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: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's

 
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: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's - 7/15/2019 1:40:32 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Now the F-4 and F-5 recon versions of the P-38 are a bit more complicated. I can
improve these - by making the RP-38 upgrade to the F-4. But the F-5 end of production
WITHOUT a replacement is correct. By the late war era MANY factories will be ending
production. It is not "wrong" to have this. The US was both running out of money
and also didn't need nearly as many aircraft late in the war. Production peaks in 1944,
not 1945, and probably had to in any circumstances.


You are quite correct that total production peaked in 1944 - but up until mid-1945 the PTO wasn't getting all US production.

To note one example, the AAF Statistical Digest shows 9,607 AAF aircraft arrived between the various PTO sub-theaters in 1944. In 1945 there were 9,408 - which looks like less until you realize that's only for January through August; the *monthly* rate actually went up almost 50%.

Specific to F-4's and F-5's, the digest shows that in August 1945 there were 323 on hand in the Pacific.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 691
RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's - 7/19/2019 10:46:44 AM   
demol

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/11/2011
Status: offline
I set up latest (i hope) RHS 5.24 and immideately found issue that i remember from many years ago: ships "axis motor junk class" had 4 fuel with 1200end (very bad but "normal" fuel effectiveness for such type of vessels) but after refuel they eat 40! fuel for the same 1200end (1/10 from very bad, it takes more fuel than their tonnage).

Is this intended feature or longest overlooked glitch?

//
Also. AI version of RHS is mostly historical? Is there any AI-capable but heavily allied-buffed version to play Japan vs AI?

Thank you.





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 692
RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's - 7/19/2019 11:51:14 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4081
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
demol, read this thread about updating the AI.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4257473

(in reply to demol)
Post #: 693
RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's - 7/19/2019 1:12:31 PM   
demol

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/11/2011
Status: offline
So i should take Andy's ai scripts from "scenario 100" and apply them any modded scenario with the same map layout?

Your RHS-stock scenarios have some script included. Is ai overrighting needed for them?

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 694
RE: RHS House Rules (Revision for clarity) - 7/26/2019 2:42:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS House Rules [Level II]

Primary House Rule: A player should never do anything which, in his view, would not have been done by a historical commander in the WW2 era.

Active Russians: In scenarios with Active Russians (121, 124, 125 & 129) the Allied player may not attack Japanese positions or units (except by mistake or in reasonable and proportionate reprisal) before the expiration of the non-aggression pact with Japan (1 July 1945). It is easy for either side, due to a settings error, to run an air raid – and a reprisal in kind is fair play. It is also permitted to overfly enemy territory for recon or search missions - at the risk of being shot down by fighters or flak. But a true invasion of Japanese territory, or a major, organized attack on Japanese bases before the treaty expires is forfeiture of the game. The Russians gave proper, 90 day notice they would not renew the treaty. It is assumed they honor the treaty as well as give such official notice in every game. RHS has active Russians to give the Allies several benefits: a) they can control deployment of units; b) they can control upgrading of units; c) they can supply remote locations and recover resources or oil from them; d) they can run recon and search to learn of enemy invasion deployments; e) they can respond to an enemy invasion, or pre-empt one, instead of waiting helplessly as the enemy invasion unfolds until the computer concludes enough hexes have been occupied to “release” Russian units to player control (this is a major problem). These boons may not be abused to permit operations which Stalin would never have authorized, because he was dead set against a two front war.

Whitehorse House Rule: In RHS scenarios 121, 122, 123, 123 & 126 the Allies may not repair the oil wells and refinery at Whitehorse, Yukon until May, 1944. These model the CANOL pipeline and a refinery moved from Texas and it took until May, 1944 to get them fully operational. In JES Scenarios 125 & 129, players have options to repair the oilfields and oil refinery at Kenai, Alaska and/or at Norman Wells, Northwest Territories from May, 1942. This is probably not feasible in Winter or Spring Breakup (how could you move enough supplies to even begin?) - but these are known options not taken IRL. Both are more practical than the CANOL project, which barely worked at all - thick NWT oil in a small pipe in a cold climate was not easy to keep moving. Historical scenarios (121-124 & 126) have the suffix CANOL after Whitehorse and Whitehorse has a base victory point value of 3 (= important minor location for any reason). In these scenarios Norman Wells may not expand oil or refinery production (forcing the historical choices). JES scenarios (125 & 129) have the suffix AKOIL after Kenai and Kenai has a base victory point value of 3. In these scenarios Norman Wells MAY expand oil and/or refinery production (reflecting greater Allied priority in the greater threat context present) but hauling in the supplies required will be very difficult. Kenai is much easier to supply but also much more at risk to capture or damage by the enemy (which is why it was not developed during the war).

Whittier Tunnel: The RR tunnel to Whittier Alaska is considered completed if you repair the port (it starts at zero). Because there is no way to have the rail line incomplete and still run its route (from Anchorage to Seward) we simply have the Whittier hex not function as a port unless you build the port in it. This act is considered to complete the tunnel. There is an engineer unit in the hex to do that.  

Copper Ricer Railroad: The Copper River RR is present in ALL versions of the pwhex files. It runs from Cordova, Alaska to Kennicot, a wholly undeveloped dot location. This RR was abandoned in 1938 when the copper mines were closed due to low copper prices. Other copper mines were reopened in WWII (for example in Michigan and in Montana). This copper mine can be reopened IF an Allied player moves an engineer unit to the dot location along with lots of supplies AND IF repair of resources is turned ON – in which case the RR will function. The Million Dollar Bridge remained in-tact until the 1964 earthquake. This location and RR may be ignored by any player who does not want to use them – and NOTHING will happen in that case – since there will be no production unless the damaged resources are repaired. Tailings at this mine are of economic value, but it is cost prohibitive to fly them out (even if an airfield is built). Today the track has now been turned into road.

Railroad Units: In ODD numbered scenarios, railroad units must move along rail lines. All such units have the word “train” or “RR” in the unit name. If such a unit retreats off a railroad, it may only move back to a rail line by the shortest possible route, even if that forces movement into an enemy occupied or controlled hex. Railroad units do not exist in “simplified RHS” (even numbered scenarios). [The “Off Road RR Patrol Unit MAY leave a RR – it has both tracks and RR wheels].

