RHS Plan (RHSCVO Final Test In Progress)

[el cid again]

There is not time to do this at this time. It would involve a lot of work.
I prefer to use historical OBs to fictional ones - and note that where historical I HAVE added the 2 MMG Japanese guns to the units. As well as mortars. I was told this was done for the Allies, but I don't see it completely. I have some new Allied material to integrate as it is - not sure how good it may be? But I suspect a more detail review is in order - given experience in other databases. However, the correct solution is to record the weapons, not give the units extra line squads, if I understand the design intent.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is not time to do this at this time. It would involve a lot of work.
I prefer to use historical OBs to fictional ones - and note that where historical I HAVE added the 2 MMG Japanese guns to the units. As well as mortars. I was told this was done for the Allies, but I don't see it completely. I have some new Allied material to integrate as it is - not sure how good it may be? But I suspect a more detail review is in order - given experience in other databases. However, the correct solution is to record the weapons, not give the units extra line squads, if I understand the design intent.

I remember when CHS was being designed I suggested that the US TO&E be altered to include 60mm Mortar Sqds and Weapons squads. I was informed that this was not possible and that these unit types were factored into the Squad firepower. I did not alter the sqads any when I did the US update for CHS for this reason. I did, however, insure that the correct numbers of heavier weapons were accounted for:

tm.asp?m=770828&mpage=2&key=

WWII Infantry Divisions and Regimental Combat Teams:

Several things need to be included in the US Army formations. First, several new unit types need to be added (*). Second, there were no 75 or 76 mm ATG organic to the division. Third, the 4.2 inch mortar was not organic to the Division. Create separate Chemical Mortar BN’s instead. Make another entry for the 57mm with no upgrade path. Looking at the TOE in game terms for the platoon level up as follows:

Platoon:
3 x USA Rifle Squads

Company:
3 x Platoons
2 x Weapons Squads*
3x 60mm Mortars*

Battalion:
3 x Companies
1 AT Platoon
3 x 37mm ATG (12/41)
3 x 57mm ATG (1/44)
6 x 81mm Mortars
1 USA Engineer Squad

Regiment:
3 Battalions
1 Cannon Co
6 x 75mm How (1941)
6 x 105 How (7/42)
1 AT Company
12 x 37mm ATG
12 x 57mm ATG

Division:
Self Defense Platoon
3 x USA Rifle Squad
3 x Regiments
1 x Engineer BN
27x USA Engineer
6 x Engineer Vehicle
1 x Recon Troop
9 x M8 Armored Car
3 x USA Rifle Squad
1 x 81mm Mortar
3 x 105 How Battalions
12 x 105 How
1 x 155 How BN
12 x 155mm How

Div Totals:
249 USA Rifle Squads – Upgrade path okay
54 USA Weapons Squads – No upgrade path
36 USA Engineer Squads – Upgrade path okay
72 0.50 Browning AAMG
90 60mm Mortars No upgrade
55 81mm Mortars
63 ATG (37mm then upgrade to 57mm - although Forty mentions that the 37mm was in service in for much of the war in the Pacific)
18 75mm GMC Halftrack (until early 1943)
36 + 18 105mm Howitzer (July 1942 add 18 regimental pieces)
12 155mm Howitzer
9 M8 Armored Cars
650 Support

Regimental Combat Team:
82 USA Rifle Squads
18 USA Weapons Squads
12 USA Engineer Squads
24 0.050 Browning AAMG
27 60mm Mortars
18 81mm Mortars
21 37mm ATG – Upgrades to 57mm ATG
6 75mm GMC Halftrack – Upgrades to 105mm Howitzer
12 105mm howitzer
3 M8
200 Support



Unit Specs:

Name: 60mm Mortar USA Weapon Squad M8 Armored Car
Type: 19-Army Weapon 23-Squad 22-AFV
Range: 2 0 1
Accuracy: 8 0 9
Effect: 3 0 2
Ceiling: 0 0 0
Armor 0 0 20
Penetration: 5 0 70
Dud Rate: 0 0 0
Anti-Armor: 10 25 78
Anti-Soft: 10 40 28
Load Cost: 2 9 10
Available: 4112 4112 4112
Upgrade: Same Same Same
Build rate: 20 25 30

. 50 cal Browning - The Division had over 236 of these weapons authorized, many of them mounted on AA rings on trucks.

