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 vs AI = Scenario 122

 
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 vs AI = Scenario 122 Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/28/2018 11:28:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Certainly not.

RHS/AE Level II has its own enhanced version of Andrew Brown's extended map system.
[RHS/AE Level I uses the stock map system]

The pwhexe.dat, pwzlink.dat, and pwzone.dat files are not compatible.

As well, if you do not use the (non-hex) maps provided by RHS, you will lose a vast
amount of player information. Such as where the ice is in the Winter. And the names
of roads, railroads, or other things of interest. NO OTHER MOD has swamp, or mountain,
or other errors corrected. NO OTHER MOD uses the actual transit distances between off
map links. [Only four of Andrew's links match standard shipping distance tables used for
marine navigation.]




quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Will any of Andy's Ironman mods work with the RHSAIO


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 571
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/28/2018 11:36:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
This is quite deliberate - and strictly historical - in a technical sense. Back in pre AE days there
were extensive Forum discussions with Mifune and I advocating a realistic system.

The technical problem is that the USN in particular used something called "deck parks" which permit
what might be called "extra planes" on an aircraft carrier. But these planes - unable to fit in a hanger -
would be lost in bad weather. Because of that, a commander would NOT go into bad weather and lose, say,
35% of the aircraft. There is NO way to model that in game terms. Players go where they please, oblivious
to the weather, and with zero penalty if they run into a storm. We ONLY use hanger capacity, period.

A different problem occurs with the Midway class. The HANGER capacity is TOO LARGE. In 1945 terms (it changes
over time as aircraft "grow" in size), Midway could carry 135 aircraft. But lacking an angled flight deck, it
could not OPERATE that many. If it tried, it would take too long to assemble an air strike, and the lead planes
would not have enough fuel for the nominal operational range required. So we rate the ships at 120 - their
effective operational strength. The goal here is to have the game model realistic and typical numbers rather
than maximum theoretical numbers.

Note that there is a bit of fudge in the rating. Code permits you to conduct flight operations until you
have one more than 7/6 of the rated capacity. So our Midway actually works if you have 120/6 x 7 = 140 planes.
That is actually MORE than its 135 hanger capacity. And far more realistic than giving the ship a rating of
135, which would mean players could operate 158 aircraft!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I have been doing a cursory review of some of the RHS carrier aircraft carrier capacities and find them short in various degrees, especially when it comes to upgrades. Should any care to compare here is an excellent site from actual records of the time

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/location-of-us-naval-aircraft-world-war-ii.html

Buck


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 572
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/28/2018 11:41:29 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I will test Scenario 122 to insure that it works at source. This is really only used as a test scenario -
AI is misnamed and isn't intelligent - so it is a poor opponent. RHS uses stock script - so it is just
as good (or bad) as stock if AI controls the game.

FYI ONLY AI as Japan comes close to working, and only for the first few months of the war. AI as Allies
is more or less hopeless.

Screen resolution is a local problem. I can specify any resolution - and do use different ones on different
machines. It is sometimes difficult to get the right combination.

But it is possible ArtFixed does not work with RHS. I do not know about it and never tested using it.
And we do NOT use normal art.



quote:

ORIGINAL: XTRG

I seem to be having issues in playing the RHS mod, i have it installed on a seperate drive to my Vanilla WITP:AE.

First issue, is that my usual shortcut fix is not working ( "D:\War In The Pacific RHS MOD\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -altFont -fixedArt -noFire -w -px1920 -py1080 ), the game will launch in the wrong resolution.

Second, when i try to launch a game using the A.I oriented scenario the game crashes upon the loading screen ( can't actually enter a game ).

Help ha.

Thank you.


(in reply to XTRG)
Post #: 573
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/28/2018 11:43:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
It appears that the resolutions that will work depend on the graphics adaptor in a specific machine.
Many theoretical combinations - including those I prefer (1920x1200) do NOT work on most machines - but
do on some.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Does the -w windowed mode actually support specific resolutions defined by players? Tr to run the game in -w mode without the -px1920 -py1080.


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 574
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/29/2018 8:11:03 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Appears that this thread on another site adds some support to your analogy.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/10/27/xzko9qd9hgnnu2ntrznthtx5p9loo2

Given the actual historical "Air Group and Aircraft" records on the previously submitted link, one wonders how many A/C were lost to storms and deck storage.

Thank you for your response.

Buck

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 8/29/2018 8:15:55 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 575
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/30/2018 1:19:16 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Sid...I have played pretty much nothing but CHS and RHS for the last 10 years, (give or take), concerning WITP and AE.
Of course I enjoy every bit of map and unit correctness you have managed, but I am not on board with the four seasons.

Is it possible for you to release the files which for simplicity sake will just leave the ports accessible?

I believe I am referring to the PWHEXE.DAT...PWZLINK.DAT and PWZONE.DAT files?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

_____________________________




(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 576
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/30/2018 11:38:26 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
These files ARE public. Use the link for the RHS installer. Just go to the PWHEXE & PWLINK folder.