Amsterdam Island: Location 497, Hex 6,173, near the “West” edge of the map, is functionally the Axis Entry Point. Its game function is to permit Axis raiders and submarines from Europe to enter the map near where they historically entered the Indian Ocean. This island is strictly off limits to the Allies. It is worth zero victory points to the Allies. It is forbidden to invade this island. This is because Axis shipping did not enter at one fixed point at all and because AE has no mechanism to permit entry by Axis vessels using an Entry Zone. Allied naval units are not permitted within three hexes of this hex. Allied aircraft may not recon this island nor search hexes adjacent to this island. The “Axis” (Japanese) Player may not build facilities on Amsterdam, nor land troops. [Landing parties, considered on the ships, may be picked up from the island. This unique “base” serves ONLY as an entry point for Axis naval unit reinforcements.

Axis Off Map Entry Track: Axis naval units entering at Amsterdam Island may now move DUE WEST into the Axis Off Map Entry Track. Allied naval units may never enter this track. It allows movement of Axis units to simulate a course SW from the Cape of Good Hope, past the Crozet Islands, coming up on the Southern map edge near the one ice shelf feature present on (all, stock, extended and RHS) maps. The little green cross at the end of this track is the Alternate Axis Entry Point. No Allied ships or searches are allowed within three hexes of this point. It permits Axis vessels to enter the map over a range of hexes and is a compromise intended not to limit the Allies much at all but to give the entering vessels some chance of survival (instead of automatic interception).

Viscount Melville Island: This island, at hex 191,7 near the NE map corner, is functionally the Canadian Entry Point. Only RCM Police St Roche uses this point. Its game function is to permit Allied ships that transited the NW Passage to appear at its western end. [Player controlled ships may attempt the NW Passage only in the Fall season, and only from Eastern Canada (Quebec and the Maritimes) or from the U.K.] It may be built up as a base and it may be attacked, captured and exploited by the enemy.  

Atomic Bomb Air Units: RHS does not use the stock atomic bomb at all. This weapon is not destructive enough and has political effects which are unrealistic (more related to post war views about atomic weapons use). In fact, Gen Marshall planned to use at least 9 atom bombs as part of Operations Olympic and Coronet. In its place RHS has created two atomic bombs - a "Uranium Bomb" and an "Implosion Bomb." These bombs are modeled by 24 devices: one 1% of yield dud device which is almost certain to work; one 33% of yield device which is only about 20% likely to work; and twenty two 3% of yield which are each about 90% likely to work. Typically, about 20 of the non-dud devices will reach their full yield, but it barely matters. The dud devices are themselves very powerful HE bombs with significant ability to penetrate armor. [If the 23 non dud devices fail, they will turn into dud devices themselves, each of which STILL usually destroys a target!] On the other hand, code will have some or many devices fail to “hit the target” at all, depending on altitude. Another problem is players have somewhat too much control over what type of target is hit, although IRL that can be done to some degree by surface bursts at the correct location. Generally, this model works better simulating ground or water bursts than it does high altitude bursts. Because these are not atom bombs in game terms, there is no penalty on victory level no matter how many the Allies use.

Silverplate IB & UB Bombers: The USAAF gets 1 Silverplate UB aircraft per month starting in July, 1945. It also gets two Silverplate IB aircraft per month starting in August 1945. Silverplate UB aircraft may only be assigned to the 393rd Bomb Squadron 3rd Detachment. Silverplate IB aircraft may ONLY be assigned to the 393rd Bomb Squadron 1st and 2nd Detachments. Note the detachments may never attach to the main body of the squadron, but they may (and should) fly together with it (to minimize the risk the atomic bombers may be shot down). Historically, in fact, two one plane detachments flew together – one with the bomb and one on what might be considered a recon mission. It is not required (and not recommended) to bomb at high altitude (unless evading flak) – because at high altitude code will have large numbers of the bomb devices “miss” the target, reducing the effectiveness of the mission. The USAAF always gets atomic bombers at a statistically average rate of 1 UB (Little Boy, gun type, uranium fueled per month (from July 1945) and 2 IB (Fat Man, implosion type, plutonium fueled) per month (from August 1945).

Sliverplate PB Bombers: The US gets three Silverplate PB conventional bombers from May, 1945. The B-29 Silverplate PB aircraft carries a large conventional “Pumpkin Bomb” and is used to give the air crews experience flying missions over enemy territory with the same aircraft. Silverplate PB aircraft may be assigned to any element of the 393rd Bomb Squadron, including the main body. ALL B-29 Silverplate aircraft are stripped of defensive weapons to increase range. The B-29 Silverplate PB is the normal bomber assigned to the main body of the 393rd Bomb Squadron, although that unit could in theory operate any bomber. All elements of the 393rd appear at Tinian on 30 May, 1945 and initially may ONLY operate the B-29 Silverplate PB. Later, when Silverplate IB and Silverplate UB aircraft appear, the detachments may operate aircraft with the same suffix (UB or IB) as the detachment has, OR with the PB suffix.

Japanese UB Bombers: In some circumstances, IF industry in Japan is functional late in 1945, Japan may USE 1 G8N1 UB with an atom bomb every four months (from August 1945) and/or may USE 1 Ki-91 UB every four months (from October 1945). [A factory builds 1 per month, but a special house rule causes the air units allowed to use them to appearing only every 1 months. See below.] RHS assumes that, had the war lasted longer, and if the Allies do not destroy Japanese industry – or deprive it of resources to produce HI points if undamaged – it might be possible for Japan to produce a few atom bombs. IF there are HI points sufficient, AND IF there is a specific engine plant actually producing Ha-45 engines, AND IF there is a specific aircraft factory dedicated to the G8N1 UB aircraft, THEN Japan may produce ONE such AIRCRAFT per month. Also, if it dedicates a second aircraft factory to the Ha-42 engine, and a second factory to making the Ki-91 UB variant, it may also produce ONE of these AIRCRAFT per month. Factories producing Japanese UB MUST be limited to 1 per month. These may ONLY be operated by tiny one plane air units (the G8N1 UB by the JNAF Special Chutai UB, and the 67th Independent Bomber Detachment UB by the JAAF). These units appear with non UB aircraft. They may convert to the UB aircraft of their service when available. They may conduct Recon, search, transfer or transport missions at will. But once (and every time) they convert to UB suffix aircraft, they MUST disband after use. The UNIT will reappear 4 months later. NO OTHER Japanese air unit may use bombers with a UB suffix and these two units are restricted to the UB of their respective service. There may, however, eventually be several UB aircraft of a given type in the pools: there are simply no bombs available unless the one unit that can fly them is available. The idea is to simulate the limited atomic fuel supply on top of draconian production restrictions making plane production hard to achieve so late in the war. Note that Japanese atomic bombers do have defensive armament, unlike the Silverplate B-29s, which fly combat missions unarmed. These features model the actual design philosophy of both nations.