The 60mm mortar is a crucial firepower unit of the Company.

The USA Weapon Squad represents the organic 0.50 M2 MG and the 0.30 M1919 MG found in the weapons platoon of the company.

The M8 was the standard US armored car.

Sources include:

Forty, George
1996 US Army Handbook 1939-1940.

US Army
1944 Catalogue of Standard Ordinance Items, Vols. I-III. US Army Ordinance Technical Division

Wilson, John B.
1998 Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades, Army Lineage Series

I am thinking that maybe I should revisit this in my personal mod...

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

the "blimps" just added are simulated as ships - actually sub chasers! They "fly low" as it were.

I can just see the headlines - "JAPS TORPEDO BLIMP OFF CALIFORNIA COAST!" [:D]

[timtom]

Richard,

As you say, 76mm ATGs and 4.2" mortars weren't organic. I've also come across a number of direct and indirect references to the 37mm ATGs being kept on. Fx, 37mm ATG ammo expediture on Okinawa was 4 times greater than 57mm ATG expediture, according to the official history (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... awa-C.html, p.501). Makes perfect sense to me, presuming that the greater (man-)portability of 37mm would arguably be of greater importants than the increased power of the 57mm, especially considering the relative paucity and feebleness of IJA armour and the nature of the terrain/absence of infrastructure in the PTO.

If you want to explicitly include the rifle companies' M1919's, shouldn't the weapon company's M1917's also be included?

I think the M2's are tricky. As you know, it was designed and designated an AAMG, and was included in the rifle company TOE for this purpose. Although I've come across no positive evidence either way - in memoirs, fx, mg's are usually just referred to as that or generically as Brownings - however I suspect that the great weight of the M2 rather restricted its usefulness as a frontline weapon, certainly so in an offensive capacity. Possibly including them in the weapon squads overstates the latters firepower, and the M2 be better represented as an AA weapon?

Regards,

Tom

btw, in my CHS database, the 57mm upgrades to the M8 AC[&:]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sounds great, cid. One question. I have the impression that the AI doesn't work with the extended map (no experience of my own, I think I remember someone stating it). You mention extended map only - will you consider running a conversion routine to create a 'regular' AB map version? I believe that Andrew has and uses such a conversion routine.

It seems to work for me.

[el cid again]

Sounds great, cid. One question. I have the impression that the AI doesn't work with the extended map (no experience of my own, I think I remember someone stating it). You mention extended map only - will you consider running a conversion routine to create a 'regular' AB map version? I believe that Andrew has and uses such a conversion routine.


It seems to work for me.

Me too. But perhaps you mean the AI does not think in terms of areas not on the regular map when running strategy in games without a human opponant? This might be correct. I design for PBEM or head to head human vs human scenarios - and only use AI as a learning/test opponent - it being too stupid to consider "real." Still - I think I can make it work to the extent it can work - because of the way the scenario editor allows programming. Not sure there is any interest in a version like that - but I could play with it after the main scenarios are out. I see no indication AI is any dumber in Panama than it is in Hawaii.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sounds great, cid. One question. I have the impression that the AI doesn't work with the extended map (no experience of my own, I think I remember someone stating it). You mention extended map only - will you consider running a conversion routine to create a 'regular' AB map version? I believe that Andrew has and uses such a conversion routine.


It seems to work for me.

Me too. But perhaps you mean the AI does not think in terms of areas not on the regular map when running strategy in games without a human opponant? This might be correct. I design for PBEM or head to head human vs human scenarios - and only use AI as a learning/test opponent - it being too stupid to consider "real." Still - I think I can make it work to the extent it can work - because of the way the scenario editor allows programming. Not sure there is any interest in a version like that - but I could play with it after the main scenarios are out. I see no indication AI is any dumber in Panama than it is in Hawaii.

Thanks guys.

No, I meant just the AI as the opponent for a human. This is strictly from the comments of others, but I remember concerns about the AI not recognizing the 'off-map' areas as Allies (would there be lots of units it wouldn't make use of then?), and I'm not sure of the supposed difficulties as Japan.

If it works that's great. Thanks again.