The base start of game files are for Winter season = December. In these MANY ports in the North are closed
and will NEVER open if you don't change seasons. But it is in my view quite wrong to allow one to sail to any point
that is iced in during winter. IF you really want to compromise with a stock like map for ports, THEN DO NOT
use the start of game pwhexe.dat file in RHS. INSTEAD, copy and rename the 42MONSOON file. This is essentially
identical to the stock map, but corrected and expanded to include some off map areas and many rivers. You will LOSE
a lot of functionality re the USSR - its Arctic access will never be what it should be in Fall - so changing ships
between theaters in some cases becomes awkward. You can sail from Murmansk around the world, however, and still
reach the Pacific eventually. The NW Passage is essentially useless - just present as chrome - only one ship made
the passage during the war - a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner. She actually was the first ship to
circumnavigate North America and is in the game purely as chrome - of no import and can function well enough
without the passage. But the interior river system of the USSR is only fully functional in Fall. So you lose that.

Oddly, the upper Irrawaddy is NOT navigable in Monsoon - due to TOO MUCH water! You will be stuck with that.
The narrow canyons above Mandalay prevent navigation when the flow is too fast.

Failure to use the seasons has a far greater impact. You will NEVER get new roads or railroads.
Andrew Brown compromised - one map for the entire war. RHS start of game map GETS RID OF roads and railroads
NOT present in 1941. You will NEVER get the ones build in the war if you don't update the seasonal files. This
is a LOT. I don't think the game is playable in later years without these in several places. Logistics won't allow
enough supply flow. But for short games - it is better to play with the start of war map. You might pick a later year
MONSOON map if you insist on just one. You will have too many roads in 1941, just like Andrew, only even more so,
the later the year you pick, the more roads you get.

But RHS has several variants to facilitate player choices. We do NOT dictate "one size fits all."

I hope this helps.

PWZLINK and PWZONE files are not really seasonal in such a case.


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sid...I have played pretty much nothing but CHS and RHS for the last 10 years, (give or take), concerning WITP and AE.
Of course I enjoy every bit of map and unit correctness you have managed, but I am not on board with the four seasons.

Is it possible for you to release the files which for simplicity sake will just leave the ports accessible?

I believe I am referring to the PWHEXE.DAT...PWZLINK.DAT and PWZONE.DAT files?

Thank you for your time and consideration.


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 577
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/30/2018 11:41:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
More important than "how many planes were lost"

in my opinion

is the effect of "we cannot go there or we will lose the deck park."

Since there is no practical way to simulate that, I prefer to sail without one all the time.

Besides, you ARE allowed to sail with 1/6 extra planes over what we define. If we used a larger
base value, 1/6 more than the 4/3 of hanger capacity a deck park allows would mean you had fully
150% of hanger capacity ALL the time, if you wanted. I think that is unrealistic.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Appears that this thread on another site adds some support to your analogy.

http://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/10/27/xzko9qd9hgnnu2ntrznthtx5p9loo2

Given the actual historical "Air Group and Aircraft" records on the previously submitted link, one wonders how many A/C were lost to storms and deck storage.

Thank you for your response.

Buck


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 578
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 8/31/2018 12:15:08 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

These files ARE public. Use the link for the RHS installer. Just go to the PWHEXE & PWLINK folder.

The base start of game files are for Winter season = December. In these MANY ports in the North are closed
and will NEVER open if you don't change seasons. But it is in my view quite wrong to allow one to sail to any point
that is iced in during winter. IF you really want to compromise with a stock like map for ports, THEN DO NOT
use the start of game pwhexe.dat file in RHS. INSTEAD, copy and rename the 42MONSOON file. This is essentially
identical to the stock map, but corrected and expanded to include some off map areas and many rivers. You will LOSE
a lot of functionality re the USSR - its Arctic access will never be what it should be in Fall - so changing ships
between theaters in some cases becomes awkward. You can sail from Murmansk around the world, however, and still
reach the Pacific eventually. The NW Passage is essentially useless - just present as chrome - only one ship made
the passage during the war - a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner. She actually was the first ship to
circumnavigate North America and is in the game purely as chrome - of no import and can function well enough
without the passage. But the interior river system of the USSR is only fully functional in Fall. So you lose that.

Oddly, the upper Irrawaddy is NOT navigable in Monsoon - due to TOO MUCH water! You will be stuck with that.
The narrow canyons above Mandalay prevent navigation when the flow is too fast.

Failure to use the seasons has a far greater impact. You will NEVER get new roads or railroads.
Andrew Brown compromised - one map for the entire war. RHS start of game map GETS RID OF roads and railroads
NOT present in 1941. You will NEVER get the ones build in the war if you don't update the seasonal files. This
is a LOT. I don't think the game is playable in later years without these in several places. Logistics won't allow
enough supply flow. But for short games - it is better to play with the start of war map. You might pick a later year
MONSOON map if you insist on just one. You will have too many roads in 1941, just like Andrew, only even more so,
the later the year you pick, the more roads you get.

