Simple RHS, CHS, NIK Mod questions

[jeffs]

What does RHS and CHS mean? What are they?

How do they differ from the Nik mod? Or are they compatible with the Nik Mod...

(am starting a game with the Nik mod.....From what I have read/seen of the stock game, it is ridiculously tilted to giving the IJN a good chance to win (shipping restraints minimal at the beginning due to large transport capabilities, virtually no chance for USN to win CV battles (looking at the historical record in 42, the US did pretty well vs IJN CVs, even if we take away Midway)....

[bradfordkay]

Nik's mod is a modification of the stock scenario where the OOB is stock, but the a/c durability and AA effectiveness have been increased (among other changes, especially to a/c replacement rates). There is a version of this mod that uses AB's map.

The CHS (Combined Historical Senario) creates a more historic OOB and allied a/c replacement rates. There are two versions of this: one using AB's extended map and one using his standard map.

The RHS ("Real" Historical Scenario accrding to Cid - to me that has always sounded too dismissive of other's efforts, I prefer "Revised Historical Scenario") is another version of a more historic OOB along with other changes the author believes will improve the game.

[Nikademus]

see Nikmod FAQ for details. (if you havn't already [;)] )

[jeffs]

Thank you.

Is it possible to use Nik and CHS together?

Also going to the CHS/RHS system of more historical OOBS has what
effects? (I prefer historical realism over cool moves....It seems ridiculous to have things like the KB hanging off of PH for 3 weeks when historically it could not [:-](not that I mind 2-4 days of PH torture...That seems plausible..But being able to loiter off of PH for a few weeks from the first day is bit ridiculous...)...[X(]

Does RHS/CHS have any effects on the game system?[&:]
What has been the reaction (among game players)...


Thanks for answering these noobie questions.[&o]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jeffs
Is it possible to use Nik and CHS together?

No, it isn't. However we are considering adding the air-to-air changes from Nik's mod, or an equivalent, to the next version of CHS, which will be released soon.

Also going to the CHS/RHS system of more historical OOBS has what
effects? (I prefer historical realism over cool moves....It seems ridiculous to have things like the KB hanging off of PH for 3 weeks when historically it could not [:-](not that I mind 2-4 days of PH torture...That seems plausible..But being able to loiter off of PH for a few weeks from the first day is bit ridiculous...)...[X(]

Regarding the KB hanging around Hawaii. This is something that may be addressed, at least slightly, in the next CHS as well.

Does RHS/CHS have any effects on the game system?[&:]
What has been the reaction (among game players)...

I will let others (who have played CHS a lot more than I have) to answer that question.

Andrew

[jeffs]

Thanks. You guys are awesome!

[el cid again]

The RHS ("Real" Historical Scenario accrding to Cid - to me that has always sounded too dismissive of other's efforts, I prefer "Revised Historical Scenario") is another version of a more historic OOB along with other changes the author believes will improve the game.

RHS was actually named by Joe Wilkerson - in honor of a mod of a submarine game which is RSH (Real Sub Hunter). I am comfortable with the concept that the R could stand for "revised" instead of "real". The whole thing is quite unintentional - I wanted more changes in the direction of history than CHS "plank holders" would agree to - things like correct armor values on Japanese cruisers were "out of bounds" - and correcting aircraft data to high scholarly standards was not acceptable either. The original idea came from the CHS coordinator - Andrew Brown - who proposed that RHS might be a way to get some of my changes exposed sufficiently they could be incorporated in CHS one day. And, in minor ways, that has indeed happened already - so I believe his suggestion was quite sincere and not a way to get rid of these ideas.