Ghost Submarines: Both sides get a small number of “ghost submarines” (both at start and as reinforcements). These subs are ONLY present in Full RHS Scenarios (those with odd numbers). They are normally set to computer control and left to do whatever the computer wants. If damaged, out of fuel, or out of torpedoes however, players need to return them to a base and fix/refuel/rearm them. As well, Ghost submarines may be in an area that the war has “passed by” – in which case a player may take momentary control to direct them to a more active area. At start, after repairs or refueling/rearming, or to send to a more active area – a player simply assigns a new patrol zone and then returns the sub to “computer control.” Ghosts are NOT possible to identify in enemy reports. An owner, however, can see they have “too much range, too many shots, and no guns.” Their torpedoes miss 99% of the time and do NO damage if they do hit. They cause ASW escorts and aircraft to waste shots – but gain experience in the process. They also simulate rumors and false interpretations of various phenomena. This device works very well but may be present in insufficient numbers. In 1982, the Royal Navy faced a single modern submarine (a second was too noisy to risk use and a very old WW2 type was used as a surface transport – which does not count as a submarine). It made 200 AS attacks “expending almost every piece of ASW ordnance in inventory” but only two of these were valid attacks on an actual submarine. And RN was the NATO navy most focused on ASW proficiency at the time with far better sonar than WW2 ships had.

Chinese Deployment Restriction (Burma and India): Normally, units that are restricted (permanent) may not go very far. They are confined to the land body they are on, or to adjacent land bodies with “ferries” between them. This was added so there was no restriction moving between Japanese Home Islands, or among many islands in the same territory (e.g. the Philippines or NEI). To see quickly if there is a road ferry, press the R key. To see quickly if there is a railroad ferry, press the Y key. The USSR has other restrictions in code: it simply cannot enter non Soviet Allied territory. But China is different. It is connected by road to Burma and, by trail (at start) to India. [Eventually better roads are built]. More than that, some Chinese units appear where they form in India. In game mechanics terms, Chinese units can move all the way to Ceylon (which is connected by Railroad and RR ferry to Ceylon), in unlimited numbers. To prevent the use of Chinese troops where they would not be sent – ROC China has its hands full in China and fears other Chinese factions nominally “allied” with it – Chinese units may not enter hexes in Burma more than eight hexes from the Chinese border UNLESS they are in transit from where they formed (in India) to China. Chinese units in Burma within eight hexes of China MAY engage in combat operations. Chinese units more than eight hexes from China in either Burma or India may never attack or be used to defend a location from a nearby Japanese force.

Note that in JES scenarios, the Tea and Horse Caravan Road is upgraded very early in the war to a primary road. In JES, UK and US units may use the upgraded primary road for strategic movement. This road exists in strictly historical scenarios as well, but it is mostly a secondary road and, near the China-India-Burma border, it seasonally turns into a trail during monsoon. The road was a significant supply line historically, and there WAS an attempt to upgrade it. Tibet – a separate country in 1941 – refused to permit Chinese engineers cross the border. Tibet – treated as a Commonwealth nation because it is armed by the British – has a tiny army of three static battalions – each tied to a strategic place it had to stay: the political capital, the religious capital (keeping an eye on the former “army” of monks), and at Chamdo, capital of a region just won by invading China, an “army of occupation.” [These battalions have precisely two heavy weapons – two Vickers machine guns – almost the weakest heavy weapons outfit of any battalions in the game]. No Chinese unit with RED or Warlord in its name may use this road. ROC Chinese units may use it to transit from India to China (but not vice versa). They will not be able to use strategic movement due to code restrictions.

Chinese Deployment Restriction (Inside China): Allied Chinese units come in several flavors. Russian allied ones are code restricted may not enter ROC Chinese territory. They are treated as Russian units and may enter Japanese controlled territory. Japanese Chinese units which are in the service of the Kwangtung Army may not leave Manchukuo’s borders. Japanese Chinese units designated NCPC – and also Japanese Army units assigned to any command subordinate to Kwangtung Army – may never cross the Yangtze River (or be South of it). Similarly, Allied Chinese units with the prefix RED may never cross the Yangtze River. Similarly, Japanese Chinese units designated RGC, and also Japanese Army units assigned to any command subordinate to the Chinese Expeditionary Army (South China Area Army in JES) may not cross the Yellow River (or be North of it). There is a zone between the Yellow River and the Yangtze River in which these restrictions overlap (for both sides). Note RED and ROC Chinese units may never cooperate in an attack – only one or the other may attack. Warlord troops are treated as if they were ROC troops. ROC and RED Chinese units may never cooperate in an attack, but may cooperate in defense if in the same hex when the enemy attacks.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 695
RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's - 7/26/2019 2:50:33 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Re your first item - about "production peaking" - is somewhat misleading. Depending on the
sources, there may be considerable slop in the data, but "arriving in theater" ought to
include all aircraft, however assigned, however they come. In RHS, we cover vast numbers of
these by transferring units from ETO, particularly when this was officially contemplated.
They certainly DO arrive in theater, but they do NOT represent increases (or even maintenance
of) production. Numbers of types actually END production in 1944 and 1945. RHS is not
one scenario - it is a set of seven (of which one is restricted to use as a 1945 test bed
for late war devices - it needs more or less a million field changes). So we offer
different late war assumptions: strictly historical ones and the presumably more difficult
Japan Enhanced ones - in which US production is sustained rather longer than the strictly
historical ones. Regardless, vast numbers of aircraft (and ships and ground units) transfer
into theater rather than show up as new production. The larger problem in game terms is
that this much larger set of Allied units must be "fed" with supplies and fuel. And we don't want
late war levels of both to the same as 1941 levels. So we went to the trouble of insuring both
are correct: much more supply is available late in the war.