But RHS has several variants to facilitate player choices. We do NOT dictate "one size fits all."

I hope this helps.

PWZLINK and PWZONE files are not really seasonal in such a case.


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Sid...I have played pretty much nothing but CHS and RHS for the last 10 years, (give or take), concerning WITP and AE.
Of course I enjoy every bit of map and unit correctness you have managed, but I am not on board with the four seasons.

Is it possible for you to release the files which for simplicity sake will just leave the ports accessible?

I believe I am referring to the PWHEXE.DAT...PWZLINK.DAT and PWZONE.DAT files?

Thank you for your time and consideration.




Sid...As ever, you are a Prince!...Of course your logic and research makes sense, and you have given me options.
FWIW, I continue to do research on oob's, etc.
Just recently started looking into ships again, but my forte is still U.S. army.
( I served in the 2/503rd PIR in my army, and was proud the first time I saw it employed in this game, lol)

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 579
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/1/2018 4:38:59 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
I am already at that "old age" thingee and apparently have taken a big heaping hanful of "feeble" as well.

I have copy/pasted the pwhexe.dat, pwzlink.dat, and pwzone.dat files into the MAIN folders of the RHS folder and the Alaska ports are still mostly closed.
(The error message I get on them is that I cannot assign ship movement to blocked hexes.)
As you know, in an attempt to "open" the ports, I renamed the MONSOON43 pwhexe.dat file but it did not open all the ports.
Dutch harbor is still closed, as is Anchorage, Sitka, etc.
Did I put them in the wrong folder?...Thank you..
EDIT:..I used the MONSOON 43 file to get "some" of the later roads, etc, but not "all" of the later roads, railroads, etc.

I have found I cannot assign U.S. subs to patrol in the Kuriles area (correctly) and the error message on that one is very detailed, telling me I cannot assign patrols to *POLAR REGIONS*....That is chrome and detail..Thank you!

< Message edited by m10bob -- 9/2/2018 12:53:51 PM >


_____________________________




(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 580
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/3/2018 3:29:04 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Crickets....lol

_____________________________




(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 581
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/4/2018 4:21:51 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 851
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
A couple of comments on 4.09.....

1) The D4Y1 Judy DB (2649) seems to have a durability of "0" and as a result does not show up in the Industry screen.


2) I was looking through the House Rules document and there was nothing about controlling Japanese Air/Engine production and R&D. I seem to remember from a a few years back when i last looked at this mod that your systems were very different to stock and my understanding (which may well have been incorrect) was something like.......

a) All R&D factories (engines and planes) for both(?) sides must be turned off (for repairs, upgrades and production) and only started when the "available date" is reached

b) No changing R&D factories (engines and planes) to different models, the idea is that historical planes are built on historical dates.

c) As a result of the above house rule the Japanese will not be able to "research" engines/planes and they will all (allies as well) become available on their historical dates i.e. no bringing forward the availability of any Jap planes

I did find this bit in the Economic Theory document however it is not very specific and only seems to refer to simplified scenarios.....
quote:

"Tirtiary industry management can be very complicated, particularly for Japan with respect to aircraft and the different engine types needed to produce them. In RHS, some effort has been made to simplify this. Simplified RHS Scenarios all have even numbers (122, 124 and 126). For both sides, in Simplified RHS, aircraft production "ramp up" is crudely simulated, so there is less need to "repair factories" - simply turn on production when the date arrives a type enters production. Except in cases of very low production, the starting date will be a month later in time, and production will start at the full rate for the factory."

Please could you clarify the correct procedure for aircraft/engine production or point me to a document i may have missed.

Many thanks

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 582
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/6/2018 3:23:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The pwhexe.dat file - with that name - must be in the top level AE folder. Nothing else will ever work
for the game. All the other files are stored in case you want to use them. But to use a file it must be
renamed and put in the top level of AE for the install you use with RHS.


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I am already at that "old age" thingee and apparently have taken a big heaping hanful of "feeble" as well.

I have copy/pasted the pwhexe.dat, pwzlink.dat, and pwzone.dat files into the MAIN folders of the RHS folder and the Alaska ports are still mostly closed.
(The error message I get on them is that I cannot assign ship movement to blocked hexes.)
As you know, in an attempt to "open" the ports, I renamed the MONSOON43 pwhexe.dat file but it did not open all the ports.
Dutch harbor is still closed, as is Anchorage, Sitka, etc.
Did I put them in the wrong folder?...Thank you..
EDIT:..I used the MONSOON 43 file to get "some" of the later roads, etc, but not "all" of the later roads, railroads, etc.

I have found I cannot assign U.S. subs to patrol in the Kuriles area (correctly) and the error message on that one is very detailed, telling me I cannot assign patrols to *POLAR REGIONS*....That is chrome and detail..Thank you!


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 583
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.10 - 9/6/2018 3:29:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Comprehensive Update 4.10

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

This update only includes changes in scenario and documentation files.
For safety, pwhexe.dat files were also updated before compiling.