Originally RHS was based on CHS 155, then CHS 177, and now it will be based on stock 1.8 (but using much CHS 177 material). Many features of the yet to be released versions of CHS and RHS are very similar - because Andrew and I share files regularly - every week or so - and because we help each other know about problems and solutions. Also because perhaps the biggest changes were done by Joe Wilkerson to the Japanese army land combat units, and he allowed them in both mods.
Many things that might have been different - both mods will probably add Soviet ships based on my research (corrected by a member of the forum) for example - may turn out to be very similar. But major differences will include the following:

RHS will have a very different set of aircraft than CHS. [This is slightly ironic - in that I wanted to change ships - and only did planes FOR CHS - but it is a long story - ending with the creation of RHS]. My plane set has many types never before in WITP - heavy transports, gliders, ASW planes, a real Japanese 4 engine bomber (as opposed to a fictional type), a submarine borne bomber, etc. More significantly, however, is that my plane set has a completely revised set of data. This was done not only because the existing data set contained errors, but because it makes it possible to better model the relative value of the aircraft if we use formulas to calculate values (instead of seat of the pants "it is a bit better than a Zero" guesses). All of this is published in this forum too - and it was much revised with the help of input from the forum - a very different process than has been used previously.

RHS has a variation of Andrew Browns Extended Map. It ONLY uses extended maps - but it CAN use Andrew's version if you prefer it. [Similarly the RHS map can be used with a CHS scenario for the extended map.] Some of the map differences may go away - Andrew is revising his yet again and indicates an unspecified number of rail lines may change for example. But differences which will remain include a ferry system between many points - so you are not forbidden to cross between islands where you could really cross - and river navigation - in particular on the lower Yangtze - the most important line of communications in China and passable to ocean shipping. [Note, however, Andrew has made the Yangze navigable to ships as far as Nanking - so it isn't quite true to say the CHS map does not do that in its latest form]. I have degraded the ALCAN highway to a trail, and several rail lines were added or degraded. Otherwise I added many mountains in China, Manchuria, Siberia and on some islands - but got rid of mountains at Blane Washington - where there are none. Many other changes are too technical to notice - unless you are a microscopic player - a different interpretation of hex sides - lines of communications - etc. Being a person familiar with many of these places it was easier for me to understand what each hex "looks like" than for many.

Other changes include a very significant change to orders of battle. However, more than a few of these (e.g. more correct representation of coast defenses) are creeping into CHS - so it is hard to say just how different they will end up? But RHS has attempted to address issues like ships which don't appear in stock and CHS - including a number of Essex class aircraft carriers. Perhaps the biggest change is how we treat the case of Shinano: CHS gives her to you BOTH as a battleship AND as a carrier! You are supposed to cancel one or the other - and if you don't - you get both - eventually (slowly). RHS permits you to choose EITHER - and you load a version oriented towards one or the other - and can cancel it in either one. The Ibuki is treated the same way - RHS gives her to you as a CVL in RHSCVO and as a CA in RHSBBO. Three US CVLs turn into CLs in a similar way. BBO sticks you with pre war planning - and CVO gives you post Pearl Harbor and Midway changes to production plans. [I just learned the Japanese BC were not canceled because the war began - similar to the British Lions - but because of the power of carriers shown AFTER the war began. So I will now give them to you in BBO - and allow you to cancel them if you wish - which you should do because of the delay they will cause to ships you need more - but you don't have to.]

Otherwise, the difference is in economics. RHS is experimenting with "local economies" in Indonesia, the Philippines, the USSR, China, Indochina, and India - and with forcing Japan to import resources and export supplies - with much reduced ship cargo capacity. The Allies must support a war effort at great distance with reduced cargo capacity. A number of "missing" vessels are added - and junk vessels removed - because I don't believe a trawler able to move 8 knots - armed with a .30 cal mg, and a couple of depth charges = a sub chaser - or a real minesweeper - which is what code does to these vessels in WITP.

[bradfordkay]

Question, is the RHS map based on AB's map or the stock?

My guess is that it is based on AB's, due to the expetnsions, but I would like to be sure that the rest is more like AB's than the original...

[el cid again]

Question, is the RHS map based on AB's map or the stock?