Where specific data is available for a type in inventory in early 1945, this data is used by
the Downfall Scenario (which begins just before Iwo Jima). This data cannot apply to a 1941
start of game scenario - a host of factors will determine the early 1945 inventories of aircraft.
But we do try to model that in more sophisticated ways than stock did. The Allies have a number
of "repair shops" which seem to be aircraft factories. These rebuild damaged machines. Important
types get additional production over transfers to the theater, modeling the significant rebuild
activities in theater. As well, for a major production type, there is always a 1% "free replacement"
factor built in for the duration of production for that type. These are machines rebuilt off map.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Now the F-4 and F-5 recon versions of the P-38 are a bit more complicated. I can
improve these - by making the RP-38 upgrade to the F-4. But the F-5 end of production
WITHOUT a replacement is correct. By the late war era MANY factories will be ending
production. It is not "wrong" to have this. The US was both running out of money
and also didn't need nearly as many aircraft late in the war. Production peaks in 1944,
not 1945, and probably had to in any circumstances.


You are quite correct that total production peaked in 1944 - but up until mid-1945 the PTO wasn't getting all US production.

To note one example, the AAF Statistical Digest shows 9,607 AAF aircraft arrived between the various PTO sub-theaters in 1944. In 1945 there were 9,408 - which looks like less until you realize that's only for January through August; the *monthly* rate actually went up almost 50%.

Specific to F-4's and F-5's, the digest shows that in August 1945 there were 323 on hand in the Pacific.



< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/26/2019 2:55:02 AM >

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 696
Comment on small ships issue - 7/26/2019 2:58:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I was unable to confirm any aspect of this report. None of the stated data is correct. Nor can I show that
the data gets changed in game. Vast numbers of small vessels appear in RHS, and all of them appear to be
functioning properly. I will (as always) review, and if possible fix, any reported issue - but only if it
can be reproduced at source. I cannot explain the reported data. But it isn't happening on any of my several
computers.

quote:

I set up latest (i hope) RHS 5.24 and immideately found issue that i remember from many years ago: ships "axis motor junk class" had 4 fuel with 1200end (very bad but "normal" fuel effectiveness for such type of vessels) but after refuel they eat 40! fuel for the same 1200end (1/10 from very bad, it takes more fuel than their tonnage). Is this intended feature or longest overlooked glitch? // Also. AI version of RHS is mostly historical? Is there any AI-capable but heavily allied-buffed version to play Japan vs AI? Thank you.

(in reply to demol)
Post #: 697
AI versions of RHS (or stock) FYI - 7/26/2019 3:05:36 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
According to the last chief programmer of AE, there is no version of AI that is suitable for use
by the Allies. One of the RHS team (Mifune) was a Matrix tester for AI in economic matters: he says
that AI was only tested for six months (which, indeed, covers most games). There is no evidence
that the game was designed to deal with late war levels of forces (or the supplies needed to feed
them well) - which in principle ought to be much higher than early war levels. RHS DID address this
issue in several ways, and Allied production will grow by vast amounts if properly managed.

AI only works reasonably well as Japan, and only for a brief, early period of time. This is because
AI is misnamed - it is not "intelligent" in any sense. It is a fixed script. It does not change ANYTHING
because of events in game. An offensive can be planned for a while. When this inevitably ends, or when
forces it is ordering around are lost, it becomes irrelevant to the situation. It never works even that
well for the Allies, whatever we do. AI is needed for validation testing, but it is never realistic
Players may like it, however, if they want to win "great victories" and don't care how stupid the enemy is!

RHS did NOT revise AI. ONLY ONE RHS scenario is designed to work with it - 122 (named RHSAIO = AI Oriented).
ALL OTHER RHS versions have features that MUST have humans or the computer will to unreasonable things. And
- except for a couple of technical tweeks in the last two updates - RHS has never modified AI at all. Someday -
years from now - if I live long enough and finish Scenario 126 (Downfall) - I may try to write an RHS specific
version for 122 and 126. 126 (Downfall) may not be fun for humans as Japan and it may be the most suitable
for AI - many units are de facto static anyway. The air force must commit suicide and cannot fly most missions
(which happens if you activate Kamakazies). But that is a big maybe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demol

I set up latest (i hope) RHS 5.24 and immideately found issue that i remember from many years ago: ships "axis motor junk class" had 4 fuel with 1200end (very bad but "normal" fuel effectiveness for such type of vessels) but after refuel they eat 40! fuel for the same 1200end (1/10 from very bad, it takes more fuel than their tonnage).

Is this intended feature or longest overlooked glitch?

//
Also. AI version of RHS is mostly historical? Is there any AI-capable but heavily allied-buffed version to play Japan vs AI?

Thank you.







< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/26/2019 3:10:34 AM >

(in reply to demol)
Post #: 698
RE: RHS Update 5.25 - 8/1/2019 4:34:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 5.25

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This comprehensive update is almost exclusively dedicated to class
and ship files, although eratta related to aircraft, devices, groups,
leaders and locations (including task forces) was also worked in.
There are tens or hundreds of thousands of field changes to ship files.
The update was intended to implement the new ship durability standard,
but it has digressed to fixing gross eratta re ship displacement (which
seems rarely to have been entered at full load values for minor vessels)
and armament errors. It is part of a systematic update and more than
half way through the class list. When completed, the new version will
be 5.3. However, so many things are corrected I would hate for a new
game to miss them, nor an ongoing game not to fold them in.

Many types have gained the ability to upgrade or convert to other types.
Ships with more than one mission able to perform either without actually
converting in real life now convert in 1 day (making this consistent with
other RHS types having the same feature). Several new devices were added
so the AA and radar modeling for the Allies is more accurate. Numbers of
radars that seem to never have been used, or were used on the wrong classes,
are now in use. In particular, USN DE's use the SU radar nearly universal
for their classes.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 699
RE: AI versions of RHS (or stock) FYI - 8/1/2019 4:35:33 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The reported issue with junks (which would, if it existed, apply to large numbers of
classes) is not present at source. I cannot fix what I cannot confirm exists.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 700
RE: RHS Thread Ship Maneuver Ratings - 8/3/2019 5:08:53 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

During a comprehensive review of ship class data, focused on making durability
consistent (and that based on full load displacement, the only meaningful standard
as taught by US Navy damage control schools - from which I hold a Gold Certificate
- meaning best in class), I found some amazing maneuverability values.

Originally an amphib sailor on the last APA ever built (for USN, and probably in
all nations), I strongly object to rating landing craft with extremely high maneuver
values. In the first place, even alone (which is not how landing craft normally
are employed), they maneuver like a shoebox. That is, poorly. But operationally,
a landing craft is NOT ABLE TO MANEUVER AT ALL. If it is to succeed in its combat
mission during an assault landing, the landing craft MUST remain in line with
the reset of the craft in its wave. If it does not do that, the craft will not
"hit the beach" together - and the enemy will concentrate fire on them, one at a time,
the closest one to the beach first. When they beach and drop the bow ramp, this is
particularly effective. [See the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, the only film
remotely doing a good job showing what an assault landing is like?]