Extensive rework of the H (Headquarters or Leader) file.
A few new devices.
Eratta rework in the aircraft and group files.
Integration of class and ship files with old and new (AA) devices.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/6/2018 4:03:14 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 584
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/6/2018 3:32:43 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Drat. Judy durability should be 7. Will correct it. You can as well.

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 585
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/6/2018 3:36:02 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
2) I was looking through the House Rules document and there was nothing about controlling Japanese Air/Engine
production and R&D. I seem to remember from a a few years back when i last looked at this mod that your systems
were very different to stock and my understanding (which may well have been incorrect) was something like.......

Yes it is very different. See the economic documentation in the RHS Documentation file.

Also see instructions for various players with advice on how to manage.

Aircraft production is different for the ALLIES as well. Simplified RHS (even numbered scenarios) more or less
do not require management - they fold in ramp up by a crude but automatic mechanism (start of production is a month
later in time).

There is extensive documentation and explanation for economics in RHS.

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 586
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/6/2018 3:40:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
All R&D factories (engines and planes) for both(?) sides must be turned off (for repairs, upgrades and production)
and only started when the "available date" is reached

Well - it is a very good idea. IF you try to repair all future aircraft factories - you will run yourself out
of supply points way too fast - with dire effects - in many places. The same applies to Allied major cities with
hundreds or over a thousand damaged items per industry: you often should manage what repairs first? or if you want
to load a lot of supply points - turn off all repairs. RHS is logistics intensive. Stock was only tested for
180 days (Mifune was the economic tester). WE have made sure you can feed 1945 forces WITHOUT giving you 1945
production in 1941. It requires growing some industries into 1944 (when the Allies generally began to cut back).

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 587
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/6/2018 3:49:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
As a result of the above house rule the Japanese will not be able to "research" engines/planes and they will all
(allies as well) become available on their historical dates i.e. no bringing forward the availability of any Jap
planes

Actually, it is unclear that "research" to planes and engines works very often. In fact, I cannot verify it ever
works. Probably it works in theory, but players don't manage to produce enough to make the code work. Note that
Japanese production is NEVER what statistics imply it is - for a host of reasons. It is literally impossible to
achieve the record for Frank production in December, 1944. And players will "manage" aircraft so they do not
build non-warplanes - so we force them to get some trainers and transports anyway - and took that capacity out of
the system. We "repair" planes at a rate of 1% for many types (for Japan mostly) or at repair depots (for the Allies
mostly - see Karachi (a re-assembly and repair point) and Bangalore (China Aircraft Corp renamed Hindustan Aircraft
Co Ltd - after assembling its 100 Hawk 75 kits it was a repair factory for the duration - and it STILL exists -
making modern military aircraft). Don't worry about research. The idea is to model "ramp up" (in full RHS
at least) - so it must start at 0 (UNLESS a factory upgrades from one type to another - replacing the earlier
type with the older one). For some types (e.g. P-47) it would be wrong to start production at huge numbers.

There is enough to do without trying to force R&D dates to change. And I don't think they ever do change. If they do,
it is by one month. Not a big deal. We were generous in operational dates. The later the design, the more
theoretical they become - and we had to estimate. We took the best case - 90 days from first flight to production -
and you get that. Pretty good.

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 588
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/6/2018 3:50:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Please could you clarify the correct procedure for aircraft/engine production or point me to a document i may
have missed.

See the Aircraft and Engine Production spreadsheet

Note that you can force growth in engine and aircraft production because code permits you to pick
what engine or aircraft is assigned (unless a private agreement house rule prevents that). The cost
is fairly high, as it should be. Any factory with a FUTURE aircraft or engine can be assigned a
type with a date nearer in time to game start. This WILL force you to LOSE aircraft capacity (and
you have to 'buy it back' by investing HI points as well as 1000 supply per day to repair the factory.
If the type you assign is not what you want, you can change it AFTER production start, but that will
reduce capacity still further. As it should. One can force production but only at great cost. And
it also takes time - as it should. In fact, Japan was far too prone to do that. It was unable to
provide pilots or fuel for late war planes. It increased production relative to where it started far
more than Germany did. Moderation is advised - in RHS you can run out of pilots by mid 1942 if you
are not careful about losses and production. But YOU get to manage this. It is quite complicated.
I have learned NOT to fly all the time and to pay for high durability, multi-engine aircraft to preserve
pilots (at the same time as it forces you to build fewer planes). A two engine fighter has unimpressive
maneuverability. Ignore that. It will SURVIVE. That is what matters.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/6/2018 4:01:12 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 589
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/7/2018 2:04:41 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The pwhexe.dat file - with that name - must be in the top level AE folder. Nothing else will ever work
for the game. All the other files are stored in case you want to use them. But to use a file it must be
renamed and put in the top level of AE for the install you use with RHS.


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I am already at that "old age" thingee and apparently have taken a big heaping hanful of "feeble" as well.