It is wholly founded upon Andrew Brown's Extended Map. BECAUSE this is the case, there is a 100% compatibility between scenarios for the extended maps - either CHS or RHS. Locations do change - you load them when you load the location file automatically by selecting your scenario. Thus, as chrome, I have a place called Uranium City in the great empty quarter of Canada (it has NO function at all at this point - it is there because it is there). IF you load a CHS scenario, it will "disappear". IF the next CHS has a city I don't have - it won't appear if you load CHS. And many of my cities/points have different names - the historical names of the period - particularly in Japanese or native languages. Many of these have also been adopted by Andrew, but even so, if you click on locations, some places will "change names" depending on if you load CHS or RHS.

I have said this before - but threads get burried - so I will say it again:

Andrew Brown's map saved WITP as far (and many who write to me) are concerned. I am a sailor, married in China, formerly resident in Japan and the Philippines, and extensive traveler to locations (and battlefield sites) in PTO. I also live in Alaska. I am actually offended by the stock map - a rail line down the coast of Alaska (impassable even in this age) - and what must be the Ididirod "trail" to Nome (which runs down the middle of rivers - really - so it isn't much of a trail in summer). One of "the center four squares of the chessboard" is missing. [In PTO the central strategic location is Luzon. The critical hexes on Luzon are Manila (a gigantic port and industrial center), the hex called Clark in stock and CHS (and Angelus City/Clark in RHS), the hex called Bataan in stock and CHS (and Olongapo City/Bataan in RHS), and Baguio City/Balinta Pass.
This latter is a mountain region, non-malarial, productive in minerals (it has the largest copper mine in Asia, significant gold mines, and others) as well as rice, and the roads are strategic and defensible. [Here you can move from the Cayagan Valley south into Central Luzon via Balinta Pass, or turn West and to to the Coast near the historical landing points of the IJA along the coast of Linguyan Gulf]. This is the HQ of Gen Yamashita - and the place he surrendered (a house on Fort John Hay) is still US territory. [If you want to visit, get permission from the embassy in Manila first]. All four hexes are adjacent, and all four have significant airfields. Only Bataan is malarial in a region where almost everything is malarial (representing also dengue fever). The campaigns for Luzon makes no sense without Baguio City/ Balinta Pass on the map. This is a critical area right in the middle of the strategic line of communications between Japan and the rest of the SRA - and itself ought to be the beginning of the SRA in terms of resources.

I can go on and on about places all over the map - but you get the idea: China is a very mountainous country - four times more than the USA (which is comparable in area) - but you cannot tell that SE China - or Manchuria - is rugged. The critical Japanese and Russian planning turns on the mountains near Chita in Central Asia, and others (the Greater Khingan Range comes to mind) in Manchuria. [Maybe you can tell I have three credits in Chinese Geography?] I simply wanted to address these omissions, plus

I wanted to deal with the problem of river navigation on the great waterways of Asia. I wanted to solve the problem of Port Alice (Coal Harbor to RHS - following history). I wanted the Russians to be able to use the oil from Sakhalin Island in their industry. I wanted the Dutch and the US forces to be able to take advantage of literally hundreds of ships and ferries - and not be forced into idotic defenses required because units cannot reinforce or evacuate islands - and their local economies won't work automatically. So I added ferries, river ferries (down the Amur), inshore ferries (Coal Harbor), and rivers navigable to ocean ships. [Now, in fairness, this latter suggestion was partly implemented by Andrew in the latest CHS map - you can sail to Nanking now. But the Great Bridge at Nanking was built so the Queen Mary could sail beneith it - and ocean ships have always been able to sail to Wuhan - Hankow - where there is a significant ocean shipyard - it builds deep draft submarines today! So on the RHS map you can sail to Hankow/Wuhan, and there is a repair shipyard there. You can sail the Pearl River up one city from Canton. You can sail one hex north of Bangkok as well. Ocean ships can pass between some islands they could not in stock or CHS - the inland sea is fully developed for example - and you can sail between some points in the Visaya's for the first time - just as you can take ferries if you are a land unit.