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sounds great, cid. One question. I have the impression that the AI doesn't work with the extended map (no experience of my own, I think I remember someone stating it). You mention extended map only - will you consider running a conversion routine to create a 'regular' AB map version? I believe that Andrew has and uses such a conversion routine.


It seems to work for me.

Me too. But perhaps you mean the AI does not think in terms of areas not on the regular map when running strategy in games without a human opponant? This might be correct. I design for PBEM or head to head human vs human scenarios - and only use AI as a learning/test opponent - it being too stupid to consider "real." Still - I think I can make it work to the extent it can work - because of the way the scenario editor allows programming. Not sure there is any interest in a version like that - but I could play with it after the main scenarios are out. I see no indication AI is any dumber in Panama than it is in Hawaii.

Thanks guys.

No, I meant just the AI as the opponent for a human. This is strictly from the comments of others, but I remember concerns about the AI not recognizing the 'off-map' areas as Allies (would there be lots of units it wouldn't make use of then?), and I'm not sure of the supposed difficulties as Japan.

If it works that's great. Thanks again.

The Japanese AI seems to work fine with the extended map. As good as the AI ever does, anyway.

[el cid again]

1. Elements of RHS have been tested for some time: these include aircraft, with new definitions of engines, maneuverability, durability, ceiling and weapons. The weapons include rockets for the first time. These aircraft work about the same as before, but with better relative performace between types. They also suffer more AAA attrition - but not more general attrition - which seems not to be related to durability as was long theorized.

2. Other new elements are essentially "chrome": midget subs and carrier ships and subs for them, kaiten and carrier ships and subs for them, blimps, MAD, schnorkel ("invented" by Andrew Brown), and a good deal of radar corrections. More fundamentally, there is a comprehensive revision of AA performance, including systematic altitude (ceiling) ratings.

3. Much of the work done on land OBs for CHS is incorporated, including coast defense units, Japanese land combat units, Soviet land and naval units, the Manchukuo Army, the Indian National Army, the Burma National Army, etc. RHS is also incorporating revisions to Japanese support units, a complete rework of the Philippine Army, a new Royal Thai Army, and some changes to command structures. The Asiatic Fleet does NOT report to USAFFE - it reports to Pacific Fleet. Pacific Fleet now exists, as does the Alaskan Command, but North Pacific and Central Pacific are part of Pacific Fleet. The 4th Composite Group (USAAF) is in the Philippines. The Red Chinese do NOT report to the KMT but report to themselves - making them an independent command. A number of structural changes were made to make Chinese units more economically viable. But Chinese guerillas will not normally move - although under attack they might shift to an adjacent area.

4. There is a comprehensive new map, now completed, which differs in five significant ways from Andrew Browns Extended map. This new map will work with ANY scenario that uses Andrew's Extended map. Changes include ferries between adjacent islands/land bodies, or rarely up rivers,
navigable rivers and the inland waterway to what was Port Alice (now Coal Harbor), changes to names, additions to places for various operatoinal reasons including mobilization (Indian Air Force - now greatly expanded - and Japan), economic viability (in Russia and China, and at what was Port Alice), many additional mountains (in Siberia, Manchukuo, China and some islands), and some changes to rail lines/roads/trails. These latter include the ALCAN highway is a trail, the Bengal and Assam RR is narrow gage, the White Pass and Yukon RR is narrow gage, some narrow gage lines in Sumatra were added, and other rail lines on Sumatra were degraded to narrow gage standard. The "most efficient 3'6" rail system in the world" on Java left it as a main line. Trails were added in China to help Chinese units not starve - and roads on islands because they were there.

5. The present tentative plan is to release:

RHS CVO (Carrier Oriented) with Russians Passive
and
RHS RAO (Russian Active Option) with Russians Active
on 18 April 2005;

RHS BBO (Battleship Oriented) with Russians Active
and
RHS RPO (Russian Passive Option) with Russians Passive
on 19 April 2005;

RHS PPO (Political Point Option) - a variation of RHSBBO -
on 21 April 2005.

[el cid again]

RHS will not release on the planned date (today) - 18 April 2006 - for four reasons:

1) Cobra needs to complete a release package set;
2) A technical problem involving national control of bases must be solved and tested;
3) It has been learned that, contrary to what has been posted, drop tanks DO get used by code - and since RHS added drop tanks - this means ranges require adjustment. This is not simple either - it must be done by date with the code working to understand what it is doing in each case.
4) A few identified corrections to ship data need to be made;
5) A few identified additions to OBs need to be made;
6) The supply sinks must be installed and tested (and removed again if they are a problem);
7) A complete scenario test regime needs to run through the invasion of Java.

