3,000 feet above the nearest bomber group it will drop down to 3,000 feet above the highest bomber group. If escorts are below the lowest bomber group, they will rise up to the altitude of the lowest bomber group.

Other than impacting P-39 and P-400 performance, altitude does not impact air to air combat with one exception: aircraft that are reinforcing CAP due to a radar contact of the incoming strike may not be able to climb fast enough to engage the incoming bombers.

Level bombers attacking at below 5,000 feet will have their accuracy and effectiveness reduced.

No level bomber will hit a ship with more than one of its bombs on any particular Mission (they assumed to spread out over such a distance that at best one hit will occur from any particular bomber).

Level bomber groups that have more damaged aircraft than ready aircraft near the end of the Resolution Phase and are ordered to attack at an altitude of below 6,000 feet will have the possibility of having a 30 point Morale loss.

Inexperienced bomber groups will jettison their bombs early

Planes attacking at 100 feet will climb to 1000 after the attack

Bombers flying too high for CAP will not be attacked.



_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 23
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 6:38:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
You didn't tell us (directly) that you are playing the Allies.

But - you did say EOS / EEO - and you are saying flak is stronger - so

since ALLIED flak is the same

it means you are playing the Allies facing better Japanese flak.


Now that is the point. That is the mod intent. EOS is a "Japan enhanced scenario" in which they "do it better" - although I don't let them do it as much better as they should have done in 1941 when the war begins - because they had not yet learned the lessons of the war (so there are not enough light guns and no 40 mm Bofors whatever - the few 40 mm are Vickers - and they are very limited in numbers and not on important ships at all). Thus a DD might get a 25 mm mounting on each side - possibly a twin (but a triple in EEO) - instead of one or two 13.2 mm HMGs (or even 7.7mm MMGs) - but that is hardly sufficient. But by standardizing on the wonderful 1938 (1938!!) gun designs - a 4 inch and a 3 inch 60 - they gain an awful lot of AAA firepower (although, to be sure, the big ships tend to use 5 inch guns). A 5 inch gun not mass produced also comes on line as the war begins - and it soon adds to the list of AAA problems. Then they put the Bofors in production earlier than IRL - they did eventually anyway - and by mid war the AAA gets bloody awful. Instead of producing obsolescent 75mm Type 88s, they are producing 76mm/60s. Instead of 120 mm guns (several kinds, old and new) they build 100 mm guns far more efficent and with higher ceilings. And many 127 mm are replaced either by 100 mm or by 127 mm of a better type.

And I am a AAW guy - so while I limit the number of tubes per ship because Japan was poor - I configure them efficiently - not a highlight of what Japan did IRL. [This will matter more in AE where facing is actually used]

Your observation is correct - AAA is one of the things Japan could have done significantly better. It had the important ingrediants: superb or adequate guns, the best AAA training devices in any nation in the war (planetarium like trainers with flying scale models and analog computers aimed at by students in real directors in ALL lighting conditions - NO other nation did anything like this until long after WWII) - fire control computers - PRE war designed AA fire direction centers (the Japanese AA destroyers were originally AA cruisers - and retained the AAFDC feature - behind the bridge - just as on my Charles F Adams class DDG of 1960s vintage - but these vessels were building when the war began). Use of naval fire control methods and guns ashore by the Army (both happened - late in the war) - but early. This is going to make the Allies need a few of the extra planes they get (I am running vast surplusses in tests though - the Allies seem unable to use most of their planes).

If you do NOT want Japan Enhansed Scenarios - you have two other RHS families: CVO (which is more or less "the war as it was really done") and BBO (which is more or less "the war as it was really planned"). They differ mainly in what form ships take (Shinano is a CV in CVO, a BB in BBO - logically enough!) - and both use strictly historical AAA modeling - start to finish. Similarly, EOS has significant enhancements to aircraft - we assigned PTO code names to Me-109 and Ju-88 - but didn't face either in PTO IRL - the G5N was not built as a bomber at all - nor were some late war planes including the superb G7N - a sort of "Betty on steriods" - with more range, speed, defensive armament and a better payload - or the ultra long range Ki-71 recon bomber - the Ki-64 - a Ki-61 with a hidden engine behind the pilot - two engines driving contra rotating propellers - all the power but none of the angular momentum problems of either two or one engine fighters (the contra rotating propse mean you can roll either way the same, the engines on the centerline mean you don't have that problem when they are out on the wings). That is a bigger deal than the AAA. And they get some better armor organization. Not ideal - but Yamashita's proposals actually implemented - and in a timely way. The Japanese get no more steel, aluminum, engine hp, men - just cast it all in better form.