This was so important that each craft has 3 sailors on board. It only takes one sailor
to steer a landing craft. No need for a mechanic, you are not going to fix the engine
during a landing. Anyone can throw a line if you are coming alongside. So why three?
Because sticking your head above the (hopefully) armored steering position likely will
get you killed. Someone has to take over steering the boat. It must be a sailor, not
the troops, who are needed when you hit the beach. Three makes it probable at least one
will still be alive when you hit the beach! So why would a sailor step into the blood
of the previous cox'n (the boss of a boat is a coxswain). Because if you do not, the
troops will shoot you! THEY know that they have no chance if someone is not keeping the
vessel in the line. Which is to say - the boat is NOT free to maneuver at all.

There are other anomalies, but that is the worst one.

So what should the maneuver value be?

Maneuver probably should relate to rate of change of position. This at first blush seems
to imply maximum speed limits maximum maneuver rate. A small vessel, particularly if
designed for maneuvering, might get a multiplier. For example, if a large ship gets
maneuver = maximum speed, a small fast ship (e.g. a destroyer) might get maneuver =
2 x maximum speed. Perhaps an intermediate fast ship (e.g. a light cruiser) might get
1.5 x maximum speed. One might also vary individual ratings for cause. Thus, USS Alaska
class BC - with their terrible turning radius - might be rated as large ships are -
Maneuver = Maximum Speed - or even Maneuver = 0.75 x Maximum Speed - to make them
worse than battleships - which they were. A class noted for outstanding maneuverability
might get a slightly higher multiple than normal for its category.

Requesting thoughts, opinions or any information about the "standards" used by AE
nominally. [The problem is, lacking formal definitions in a manual, people entering data
do not generally know what the standards are, even if they once existed. So data in the
database is inconsidtent, and no person ever reviewed new class data as an editor would
do in a professional organization - to insure consistency with the standard, even if
there was one.] But if there IS a theory nominally officially used - I want to know what
it was?










(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 701
RE: RHS Level II Comprehensive Update 1.431 (pwhexe, ai... - 8/15/2019 6:20:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I am confused. My guess is that you are looking for the AIF 6th and 7th Divisions
as such. If that is the case, you indeed won't find them in that form. They
appear as their component sub units and need to combine to form divisions. Now
in a simplified scenario - the sub units do not appear - and the parent units
do appear. This is true for many divisions. It is part of what "simplified" means.

This matter does not belong in this thread. This is about airborne. It should
be in the RHS thread. That way I would have noticed it sooner.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/15/2019 6:21:24 PM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 702
RE: RHS Level II Comprehensive Update 1.431 (pwhexe, ai... - 8/15/2019 6:23:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Simplified scenarios have these divisions as divisions. Full RHS scenarios
have them appear in sub-unit form.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 703
RE: RHS Thread Sub Maneuver Ratings - 8/25/2019 8:19:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Revision:

This discussion was reviewed. The proposal results are too far for safe
use in game. So are other hypotheses needing too much work to implement.
I settled on adding maximum speed and "durability" (which is depth rating)
- the depth divided by 100 and rounded up - this sum being then divided
by full load displacement (submerged) itself divided by 1,000 rounded up.
This will NOT be implemented until the current surface ship review is
done - then implemented all at once.


Subs have two different maneuver situations - surfaced and submerged.
Since we cannot enter two different values and apply them separately,
sub maneuver needs to be a composite rating.

I propose to add surface and submerged speeds, and divide by the sub displacement
in thousands of tons, rounded up (so a midget under a thousand has a value of 1).

The idea is that faster speed is better maneuverability. Also that smaller
size is better maneuverability. This composite system should work well as it
considers surface speed, submerged speed, and the inverse of size. The result
also is in a range that is generally below surface ship maneuverability - and
in the cases where a sub maneuver rating is higher than a specific surface ship
maneuver rating - it is well deserved - and should outmaneuver the attacks most
of the time.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 704
RE: RHS Comprehensive update 5.26 - 8/25/2019 8:31:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Update 5.26

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes a new map panel (WPEN08) which
adds trail art in one hex in Thailand, and a new
start of game pwhexe.dat file (also called II41WINTER)
which corrects a river hexside somewhere in China.

It includes every sort of scenario file, but mainly
includes class, device, leader and ship files involved
with the surface ship update implementing the new
durability definition, and also includes revised
detection devices. For the very first time, a new
model distinguishing actual radar from acoustic, visual
and ECM detection is implemented. All use the radar
code - but those devices not really active radar are
likely to fail for various reasons. Note that stock
searchlights, acoustic detectors and even ECM (which
I didn't realize existed) all pretended to be active
radars just as good as actual active radar is. To which
add that pre-production Japanese active radars also now
have a failure rate: this permits introduction on
dates they went to sea WITHOUT being as good as the more
reliable types that replaced them midwar. Finally, note
that I added late war Japanese ECM suites which, in my
view, are astonishing. I once operated a USN AN/WLR-1
set (patented in 1945) which was impressive: signal
gain of a billion to 1 - the limit that is practical.
But the set can only watch one frequency at a time on
only one band (of 7 bands). The Japanese system used
multiple antennas, and multiple sets - providing instant
warning on all bands (with hemispheric - port or starboard -
direction) combined with a direction finding antenna for
any signal of interest. Information on these was not
previously available.

All class slots below the 1300 range are done, and some
above as well. At least one more round is still to come.
The review INCLUDES the new maneuver ratings for SURFACE
vessels.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 705
RE: RHS Thread: Sonar devices - 9/14/2019 3:57:50 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I am not yet done implementing electronic warfare and radar equipment, and new maneuverability ratings for ships and submarines, and insuring that multiple AAA devices have replaced the original system (whichrates a twin, triple, quad or even octal mount as a simple multiple of a single mount in hit probability - whenthat is never true). [Separate aimed single mounts each have someone else aiming them. As well, they have a different rate of elevation and traverse than a multiple mount does. Both factors make a single gun in a multiple mount less likely to be on target than a stand alone mount is. The multiple mount, however, does throw more shells down range - and dispersal means there is a slightly better chance some of them will hit when aim is not perfect - which indeed is most of the time. RHS multiple mounts use the function of effect times the square root of the number of tubes in the mounting to crudely simulate these effects.]