I have copy/pasted the pwhexe.dat, pwzlink.dat, and pwzone.dat files into the MAIN folders of the RHS folder and the Alaska ports are still mostly closed.
(The error message I get on them is that I cannot assign ship movement to blocked hexes.)
As you know, in an attempt to "open" the ports, I renamed the MONSOON43 pwhexe.dat file but it did not open all the ports.
Dutch harbor is still closed, as is Anchorage, Sitka, etc.
Did I put them in the wrong folder?...Thank you..
EDIT:..I used the MONSOON 43 file to get "some" of the later roads, etc, but not "all" of the later roads, railroads, etc.

I have found I cannot assign U.S. subs to patrol in the Kuriles area (correctly) and the error message on that one is very detailed, telling me I cannot assign patrols to *POLAR REGIONS*....That is chrome and detail..Thank you!





As ever...Thank you!!!

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 590
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/9/2018 2:46:47 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 851
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Actually, it is unclear that "research" to planes and engines works very often. In fact, I cannot verify it ever works. Probably it works in theory, but players don't manage to produce enough to make the code work.

It is literally impossible to achieve the record for Frank production in December, 1944.

And players will "manage" aircraft so they do not build non-warplanes.

There is enough to do without trying to force R&D dates to change. And I don't think they ever do change.


Pretty sure that everything you have said here is wrong.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 591
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/9/2018 3:09:22 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Possible errata on map?

In scenario 122 I am playing the AI game for the millionth time, (lol) and after taking Roi namur, the Japanese were able to run by foot to Kwajelein!

Next turn I was able to give pursuing units orders to march there, and the orders took.
Is this possible IRL?

_____________________________




(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 592
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/12/2018 3:00:20 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
SANDERZ: Yours is a common opinion. The truth is that we are navigating in the dark. The former senior programmer for AE
(when it was doing well enough to have more than one programmer assigned) explained via email that it is almost
impossible to actually understand AE code given its structure and total lack of documentation. Here, I do not
mean explanations in forum posts by people who think they know something. I mean lack of formal, official
documentation by the original programmer, or several generations of programmers after him. "Believe it or not,
we don't have anything more than you have."

At one point, he wrote "After two years of study, I thought I had a handle on how land combat works. Yesterday, I
found a branch. Today I am certain of NOTHING." [Emphasis in the original].

He is a professional mathematician and programmer. I am a professional test engineer. He wrote that "testing
is at least as good a way to try to understand how a program works as reading code is. Maybe better." This is
because programs often do NOT behave as intended by the programmer. But testing reveals how they really behave?

A co-designer of RHS is also the "long term" economic tester for AE officially. He (Mifune) writes that they "only
wanted to validate the economy for six months." So officially, at product release, no one had any idea what to
expect in 1944 production. It was never looked at. I am writing the truth. Economics do not work the way almost
everyone assumes they do. I don't care what someone wrote somewhere: the actual production one gets is rarely
if ever what players assume it should be. Particularly for outputs that depend on complex inputs - especially
aircraft - which are unique in that they require a specific engine in addition to a specific factory. The historical
output of the Frank peaked in December, 1945. This was put at 373 by USSBS. One never, ever sees anything like that in any game in any mod.

If you want to understand what really happens, you need to actually run the program to find out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Actually, it is unclear that "research" to planes and engines works very often. In fact, I cannot verify it ever works. Probably it works in theory, but players don't manage to produce enough to make the code work.

It is literally impossible to achieve the record for Frank production in December, 1944.

And players will "manage" aircraft so they do not build non-warplanes.

There is enough to do without trying to force R&D dates to change. And I don't think they ever do change.


Pretty sure that everything you have said here is wrong.




< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/12/2018 3:34:57 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 593
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/12/2018 3:34:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
M10BOB: You are indeed correct. It isn't an "error" in the sense it is quite deliberate. A detailed explanation is
found under RHS documentation.

Because RHS is a simulation more than it is a game, and because Mifune and I believe that logistics and
economics is the foundation that defines what is possible in military terms, we sought to facilitate the movement
of supplies, resources, fuel and oil, and yes, also units, between bodies of land where local conditions and
infrastructure permitted that. A crude form of what we have done is part of stock design - and always has been.
Two adjacent ports of Level 3 or above will permit the flow of a limited amount of supply (etc) between them
without player intervention (e.g. loading them on ships). In fact, RHS exploits that feature by occasionally
exaggerating a port from Level 2 to 3 - just to insure an important historical flow actually is not zero.

What we did was create "ferries" - and also very rarely - tunnels - between bodies of land. [The first "under
ocean railway tunnel" between Kyushu and Honshu is completed early in WWII - Spring 1942 if memory serves. Whenever
it completes, it appears as a primary railroad in that season in RHS.] There are several different types of ferries,
and these are indicated in map art by symbols - usually the letter F in various colors. The color code is on
the map art too. Of course, that only works if you use RHS map art. And only the no hex art is fully developed.