[G5N4 - the last of the series in RHS - comes in with the guided missiles used by the Fw-200 Condor - originally an IJN project in its armed form. And late in the war the Ki-102b has a very neat Japanese guided missile - the IGo-1b. The G7s deliver a torpedo with more warhead and tactical range - the latter does not matter in this form of WITP but the warhead does - and the G5N3 is a fairly good bomber as such - while the Ju-88 in the 4 series is a superb (if land based) dive bomber that one player thinks may "sweep the seas of everything it can find". In EOS family Japan can play the land based naval air power game writ large - and this is the model the Soviets copied IRL. ]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/23/2007 6:55:57 PM >

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 24
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 7:17:53 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2243
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
Hi El Cid,

Sorry - I should have stated that I'm playing as Japan. I was just noticing more flak kills vs my Vals and Kates then I'm used to seeing. I think this might be because DBs & TBs run thru the flak twice (from what I can tell from the manual) and if the AAA has an increased effect against air units then this is probably what I'm seeing.

I have no kick against the AAA losses if this is the intent of the design - I was just surprised by it - .

I'm looking 4ward to playing with the Ju-88 as a DB to gauge it's effectivness in comparison to the Val and Sonia. I like the what-if scenarios, and a what-if-the-Japanese-Navy-and-Army-actually-played-2gether scenario sounds like fun to me.

Thanks again for all of the time/effort you've put into RHS and for taking the time to answer questions.

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 25
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/23/2007 10:09:35 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
"REPLY: Historical. Japan had only one true AR, and a few auxiliary ones, several AS and a few auxiliary ones (several were lost by conversion to CVL/CVS), and no AD. I cannot rationalize changing that - so I didn't."

While Sid was responding to a question concerning Japanese AD's, he made this comment.
Technically Sid is corrct in that only 1 (of 3) purpose built AR's was built prior to the war of the 3 ship Akashi class, a 9000 ton displacement ship 500ftx67.5 ft and draft of 18.5 ft, laid down in 1937. The Akashi was armed with 4x5" guns.

The Japanese did however have other AR's, which were either converted during the war, or worked in both the Repair, and/or the salvage role.
Not counting "salvage tugs"(each bearing large derricks), there ware a minimum of 6 merchant conversions made strictly as AR's. They were the Esahi, Hakkai,Harruta(from 1135 to 5115 tons, built in 1938, the last being discarded in 1942, each 422ftx58ftx27.5draft.
There were also the Shoei,(5644tons/1937) Unyo,(2827/1937) Uragami and Yamabiko,(both apparently 6795tons/built 1937).
At least the Yamabiko was 441.5ftx59ftx33.5..

Further, there was an ex-Chinese gun boat(the Ming-Sen) which in its' career was sunk twice and both times raised and converted to both a salvage ship, and then an AR,re-launched in October 1938 as the Hitonose. It was rather small, at 460 tons, armed only with some machine guns.

These ships are only the ones we might seriously consider conventional "AR's" (in our context), but the Japanese also had several purpose built salvage ships which worked hand in glove with those AR's to both salvage and repair.
(I have not named them here, but will if there is interest for inclusion.).

Source:Japanese Warships of WWII, Anthony J Watts(Ian Allen)..





_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 26
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/24/2007 1:34:40 AM   
DonH58

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 10/13/2006
From: Whidbey Is, USA
Status: offline
Hi El Cid
Is there going to be another update of CVO 7 or just the pwhex. Want to start a new game with my boy but thought I would check first. Thanks and I really appreciate all the hard work you and the RHS team have done!!!

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 27
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/24/2007 4:16:01 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

Sorry - I should have stated that I'm playing as Japan. I was just noticing more flak kills vs my Vals and Kates then I'm used to seeing. I think this might be because DBs & TBs run thru the flak twice (from what I can tell from the manual) and if the AAA has an increased effect against air units then this is probably what I'm seeing.

I have no kick against the AAA losses if this is the intent of the design - I was just surprised by it - .