WHEN this total review of ship classes is finished, I propose to introduce sonar devices.I have some exposure to sonar and sonar simulation. I got bogged down in too much detail: there is no sonar in AE or its ancestor games. I could not do the kind of detail sim I want. But working on countermeasures (which, shockingly, I found was introduced in stock - for aircraft at least) - I figured out we CAN crudely simulate sonar.First - the device function to use is surface search radar. It will detect either a submarine or a surface ship, and sonar really does that.Second - the device must be omnidirectional. Although both hydrophones and active sonars are set up to determine bearing, they can do that on any bearing. Third - we have to work with three parameters. Range - which is always low - accuracy - which is low to moderate, but never high - and dud rate. This is a feature I introduced to deal with prototype radars that fail a lot, and with ECM which fails when the enemy isn't cooperatively transmitting. Sonar has a similar problem - particularly passive hydrophones: if you don't move, they can't hear the noise you are not making. So a hydrophone has a high dud rate. We can model the statistical averages well - just not the details of how these things work in any ordinary sense of simulation. We just have to be content that a patrol boat with a hydrophone is better off than one without one - slightly.Hard code makes ASW more effective according to type of ship. DE is the most effective. DD is second most effective. Maybe the third category is "everything else." [There is a theory there is a third category below DD, above everything else. Difficult to prove by testing.] I attribute this difference to TRAINING and PRACTICE - a DE SHOULD BE better - given equal equipment. So no need to worry about how giving sonar to ships will contradict this hard code. They are complimentary ideas.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 706
RE: Comprehensive Update 5.27 - 9/23/2019 3:29:35 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Level II Update 5.27
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update involves almost all scenario files, but most of the work was done
in classes and ship files. There are new devices including new EW devices and
radar devices for both sides. There are a few new or revised leader, pilot,
location, and aircraft records.

In addition, the start of game pwhexe.dat file changed. For some reason, the
hex side between Sinkawang and the South China Sea was no longer blocked. This
has been wrong since stock: Sinkawang is at the head of a bay and is approachable
only from the West.

A new system of maneuverability and durability is substantially implemented here.
This update includes a very new system for submarine maneuverability by definition:

The maximum speed of the submarine (either surfaced or submerged, whichever is greater)
plus the durability of the submarine (practical operating depth in 100s of feet) divided
by the submerged displacement of the submarine (in thousands of tons, rounded up).

The general maneuverability system for surface vessels is fairly simple and based mainly
on ship size:

For vessels below 4,000 tons use twice maximum speed IF speed is at least 15 knots;
(otherwise use maximum speed);

for vessels 4,001 to 10,000 tons, use 1.5 times maximum speed if speed is at least 15 knots;
(otherwise use maximum speed);

for vessels 10,001 tons to 40,000 tons, use maximum speed;

for vessels over 40,000 tons, use 90% of maximum speed.

Durability is full load displacement divided by 300 for armored ships and divided by 450 for
unarmored ships - except of course submarines. DO NOT use standard or deadweight or any other
kind of displacement or tonnage. Otherwise, results are inconsistent.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 707
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 5.28 - 10/11/2019 2:19:35 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Level II Update 5.28
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This is an unusually comprehensive update: except for art, it
includes every kind of file: pwhexe.dat (the critical start of
game file II41WINTER.pwhexe which is identical to pwhexe.dat;
documentation files (RHS Ship Bind List in particular, and one
eratta correction in the Sorted Axis Radar Types sheet), and
Scenario files. While many scenario files have some eratta worked
in, concentration has been on the ship class files, and on ship
files depending on them. As well, significant changes and additions
were made to device files.

The main effort was to complete the review of ship classes to insure
(a) the class has the correct full load displacement and the durability
field related to that (in two forms - one for armored ships - one for
unarmored ships; subs are different - durability is defined by depth
ratings); (b) the ship has the correct maneuverability rating
(mainly derived from full speed, but also modified by ship size; subs
are different, maneuverability is defined by speed and depth rating);
and sensors. Mainly using game radar devices, these are used to simulate
a wide variety of optical, radar, passive electronic counter measures and
even acoustic aircraft detectors. ALL of those, FYI, exist in stock - in
spite of Forum assertions, for example, "there is no ECM" or "the ECM field
doesn't work" (which is true - ECM only works if defined as a kind of radar).
The radical RHS change in the near past is the discovery of how the dude rate
field permits reasonable simulation of detection models. One may build a
statistically correct OVERALL rating for a device even if one cannot build
a technically correct device that considers - for example - if a submarine
is surfaced or not? AE abstracts this sort of thing, so our models must also
be abstract - depending on being accurate on the average for their simulation
value - rather than depending on a proper tactically accurate value in every
tactical situation. Still (a) it is the best we can do and (b) it is better than
ignoring the overall impact of the devices. The many new or modified devices
are now integrated with ships (and sometimes aircraft or land units) as more
and more classes are reviewed.

The primary exceptions are merchant ships and auxiliary vessels, or very minor
special cases of Navy ships, mainly of minor nations, mainly found in high
numbered class slot numbers. I am being aided in this by data on about 6,000
classes listed in the 1939 Lloyds Register of shipping, which permits determination
of the right full speed, the right relationship between full speed and cruising speed
(it differs for steamships and for motorships which are diesel engine ships), and
for determining the approximate full load displacement (which is proportionate to
deadweight tonnage rather than gross registered tonnage generally used by people
entering data for AE). From this a meaningful damage control value ("durability
rating") can be determined. The reason all Navies use full load displacement is that
this is the maximum weight of a ship and also the amount of water it displaces at
maximum load: above that the ship sinks. The game algorithms appear to use the
displacement value correctly: all we have to do is insure each class has a value which
is relatively correct compared to other classes, "to be fair." This means a single
standard definition must be used. For many classes, this was not originally the case.
Those not yet reviewed tend to have smaller displacements and, for that reason, smaller
durability ratings. These will continue to be updated until all are correct.