There are several kinds of ferries:

Low Capacity Ferries are modeled by trails in pwhexe.dat terms

High Capacity Ferries (as between Shikoku and Honshu) are modeled by secondary roads

Railroad Ferries are modeled by Secondary Railroads which connect Primary Railroads in adjacent hexes
{mainly to cross the Yangtze in the thousand miles lacking any bridges, and connecting Japanese islands).
There is also the very special case of Adam's Bridge between India and Ceylon. This is the name for
a peculiar geographic feature that is almost a natural land bridge - very long - between the island and
the sub-continent. Along that foundation a railroad (and for much of the way, a road) were built. But
there IS a gap - a point where the trains had to embark on a ferry (passengers and cargo remain on the train)
and there is NO road at all. This is modeled by a secondary railroad for one hex connecting primary railroad
hexes. There is also a trail for two hexes (on the Southern end) connecting to secondary road on the Northern
end and primary roads on Ceylon. As well, shallow draft vessels may cross Adam's Bridge at one point - the
place where a real RR bridge span permits such a passage via a channel. The biggest ships must go around
Ceylon, but small and medium ships may pass right through the bridge!

"Ferries" usually model vessels of various kinds too small to model and too much trouble to force players to manage.
They only exist in areas where there are both marine assets and significant traffic to the extent that NOT to
permit movement (in particular logistic movement) is more "wrong" than to permit it. Normally a land unit wanting
to cross on a low capacity ferry needs several days to do so. I rationalize that to mean they have to gather enough
assets and plan the crossing. Also, often, we turn such a passage into something like a river crossing: where
we use a river hex-side it means that a crossing will force a shock attack. A different and invisible consideration
is that a crossing of this sort is ALWAYS defined as a strait - either narrow or wide. That makes the chance of
detection and engagement by naval units go up.

Because our PRIMARY intent is to have the economy work right - and since combat is only rarely involved -
the general intent is achieved by these practices. On the rare occasion units elect to move - or are forced to
move - across such hex-sides - there can be effects quite different from stock AE or WITP. Generally, I like them.
Bali is a key to invading Java for example. Taking it provides a port and a forward airfield. But it also means one
can "walk" across the strait (via two different routes) from the small island to the big island. This is in my
view better than pretending there is no land threat to Java from an enemy force on Bali. But one must rationalize
how they make the crossing? Do they use rubber rafts? Do they seize native small craft (present in great numbers)
and organize them? Do they use actual ferries? Does it matter? Generally, each possible connection is carefully
analyzed and modeled in a form most appropriate to conditions. The most common case is NO connection at all. This
happens when there is no local traffic or vessels to facilitate it.

Note that the idea of a "ferry" being a real road or railroad has always been part of WITP and AE. Hong Kong Island
is NOT connected to the mainland - yet it has an actual road and rail connection in the game. The ferry system is
fully developed. We simply applied the same principle to other places as we deemed them to be appropriate. And
note that RHS is an open project - we permit any specific decision to be challenged. We review every one. And we
regularly make changes because of such challenges. Either accepting them as offered, or modifying them, or presenting
the suggestion one way in some scenarios and a different way in other scenarios. The REASON there are multiple
scenarios in RHS is to offer choices to players.

Finally, note that I do NOT recommend solitaire play. AI is misnamed - it is not really either AI or "intelligent."
But to the extent that RHS facilitates it - as Joe Wilkerson pointed out one MUST have an AI scenario for test reasons -
we have ONE scenario which has none of the features of RHS that only humans can understand. That is RHSAIO
(RHS AI Oriented) Scenario 122. There are no railroad units (which are supposed to move along railroads),
no inland waterways (AI does not grasp a waterway not connected to the ocean), or other things the confuse AI.
Further, as in stock, BECAUSE RHS uses wholly unmodified stock AI "scripts" - AI ONLY works for AI as Japan.
It never works well as the Allies.





quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Possible errata on map?

In scenario 122 I am playing the AI game for the millionth time, (lol) and after taking Roi namur, the Japanese were able to run by foot to Kwajelein!

Next turn I was able to give pursuing units orders to march there, and the orders took.
Is this possible IRL?



< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/12/2018 3:35:14 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 594
RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 - 9/12/2018 4:18:43 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8623
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

M10BOB: You are indeed correct. It isn't an "error" in the sense it is quite deliberate. A detailed explanation is
found under RHS documentation.

Because RHS is a simulation more than it is a game, and because Mifune and I believe that logistics and
economics is the foundation that defines what is possible in military terms, we sought to facilitate the movement
of supplies, resources, fuel and oil, and yes, also units, between bodies of land where local conditions and
infrastructure permitted that. A crude form of what we have done is part of stock design - and always has been.
Two adjacent ports of Level 3 or above will permit the flow of a limited amount of supply (etc) between them
without player intervention (e.g. loading them on ships). In fact, RHS exploits that feature by occasionally
exaggerating a port from Level 2 to 3 - just to insure an important historical flow actually is not zero.