I'm looking 4ward to playing with the Ju-88 as a DB to gauge it's effectivness in comparison to the Val and Sonia. I like the what-if scenarios, and a what-if-the-Japanese-Navy-and-Army-actually-played-2gether scenario sounds like fun to me.

Thanks again for all of the time/effort you've put into RHS and for taking the time to answer questions.



Allied AAA is no more effective in EOS family than it was in CVO or BBO families. But perhaps you are comparing it to stock?

I DID change ALL AAA in a few respects:

a) A number of "DP" gus were disguised SP guns because they had ceilings of zero!!! That means they NEVER shoot. Never shooting limits their value!

b) Many ships and land units nominally armed with AA guns had ZERO detection equipment. So UNLESS some OTHER unit (in the TF or hex) detected the target - or the target was being hit for other than the first time - the AAA usually didn't shoot - a serious limitation.

c) The "sound detector" in all forms of WITP except RHS has a 10% shot at working. This is stuff and nonsense - if the alternative is no detection whatever. I was cautious and conservative - and folded in a network of visual spotters - but even taking fog into consideration - I gave the RHS "audio-visual spotters" a 25% rating. Then I compounded that by giving important units 2 or even 3 such spotter devices. So the CHANCE of detection of a raid is much higher in RHS even compared to the cases where there was a "sound detector" in other WITP forms.

I did not know this - and did not mess with it either - but apparent firepower has no meaning for AAA in WITP. That is, it does not matter how big the "effect" value is - nor does the player screen rating the AAA of a unit have any useful meaning - except broadly "a bigger number means more AAA".


(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 28
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/24/2007 4:19:58 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"REPLY: Historical. Japan had only one true AR, and a few auxiliary ones, several AS and a few auxiliary ones (several were lost by conversion to CVL/CVS), and no AD. I cannot rationalize changing that - so I didn't."

While Sid was responding to a question concerning Japanese AD's, he made this comment.
Technically Sid is corrct in that only 1 (of 3) purpose built AR's was built prior to the war of the 3 ship Akashi class, a 9000 ton displacement ship 500ftx67.5 ft and draft of 18.5 ft, laid down in 1937. The Akashi was armed with 4x5" guns.



Akashi had no sister IRL. [There is one in CHS] A second one (never named) was proposed but not built. [In EOS family I use that building program, so we build her, and in honor of CHS, use the CHS name!] But there were never plans for 3 - and there never was more than the lead ship herself. I have some material on her.

The problem with an AR (or AD for that matter) is that it is a LOT more complex than it seems like: it takes a long time to get the trained people to run the ultra expensive machine tools. The time to do an AR/AD is something like 250-300% longer than the time to actually build the ship (from decision to build to commissioning ready for operations). Japan was more or less cut off from machine tools once WWII started in ETO - and most such plans were impractical to implement.

There were auxiliary ARs - at least two I can think of off the top of my head were large enough to merit that designation in USN - and several smaller vessels (which correspond to ARD type vessels in our nomenclature). Small ARs and salvage ships should not be confused with an AR. An AR can do almost anything required - only the greatest lifting tasks are beyond her capacity - and it is the same as sending a ship to a shipyard except it is not as fast getting the job done.
What makes a ship an AR is not her hull, it is her staff, her cranes and her specialized machine tools. Japan could not have many because the numbers of all of these were strictly limited. They preferred general ARs to specialized ADs - and it was the best choice.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/24/2007 4:24:43 AM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 29
RE: RHSCVO Level 7 Observations - 12/24/2007 4:28:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16802
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DonH58

Hi El Cid
Is there going to be another update of CVO 7 or just the pwhex. Want to start a new game with my boy but thought I would check first. Thanks and I really appreciate all the hard work you and the RHS team have done!!!


It is not my desire to update either.

If I do update either, the changes will be minor.

If we update pwhex - it backfits into existing games anyway. So it is more likely. Looks like we may change communications coding in a way that impacts supply movement mainly.

I have spotted one erattum in all Level 7 files (a tank company wants to grow into a regiment) - but it can be controlled by turning replacements off most of the time. However, I had an idea that might prevent certain locations from expanding factories automatically to rediculous values - and if it works, we might issue an update. Probably Christmas Day.

(in reply to DonH58)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RHSCVO Level 7 Observations Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.172