Otherwise, I worked on rail lines. I downgraded the Bengal and Assam RR due to player forum comments about the war in Burma - and realized the too strong Allied performance is logistic based on a fictional main line.
I downgraded the White Pass and Yukon RR - mainly because it is right - and because I downgraded the entire ALCAN highway to a trail - so it makes sense to have a narrow gage RR represented as a road in that case (moving supplies IN from the coast to Whitehorse - and resources out). I put a minor coal RR on Sumatra (upgrading trail), but downgraded the rest of the Rail lines on Sumatra - due to traffic loads [It is in Java the 3ft 6in lines were "absolutely the most efficient in the world"]
- but also on Madura - more or less an extension of Java at Soerabaja.
Some of this now may appear in the next CHS map - but how much of that is up to Andrew.

[Elladan]

How about changes affecting combat models, such as for example air-to-air and AA defense changes in Nik Mod? Are there any in RHS?

[el cid again]

How about changes affecting combat models, such as for example air-to-air and AA defense changes in Nik Mod? Are there any in RHS?

There is what might be called a wholly different approach to these issues.
Joe calls it "Cid mod." Nik attempted to use what is called "a result driven" system - change the data until the result is what you like. I have attempted what is called "a theory driven" system - figure out what the values should be and apply them comprehensively. I also had a limited window into the future (blindfolded - like listening to a Greek Oricle) - Joe said "you get the data right and I will fix the code" - without telling me he would end up working for Matrix. The idea was - we needed a foundation that was right for better code to exploit. Paraphrasing Joe: "If we change the data to compensate for code issues, then when we change the code the changes must be undone, or things will be wrong in a different sense." So even to the extent things are getting better - they will be better still as updates are released.

My approach was also more comprehensive in a different sense: Nik identified certain issues without trying to fix them (a point on which he corrected me not long ago). For example, he thinks attrition is too low, but didn't deal with it. [To the extent the popular theory attrition is related to durability, by increasing durability he made it worse. This may not turn out to matter for operational attrition: I am unable to show in testing that durability is related to attrition of the operational type - although it IS related to attrition of the AAA type - so by increasing durability Nik made the latter issue worse.] I attempted to address air air combat, AAA attrition and operational attrition all at one time. To get there I devised a new concept of "effective" AA ceilings - "operational" aircraft ceilings - formal systematic definitions for durability, maneuverability and weapon firepower - and used real (vice grossly exaggerated) weapon effective ranges (no - mgs are NOT effective at 2000 and 3000 yards, and cannon as far as 6000). It appears these changes mostly worked - with the notable exception of operational attrition - which may not have improved at all - or which may have - but it was so bad (greater than three orders of magnitude down - less than 1/2000 of reality) that any improvement is still far too low. [This is hard to know - operational attrition depends on how small the airfields are relative to the plane ratings - and I messed with these - because they were deliberately falsified so planes could use smaller airfields than the code permitted. But just what players do affects operational attrition - and it will take lots of games to show what the real new rates are. But my tests letting AI be boss indicate little improvement on this - and I believe it will need a code fix.]

In brief, my system does not have arbitrary data. The relative data between planes is better modeled. It does not have arbitrary altitude data either. [Stock and CHS use several systems at once: some planes get full service ceilings, some get -2000 feet, some get -10,000 feet, and some get more than 200% MORE than service ceiling!] On the other hand, the goal of reducing altitude ratings was valid - lots of reasons you don't fly up there - and only bomb accuracy was in the game as one.
So I came up with "operational" ceilings - a system in which planes with better engines for high altitude get a greater fraction of service ceiling.
At the same time, AAA is NOT effective up there either. So instead of "you get the maximum altitude a shell can reach fired strait up at the full range of a gun - which of course has NO altitude at all because the shell falls back to Earth" I use effective ceiling - and limit AA range to that distance - STILL an exaggeration by the way - you cannot fire at effective cieling at that distance in fact. But it is closer to correct.