What we did was create "ferries" - and also very rarely - tunnels - between bodies of land. [The first "under
ocean railway tunnel" between Kyushu and Honshu is completed early in WWII - Spring 1942 if memory serves. Whenever
it completes, it appears as a primary railroad in that season in RHS.] There are several different types of ferries,
and these are indicated in map art by symbols - usually the letter F in various colors. The color code is on
the map art too. Of course, that only works if you use RHS map art. And only the no hex art is fully developed.

There are several kinds of ferries:

Low Capacity Ferries are modeled by trails in pwhexe.dat terms

High Capacity Ferries (as between Shikoku and Honshu) are modeled by secondary roads

Railroad Ferries are modeled by Secondary Railroads which connect Primary Railroads in adjacent hexes
{mainly to cross the Yangtze in the thousand miles lacking any bridges, and connecting Japanese islands).
There is also the very special case of Adam's Bridge between India and Ceylon. This is the name for
a peculiar geographic feature that is almost a natural land bridge - very long - between the island and
the sub-continent. Along that foundation a railroad (and for much of the way, a road) were built. But
there IS a gap - a point where the trains had to embark on a ferry (passengers and cargo remain on the train)
and there is NO road at all. This is modeled by a secondary railroad for one hex connecting primary railroad
hexes. There is also a trail for two hexes (on the Southern end) connecting to secondary road on the Northern
end and primary roads on Ceylon. As well, shallow draft vessels may cross Adam's Bridge at one point - the
place where a real RR bridge span permits such a passage via a channel. The biggest ships must go around
Ceylon, but small and medium ships may pass right through the bridge!

"Ferries" usually model vessels of various kinds too small to model and too much trouble to force players to manage.
They only exist in areas where there are both marine assets and significant traffic to the extent that NOT to
permit movement (in particular logistic movement) is more "wrong" than to permit it. Normally a land unit wanting
to cross on a low capacity ferry needs several days to do so. I rationalize that to mean they have to gather enough
assets and plan the crossing. Also, often, we turn such a passage into something like a river crossing: where
we use a river hex-side it means that a crossing will force a shock attack. A different and invisible consideration
is that a crossing of this sort is ALWAYS defined as a strait - either narrow or wide. That makes the chance of
detection and engagement by naval units go up.

Because our PRIMARY intent is to have the economy work right - and since combat is only rarely involved -
the general intent is achieved by these practices. On the rare occasion units elect to move - or are forced to
move - across such hex-sides - there can be effects quite different from stock AE or WITP. Generally, I like them.
Bali is a key to invading Java for example. Taking it provides a port and a forward airfield. But it also means one
can "walk" across the strait (via two different routes) from the small island to the big island. This is in my
view better than pretending there is no land threat to Java from an enemy force on Bali. But one must rationalize
how they make the crossing? Do they use rubber rafts? Do they seize native small craft (present in great numbers)
and organize them? Do they use actual ferries? Does it matter? Generally, each possible connection is carefully
analyzed and modeled in a form most appropriate to conditions. The most common case is NO connection at all. This
happens when there is no local traffic or vessels to facilitate it.

Note that the idea of a "ferry" being a real road or railroad has always been part of WITP and AE. Hong Kong Island
is NOT connected to the mainland - yet it has an actual road and rail connection in the game. The ferry system is
fully developed. We simply applied the same principle to other places as we deemed them to be appropriate. And
note that RHS is an open project - we permit any specific decision to be challenged. We review every one. And we
regularly make changes because of such challenges. Either accepting them as offered, or modifying them, or presenting
the suggestion one way in some scenarios and a different way in other scenarios. The REASON there are multiple
scenarios in RHS is to offer choices to players.

Finally, note that I do NOT recommend solitaire play. AI is misnamed - it is not really either AI or "intelligent."
But to the extent that RHS facilitates it - as Joe Wilkerson pointed out one MUST have an AI scenario for test reasons -
we have ONE scenario which has none of the features of RHS that only humans can understand. That is RHSAIO
(RHS AI Oriented) Scenario 122. There are no railroad units (which are supposed to move along railroads),
no inland waterways (AI does not grasp a waterway not connected to the ocean), or other things the confuse AI.
Further, as in stock, BECAUSE RHS uses wholly unmodified stock AI "scripts" - AI ONLY works for AI as Japan.
It never works well as the Allies.





quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Possible errata on map?

In scenario 122 I am playing the AI game for the millionth time, (lol) and after taking Roi namur, the Japanese were able to run by foot to Kwajelein!

Next turn I was able to give pursuing units orders to march there, and the orders took.
Is this possible IRL?





Sid, your logic is consistent with that of the original programmers in several ways.
For instance, nearly every U.S. infantry division had it's own "air assets", usually L-4 Piper Cubs or L-5's.
While these planes are not in the air OOB's, they are represented abstractly in the LCU's having the ability to "see" into adjacent hexes, even though those hexes may be as far apart as New York City is to Boston, (in some cases.)