These matters are not particularly daunting. Taken together, my best estimate is they may be resolved in 6 days - that is on Monday - 24 April.
On that day I plan to release RHSCVO (and its Russian Active variant RHSRAO). RHSBBO (and its Russian Passive variant RHSRPO) should release about 26 April. The Political Point wild card option RHSPPO should release about 28 April. And a new version for JFBs - RHSESO (Empire of the Sun) - assuming a Japanese Albert Speer (there was one) got put in charge of the economy sooner than midwar (when he really did) was able to affect Japanese production - should release about 1 May.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS will not release on the planned date (today) - 18 April 2006 - for four reasons:

1) Cobra needs to complete a release package set;
2) A technical problem involving national control of bases must be solved and tested;
3) It has been learned that, contrary to what has been posted, drop tanks DO get used by code - and since RHS added drop tanks - this means ranges require adjustment. This is not simple either - it must be done by date with the code working to understand what it is doing in each case.
4) A few identified corrections to ship data need to be made;
5) A few identified additions to OBs need to be made;
6) The supply sinks must be installed and tested (and removed again if they are a problem);
7) A complete scenario test regime needs to run through the invasion of Java.

These matters are not particularly daunting. Taken together, my best estimate is they may be resolved in 6 days - that is on Monday - 24 April.
On that day I plan to release RHSCVO (and its Russian Active variant RHSRAO). RHSBBO (and its Russian Passive variant RHSRPO) should release about 26 April. The Political Point wild card option RHSPPO should release about 28 April. And a new version for JFBs - RHSESO (Empire of the Sun) - assuming a Japanese Albert Speer (there was one) got put in charge of the economy sooner than midwar (when he really did) was able to affect Japanese production - should release about 1 May.

Have you decided to increase the number of depth charge racks and DC ammo to more accurately handle the newer ASW model?

[el cid again]

Have you decided to increase the number of depth charge racks and DC ammo to more accurately handle the newer ASW model?

I have attempted to understand the model. It appears to me that this requires a slight interpretation of actual equipment, as follows:

1) Represent K guns as is - one for one;
2) Represent Y guns at two for one;
3) Represent DC rails at two or three for one, depending on what works out best for the total pattern, because a DC rail would drop at the beginning and end of the run, and could also drop in the center.

For ammunition, you must take the PRODUCT of the SUM of all the above and the "rounds" for each:

Thus, a ship with two Y guns has four DC projectors,
and if it also had one DC rack we say it has two DC projectors,
the sum indicating a pattern of six (a common Japanese pattern).
If the ship has 18 total DCs (also common early Japanese) - it gets 3 rounds per weapon. If it upgrades to 36 DCs, it gets 6 rounds per weapon. Some ASW specialist vessels had 120 DCs and patterns of 10 - it does not matter how you get to 10 - I typically use 8 projectors and 2 racks - but any combination works - with 12 shots per weapon.

It may help that I attended a US Navy ASW school in an age when DC theory was still taught. I sort of understand what the game is trying to model. My big problem is on the detection side - there seems to be no sonar - just "a ship is normal (meaing visual or radar only) or a ship is a sub hunter (meaning it has sonar or hydrophones)" - possibly also "American sub hunters are better than Japanese ones" - but inside that - all vessels are equal. Bunk - I say.

Do you have a different understanding of a "new" ASW model?

[el cid again]

Two of my problems are going to require a lot of work. On the other hand, if I said how much work I can do per unit time, few would believe it: I am not entirely sure this will cause me to miss my current goals. But if anything else comes along, it might. The drop tank issue is a real surprise - people I was told to trust ("listen to the playtesters - they know" Joel wrote privately) - turned out to be wrong about drop tanks - and I can see why - if you don't look in the right place you would never guess - but the code is better than we were told - and we must adjust the data in the knowledge it is going to use drop tanks - OR take them out. Doesen't matter as long as we get correct ranges: what matters is it takes time to do this.

[el cid again]

Because of technical issues, both with CHS used as the foundation and with changes made in RHS, I decided to redo the scenario file set based on stock.