There is a "knee" in the code - designed to compensate for heavy bomber survival issues. This is a programmers trick to deal with a failure to have worked out the right values in the first place - and I went the other way: work out the right values and stay below the knee.
At the same time, decreasing the durability on average should improve attrition - and it did for AA attrition. I feared it might make air combat too bloody - but it did not - because of decreased weapon lethality. But instead of arbitrary decreases in lethality - I used measured decreases - and sometimes weapons have MORE lethality - if they were underrated. The big change is range of weapons - in effect in my system most weapons have the same range - so you get few "free shots" - unless the enemy is unarmed. This prevents the same fighter from getting outrageous scores in a single action - if it engages enough it gets hurt.
Particularly because my durability is lower - if it gets shot at it is more likely to get hurt. [This produces a counterintuitive effect - few can grasp it - LOWER durability produces LOWER overall air combat attrition. The problem planes simply don't have the ability to kill dozens of times any more - because when they try - they don't live that long.]

[Elladan]

That sounds more and more interesting, thank you. What is the result of RHS changes on CAP effectiveness, especially the dreaded "KB invincibility"? Is there any difference from stock?

[el cid again]

That sounds more and more interesting, thank you. What is the result of RHS changes on CAP effectiveness, especially the dreaded "KB invincibility"? Is there any difference from stock?

The code was not changed - so the core issues should remain.
But

.30 cal mgs are 1/2 their former power (1 vs 2 on the average)
.50 cal mgs are 2/3 their former power (2 vs 3 on the average)
most weapons have much less range
planes have on the average much less durability (as much as 1/6 for fighters)

the result is that fighters are much less deadly in air combat.

THAT should help a bit. Since Japanese fighters are less durable, it should impact their cap more that they neither can survive many rounds nor have as much punch when they shoot per round. But testing does not make it appear they are ineffective. It is not nice to tangle with CAP in 1942.

[Elladan]

What were the results of carrier-carrier battles in 42 in tests? In stock it was quite ordinary to see all of Dauntlesses and Devastators shot down/turned with devastating Japanese counterattack. Are there any bombers leaking through CAP, as it was achieved in Nik Mod? I'm asking because it has a significant impact on American CVs will to fight in 42.

PS. Are you saying that A6M2 has 4 or 5 durability in RHS? Wow, that's a change [:)]

[bradfordkay]

Sid, what did you use to increase operational losses? You seem to disbelieve the theory that operational losses are related to durability (this is not to say that I'm disbelieving you, just that it was the only theory I had heard so far), so did you find a mechanism that works here?

[el cid again]

What were the results of carrier-carrier battles in 42 in tests? In stock it was quite ordinary to see all of Dauntlesses and Devastators shot down/turned with devastating Japanese counterattack. Are there any bombers leaking through CAP, as it was achieved in Nik Mod? I'm asking because it has a significant impact on American CVs will to fight in 42.

PS. Are you saying that A6M2 has 4 or 5 durability in RHS? Wow, that's a change

Durability of the A6M2 in CHS177 is 25. In RHS it is 5. That is a divide by 5 comparison. On the other hand, its enemies are also greatly reduced - in most cases. I have not seen any carrier battles in 1942. But small numbers of Allied bombers do attack Japanese carriers from land - and some usually penetrate - although because they are too high - they don't usually score any hits. I have not heard any complaints from testers - but I also was not asking this particular question. Time will tell. Frankly I think for USS Enterprise to seek out KB in Dec 41 is suicide! And really would have been. My own tests are AI vs AI - and it does not run carriers early in 1942 - that is it does not let Allied carriers get near KB.

[el cid again]

Sid, what did you use to increase operational losses? You seem to disbelieve the theory that operational losses are related to durability (this is not to say that I'm disbelieving you, just that it was the only theory I had heard so far), so did you find a mechanism that works here?

In essence I believed the theory - oft repeated - Joel Billings wrote he is too busy to answer questions so believe the testers - and I did. But when I IMPLEMENTED a major reduction - I show little impact. Certainly not a power of 10 - and we need a power of 1000 increase. Actually a multiple - like 2000 or 3000. I have NOT solved this problem - but it is too soon to tell - it may be better than it was by 2 or 3 times. It will take a few million sortees to get meaningful averages.