As for the documentation notes you have provided...you must be one of those people who read the instructions on how to put the swing set together, lol.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 595
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 4.11 - 10/4/2018 12:20:26 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Comprehensive Update 4.11

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

This update is focused on a comprehensive redo of the device file. Twice.
First with respect to light and medium AA devices. Then adding various non-AA
machine guns (and squads with machine guns in them) - because it was found that
there was a fundamental inconsistency in how the very same gun was treated if it
was in a ground unit shooting at aircraft vs shooting at ground troops. We
found a way to use a common standard. These changes will somewhat increase
the effects of AAA and of all units with either AA or non AA machine guns. Note
that AFVs with machine guns were reworked as well.

Still more device file changes will be in the next review. This will focus on artillery
of all kinds, including mortars, AT guns, tank rifles, etc. As well, squads lacking
machine guns (or those with sub-machine guns not already reworked) will be included.

All scenario files were updated. This mainly to fold in reports of or discoveries of
eratta of all kinds.

There is a new start of game pwhexe.dat file because of one river hexside mismatch and error
in Burma and one half hex of secondary road on Sumatra which should have been trail to match
map art.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 596
RE: RHS Micro Update 4.12 Aircraft Guns - 10/9/2018 2:44:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Comprehensive Update 4.12

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

This is an unintended update. Trying to work out values for ground combat weapons, I took a look
at guns mounted on aircraft. That led to considerable research. AE uses different ideas for aircraft guns
than for other guns. RHS always assumed that the basic names, ranges and rates of fire for these weapons were
correct, and only changed penetration and effect fields. But it turns out this assumption was invalid. Not a single
stock value for rate of fire is correct, and rates of fire are vastly overstated (typically by about 300%).

So the data has been reworked. One problem is that, although the editor shows penetration in mm, the armor field
for aircraft and the penetration field for aircraft guns are not in mm. I interpret the armor field as follows:

0 = no armor
1 = standard armor
2 = extreme armor (as in the Soviet Sturmovik with its cast armor hull).

So penetration and effect fields are related to this, and also to the aircraft durability value, in some abstract
sense. We developed a formula system to calculate durability (outlined by Joe Wilkerson originally for the WITP era
CHS mod). It includes the type of structure of the aircraft, the number of engines, the number of pilots, the armor
value (0, 1 or 2), and the empty weight of the aircraft (a larger aircraft is more durable). We had a basic system
for aircraft guns. In particular, this defines a normal .30 caliber weapon with a penetration of 1 and an effect of
1; also a .50 caliber weapon with a penetration of 2 and an effect of 2. This almost justifies the debate about
8 30 caliber guns vs 4 50 caliber guns - both combinations have a total of 8 penetration and 8 effect. [There is
a slight range advantage for the 50 caliber, however]. Relating aircraft cannot to these machine guns is more tricky.
But generally, range, penetration and effect should increase with caliber. I did a comprehensive review of all
aircraft guns and generally followed this pattern. But occasionally there are variations - a weapon with
exceptional or inferior range, penetration or effect for its caliber. These slight variations reflect actual
weapon performance. Although I found that the ranges listed for most weapons are greater than AE uses, I agree with
the original data entry people that effective range for typical pilots is significantly less. Also, code permits
"hits" beyond listed ranges on a good die role. And range is not easy to read in the editor: stated to be thousands
of yards, for aircraft guns it appears to be in hundreds of yards. There also is a peculiar box "cannon is machine
gun." It appears that box modifies the rate of fire to mean shots per minute instead of hundreds of shots per minute.
There are three cases where big guns use this field to get their rate of fire below 100/minute.

Because most guns have their rates of fire cut by 3 (a few only by 2; a few by 4 or even more), the overall effect
of this data change should be to slightly reduce the damage done in air combat (or, to ground or naval targets during
strafing runs). That means air combats may last longer, which will tend to mitigate the lower damage rate: they
keep shooting until they run out of ammunition.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 597
RE: RHS Micro Update 4.12 Aircraft Guns - 10/9/2018 3:00:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
My statement about the "cannon is machine gun" box is backwards.  There are only three records which
do NOT check that box.  

Device slot 1910 is an error (dating from stock).  No aircraft uses the Type 94 ground anti-aircraft gun.
This is a rare slot available for an aircraft cannon.  

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 598
RE: RHS Level II Comprehensive Update 1.431 (pwhexe, ai... - 11/8/2018 1:07:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16567
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Comprehensive Update 4.13

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

This update includes a new pwhexe.dat file - Pakenboroe Sumatra is now a port (as it should be)
= an indland port.

It is mainly a device file update set.


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 599
RE: RHS Level II Comprehensive Update 1.431 (pwhexe, ai... - 11/20/2018 11:24:00 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5337
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
So how's going the RHS tag team game, guys?

Signed: ex Chinese / British Clown-in-Chief

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 11/20/2018 11:27:24 PM >


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RHS vs AI = Scenario 122 Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   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

0.176