At the same time, many ships are getting more options for upgrades or conversions,
and many new capabilities are being added. For example, I just figured out that a CS
(seaplane tender) which is rated at capable of carrying twice as many aircraft as a
transport can be "reconfigured" as an AKV - and also the AKV can "reconfigure back"
to the CS form. Similarly, a few dual purpose minelayers that could carry depth charges
in lieu of mines can configure as Escorts, which in turn can configure back to ML form.
In China in particular, also in Burma and other places, riverine vessels which often
had multiple variations may convert or reconfigure between various forms, rendering the
local utility of these vessels much more significant. [FYI the ONLY US Army commissioned
warships in WW2 - and probably in history - were ALL former Irrawaddy River Flotilla Company
vessels on the Burmese river system. Sunk by their owner to avoid capture - by firing .50
cal MG holes in the hulls - these were raised and turned into a host of vessels, both logistical
and military. These appear in game when and where they really did - if the location has not
been captured by the Allies yet - they will appear instead at the alternate location. Almost
every Irrawaddy River Flotilla Company ship or boat was built in Scotland (where the company
was based) and transited the world ocean to reach Burma in the first place. IFC was the
largest ferry company in the world and, as far as I know, is only modeled in RHS.]


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 708
RE: RHS Thread: The Queens (liners) - 10/13/2019 10:43:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary had a 120 man naval gunnery detachment (each) during WW2. I think they had multiple 6 inch, as well as heavy, medium and light AA guns. I cannot find a listingfor either. If you have one, please advise.

These ships had full load displacements of 72,000 and 77,400 long tons in 1941. This is not reflected in any variant of AE I have seen. They had an "operating speed" (cruising speed in British merchantship parlance of 29 knots), but I credit QE with 30 knots because she set the transatlantic record in1936 at that speed - a record unbroken until the S.S. United States in 1954. Actually, both probablybroke it - but wartime cruises don't count. Technically QE had a full speed of 32 knots and QM 33knots, but for game purposes I think we must use 33 for QE (so full speed yields a different number of hexes in one impulse - this is under test). They are the fastest ships in the game interms of sustained movement.

Both ships were modified in 1942, probably got Type 273 Radar (surface search for large ships),and certainly about tripled their troop capacity. QM could carry 16,000, QE 15,000. Slots 2488 and2489 (upgrading to 2468 and 2367 respectively as of the next update).

Turns out we must assign both Queens a cruising speed of 29 knots (which is, officially, their"service speed") to get them to have a different full speed and cruising speed in hexes per 12 hournaval movement impulse.  All values from 30 to 33 knots produce 9 hexes per phase.  29 knotsproduces 8 knots per phase.  So we should rate them as 33 and 29, and 32 and 29, both yielding 9 hexes full speed, 8 hexes cruising speed.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/14/2019 6:49:00 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 709
RE: RHS Thread: Comprehensive Update 4.23 - 10/14/2019 6:48:32 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
It does not appear to be down. But not every place can be accessed by every other place
at all times. I am using Microsoft servers which are mirrored worldwide.


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Looks like that server s down right now....


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 710
RHS Comprehensive Update 5.29 - 10/20/2019 9:33:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Comprehensive Update 5.29
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is comprehensive only in that all files are copied for safety.
ONLY Scenario files have been updated.

These concentrated on ship classes, ships, and air groups. There are a
few other eratta - for devices and location files in particular.

The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers to insure their electronics
and AIR GROUPS were correct, particularly at game start. For a variety
of reasons, mods - including RHS - did not generally use the actual start
of game air groups. [A big one seems to be inheriting data from stock
or other mods. A different one is that it is hard to know all the details.
For example, Zero squadrons with only 15 planes should have 18 plane max
size set.] A different issue is that electronics for strictly historical
scenarios should not be based on the date the system is available. In
particular, Type 21 and 22 radars in RHS come in two flavors - prototype
limited production (and less reliable forms) - and production - and more
reliable and more mass produced forms. It was not until November 1942 that the
first were installed on a carrier - although they were first operational in
March and April. It also requires careful analysis to estimate when a ship
would get upgrades to AAA or electronics after it was sunk (since it may well
NOT be sunk in a game). There also should be a difference between strictly
historical scenarios and Japan Enhanced Scenarios. A strictly historical
scenario should use more conservative assumptions - such as carriers don't get
radar before any carrier did get radar (November, 1942).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 711
RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's - 10/20/2019 9:33:57 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Comprehensive Update 5.29
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is comprehensive only in that all files are copied for safety.
ONLY Scenario files have been updated.

These concentrated on ship classes, ships, and air groups. There are a
few other eratta - for devices and location files in particular.

The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers to insure their electronics
and AIR GROUPS were correct, particularly at game start. For a variety
of reasons, mods - including RHS - did not generally use the actual start
of game air groups. [A big one seems to be inheriting data from stock
or other mods. A different one is that it is hard to know all the details.
For example, Zero squadrons with only 15 planes should have 18 plane max
size set.] A different issue is that electronics for strictly historical
scenarios should not be based on the date the system is available. In
particular, Type 21 and 22 radars in RHS come in two flavors - prototype
limited production (and less reliable forms) - and production - and more
reliable and more mass produced forms. It was not until November 1942 that the
first were installed on a carrier - although they were first operational in
March and April. It also requires careful analysis to estimate when a ship
would get upgrades to AAA or electronics after it was sunk (since it may well
NOT be sunk in a game). There also should be a difference between strictly
historical scenarios and Japan Enhanced Scenarios. A strictly historical
scenario should use more conservative assumptions - such as carriers don't get
radar before any carrier did get radar (November, 1942).

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 712
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 5.30 - 10/21/2019 3:28:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Comprehensive Update 5.30
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This is essentially update 5.29 after eratta checking. Also, Shoho class carriers
were updated, and a way was found to permit adding recon squadrons (or night fighter
squadrons) to simplified scenario carriers (when they became available).


This update is comprehensive only in that all files are copied for safety.
ONLY Scenario files have been updated.

These concentrated on ship classes, ships, and air groups. There are a
few other eratta - for devices and location files in particular.

The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers to insure their electronics
and AIR GROUPS were correct, particularly at game start. For a variety
of reasons, mods - including RHS - did not generally use the actual start
of game air groups. [A big one seems to be inheriting data from stock
or other mods. A different one is that it is hard to know all the details.
For example, Zero squadrons with only 15 planes should have 18 plane max
size set.] A different issue is that electronics for strictly historical
scenarios should not be based on the date the system is available. In
particular, Type 21 and 22 radars in RHS come in two flavors - prototype
limited production (and less reliable forms) - and production - and more
reliable and more mass produced forms. It was not until November 1942 that the
first were installed on a carrier - although they were first operational in
March and April. It also requires careful analysis to estimate when a ship
would get upgrades to AAA or electronics after it was sunk (since it may well
NOT be sunk in a game). There also should be a difference between strictly
historical scenarios and Japan Enhanced Scenarios. A strictly historical
scenario should use more conservative assumptions - such as carriers don't get
radar before any carrier did get radar (November, 1942).