Because that decision was made on the day that 1.8 was released, I have decided to use scenario 15 of version 1.8 as the foundation, instead of 1.6, which I had begun to do only a few hours earlier.

Now all the work of CHS and RHS will be put into this file set. But at every point where a location/unit (etc) exists in Scenario, it will be in the stock slot, EXCEPT where a specific technical reason exists otherwise. [Thus - Baguio City - which does not even exist in other scenarios - needs to be malaria free - and so it will reside in the slot used by Palembang in stock and CHS - the most malarial of all the "malaria free" hexes in the tropical zone. Similarly, the slot used by Bataan will be used by Bataan ONLY in RHSCVO and its Russian Active variant - RHSRAO - for those who absolutely MUST have USAFFE run to the swamps if under AI control. Other RHS scenarios won't use that slot in that way.]

The result should be that the AI behaves very similarly in RHS as in stock - and that certain wierd issues which arise from hard coded slots being assigned things not intended by the programmers won't be a problem.

This redo is a consequence of a long line of modders (including me) who ignored the "never move" what is in a slot maxim in the manual. Matrix wanted (for some cause) to protect the program, and for that reason did not want to disclose algorithms or all its hard code (even in generic descriptions). So they elected not to document properly. [I am so old I was taught an ethic, long dead, that it is unprofessional not to fully document EVERY program on a computer. There are good reasons for that ethic - if you need to modify or maintain or support a computer or an application on it. On the other hand, in this age, it is no longer practical to document code fully. But it should be practical to document its key points.] The prohibition was meant to keep us out of trouble. But it does not address the problems serious modders face - above all the need for slots - which are not really adequate (in most files) for the advertised purpose of WITP (to represent "every" unit in the theater). As always, in everything, compromise is required - and we made some good ones - and some not so good - handicapped as we were by a lack of documentation and a lack of formal test regimes.

For the record, I advocate some system whereby Matrix charges for a "technical manual". If propriatory code data is an issue, perhaps modders can be "hired" for one dollar - and required to sign non-disclosure agreements - or some other mechanism that swears them to not publish what is in the manual. Since there would not be many copies, it should be expensive. Cost alone will deter the more casual and presumably less professional.

I am unwilling at this point to reset my plan. I need to see how modding the file set goes. RHS will be released to testers in a new form, version 2.xx - which flies should not be mixed with version 0.xx or 1.xx

[el cid again]

The need to review all AFVs and artillery in the device file cost a day.
The need to actually run tests to figure out drop tanks (in the absence of real definitions) cost two days. These are completed. I am three days behind plan at this point. Moving on. I need to integrate the other files with the completed device and aircraft files.

[Mifune]

Thank you for the update, I myself have been anxious test drive the RHS release.

[Sardaukar]

Will there be complete install package ? Hmm..does this actually need one ? [8D]

[el cid again]

Thank you for the update, I myself have been anxious test drive the RHS release.

I will be pre-releasing a test version of RHSCVO shortly - but you need to send a message to me if you want to run test versions. The purpose of pre-release tests are to find data errors and, God forbid, bugs. There have long been tests of elements - aircraft and midget subs come to mind - and there were whole scenario tests this month - but the present file set is in conversion to use 1.8 as its foundation. Andrew and I independently concluded there were issues with some slots, and it seemed wiser to address them all at one time.

[el cid again]

Will there be complete install package ? Hmm..does this actually need one ?

Cobra is gallently working on one. And Andrew is considering adding a function to his map switching utility to allow easy switching back and forth.

But no - it does not need one. The scenario files can be simply dumped into the SCEN folder. The art can be slightly less simply dumped into the ART folder. The problem with that is you are then FORCED to use the RHS map - and so I prefer players be able to use a map changing utility. Now you can actually do that too - right now - just put the RHS map art in the place of the CHS map art. In which case the existing utility will switch between extended RHS are, non-extended Andrew art, and stock art. But I think the best of all worlds is to have a separate RHS art directory, and a utility to switch between them all.

[mlees]

In regards to art (and I apologise if you addressed this earlier):

Ship side art and plane top/side art.

Are you going to use some of the nifty artwork from the various modders, or did you import the stock stuff?

I think that trying to cut and paste the airplane top art into the file is a pain.