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 713
RE: RHS Scenario files Update 5.31 - 10/24/2019 8:04:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Scenario files Update 5.31
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is focused on start of game, Japanese aircraft groups.
There are a few changes to aircraft carrier classes and ships.

Apart from addressing a host of technical issues, the main
purpose is to make start of game data be strictly historical for
strictly historical scenarios, or consistently honoring the assumptions
intended for scenarios 125 (Empire of the Sun) and 129 (Total War Option).

Japanese carrier air groups in historical scenarios will resize correctly,
and will synchronize better with aircraft production (just in case a player
is letting AI manage aircraft production). This is much easier to say
than to implement!

This process has not ended. There will be at least one more round of such
updates. Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, Kaga, Akagi and Junyo classes air groups were
updated.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 714
RE: RHS Micro Update 5.32 - 11/6/2019 3:30:47 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Microupdate Update 5.32
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is limited to scenario files and documentation files.

It mainly concerns air groups, classes and ships. There is a single
aircraft designation change: D4Y2-C is now D4Y2-R - for some reason
R was used for Recon on this model. There are a couple of eratta
to location files and others - all are recompiled for safety. [Eratta
are fixed immediately on being reported or detected].

Scenaios 121 and its mirror image, 123 (they differ by a single bit -
Russian Active for 121 and Russian Not Active for 123) had significant
changes to start of game carriers.

Slight improvements to the Ship Bind Link List and to Level II Japanese
Carrier Logic. Both need a lot more work - the bind list is incomplete -
the carrier logic is out of date due to newly available materials.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 715
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 5.34 - 11/20/2019 10:49:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
RHS Comprehensive Update 5.34

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes revised map art (the panel including Borneo), revised documentation(RHS II Carrier and Capital Ship Logic), and scenario files.Most of the work concerns integrating ship, class and air group files. There is some device and aircraft work (mainly date eratta). The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers and associated air groups.

All the work was on large CV classes, mainly late war ships. However, documentation added the start of war carriers which used to be omitted from documentation (on the basisthat "everyone knows about them"). Strictly historical scenarios use strictly historical dates (or estimates when these do not exist), in part using new information notpreviously available. JES scenarios were revised significantly to insure their internallogic is consistent: Scenario 125 only has changes possible if ordered after July,1941 (the decision to mobilize), while Scenario 129 has changes that date back to1937 (with respect to carriers). The documentation isn't quite complete, and there will be one more round of this - mainly to add omitted historical carriers and smaller carriers. Two carriers based on Improved Taiho class are omitted because they were not laid down (re historical scenarios) or cannot complete during the game(re JES scenarios). Their air groups were also omitted.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 716
RE: RHS Micro Update 5.35 - 11/30/2019 5:39:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Microupdate 5.35

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

Except for the Japanese Carrier Logic documentation file, this update is purely
scenario files. Mainly ships, classes and air groups. Also aircraft, devices
and locations.

The abbreviation for barrage balloons was changed in device and location files.
Brg Balloon might be interpreted as barge balloon. So we changed it to Brrg Balloon.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 717
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 5.40 - 12/5/2019 6:03:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16762
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Comprehensive Update 5.4

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes pwhexe.dat files, documentation files and scenario files.

The focus was on CVEs and AKVs (as alternate configurations of CVEs)on BOTH sides.

Having determined how to model the cargo and troop capacity of a carrier when
she is stripped of aviation support elements and fitted as a transport (a process that
takes ten days and may be done in reverse, back to a carrier), I have reviewed the
AKV versions of these ships. Some Allied CVEs have been modified due to data found:
British CVEs in particular are now less like their American counterparts of the "same"
class. The British versions carry less because they considered US loading irresponsible
and dangerous, both to stability and to combat survivability. For this reason, the
British versions fly fewer sortees (having less aviation fuel - typically 35,000 to
50,000 gallons vs 100,000 in US ships), carry fewer aircraft and carry less cargo in
AKV form (because they have typically 1,000 tons of added ballast).

This update features sorting out of the Argentina Maru, Brazil Maru and their CVE counterparts,
which have been wrong since stock was first issued. In Stock Argentina exists both as a CVE
and as an AP! But although a conversion was planned for her sister ship, this isn't an option
in stock. In RHS, all scenarions have Argentina Maru in conversion when the game begins, and
except in Scenario 129, it appears as Kaiyo on the historical completion date. [In 129 she
completes earlier]. Brazil Maru appears as an AP and may convert to CVE form (without an air group)
except in Scenario 129. In 129 it also starts the game in conversion and appears a month later than
her sister WITH an air group.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 718
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 5.40 - 12/5/2019 11:28:28 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1783
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
How did you defined ship starting in conversion mode? I couldn't do it in editor, so I just start them really damaged.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 719
RE: RHS Comprehensive Update 5.40 - 12/11/2019 9:18:31 AM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline
I´ve downloaded the RHS files and skimmed the docs folder and the threads here but still have a hard time to figure out what RHS actually intends. I guess it is a realism overhaul of the game mechanics?

For the moment being I am only looking for AI compatible scenarios and mods that focus on realism. I found this information:
"Scenario 102 is AI Oriented (AIO) - and in common with all even numbered scenarios - is Simplified
RHS. This means it lacks features that confuse AI. For example, land locked rivers and lakes
have no naval units or naval bases. No railroad units (restricted to movement on rail lines). Etc.
AIO is the ONLY RHS scenario that works with AI. Period. If AI is dumb, it is still the most common
form for games. Also - it is still needed for testing purposes - AI vs AI is the practical way to do
long term testing. So we have the scenario for players who insist on playing vs computer, and so we
can run tests."

So I understand that scen 102 AIO is AI compatible, a couple of questions:

- how does this compare to the other AI compatible big mods Reluctant Admiral and Babes mods I´ve found? I know this question may have an provocative nature but I am not interested in whats better or worse but in finding out the significant differences. I know that for example the RA mod depicts a different historical base but what about the under the hood mechanics?
- is this mod also suited for less experienced players or absolutely geared towards WITP vets?
- does it involve more workload/micromanagement?
- 102 AIO description mentions that it was built for AI testing. Is it still good enough to present a challeging "into late war" experience for a less-experienced player?


(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 720
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Supplimental: Airborne SNLF's Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   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

0.203