RHS 4.14 [Eratta; Chinese Army planning]

[turkey1]

v 2.59.4

Ki51 Sonia has a 45 "replacement rate" instead of production rate

Is this deliberate ?

[Ol_Dog]

in 2.59.4, scen 60 - air groups 1561,1562,1563,1565 and 1571 have aircraft 167 - UK Land aircraft


I disagree with your bomb loads and max loads for the B-17, B-24 and B-29, but it is your scenario. I can change those for my use if we ever get RHS beyond 3 or 4 game days without changes.


as an additional note -

If you can change device for bomb size by mission, consider adding 1,000 and 100 lb bombs. In ETO at least, in addition to 500 lb bombs, B-24s did use 1,000 lb bombs, and they did use 100 lb bombs against troop concentrations and airfields to great effect.

[el cid again]

Ol Dog: What do you mean "you disagree about maximum bomb loads"?
Are you saying you don't think they are correct - or that we should not use correct data?

My instructions - when I did this under supervison for CHS - were to "fix the data" - which I did. They were confirmed by four separate sources by my reviewer/supervisor. I am certain the Allied heavy bombers could carry these loads - and I regret ONLY that WITP won't let them actually carry the loads at this time. I believe that may be changed in a future version of WITP.

On the other hand, I do understand that there is a code requirement for basing based on max bomb load size. In fact, that is one reason I increased it - I feel it should not be too easy to use just any place as a major bomber base. It does seem like an anomoly that an early B-17 can use less of an airfield. But consider the case of del Carmen on Mindinao: a Pineapple plantation with, I gather, a grass field. Perhaps the fact a B-17E can use a smaller airfield is rather good simulation?

In any case - I cannot use "I disagree" unattached either to data (I got the numbers wrong) or to a technical argument (why we should ignore the numbers for some technical reason). So - if you would like to see the numbers change - give me one or the other.  And please say what you think the numbers we should use would be?

It is my goal that 2.60 will be reasonably stable - and I am attempting to address all reported issues - plus all I can find on my own. I am not entirely happy with the amount of work required - but I believe that this process will work soon. There are several different things happening at the same time -

1) correction of data field errors (new and old)
2) correction of slot errors (due to lack of documentation sometimes an attempt to add or organize things must be changed)
3) calibration - which regretfully MUST require more changes down the road - as we learn that "this is too high, that is too low" - a process which seems never to have been attempted in a systematic way before. However, this shoud be relatively SLOW - we need to have games proceed months and years for it to become clear "this is too high or that is too low"

[el cid again]

as an additional note -

If you can change device for bomb size by mission, consider adding 1,000 and 100 lb bombs. In ETO at least, in addition to 500 lb bombs, B-24s did use 1,000 lb bombs, and they did use 100 lb bombs against troop concentrations and airfields to great effect.



[/quote]


We do not have mission control of weapons loadout. We define ONLY the normal load. Further, code likes to decide you get to carry BIGGER bombs, so you don't want to make 1,000 pound bombs normal - or it won't work properly. There is only one case of very heavy bombs being normal - on a British bomber. In that case I think it is because the code would not pick those bombs in any other way - and nothing else carries them.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

in 2.59.4, scen 60 - air groups 1561,1562,1563,1565 and 1571 have aircraft 167 - UK Land aircraft

This is because Anson got lost (where did it go?). I have put it back. Thanks.

[el cid again]

Terminus:  Re Active Russians and aircraft slots:
 
Two of my three scenarios have Russians active. Dozens of test runs have not produced this effect. However, these run in 1941 and 1942. Your scenario presumably runs in 1945. So perhaps the problem occurs only if the Russians are active after a certain date.

I see these slots are the stock slots for the Russians. And the land units do behave that way - eventually anyway. I would not find it surprising if the air units do to. This is a problem - the number of US fighter squadrons cannot be represented in the given range. We must divide them - or something else - if they are to not use this range. I hate hard code limitations!
 
Are there any OTHER aircraft slots off limits (other than the atomic bombing unit)?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: turkey1

v 2.59.4

Ki51 Sonia has a 45 "replacement rate" instead of production rate

Is this deliberate ?

Nope! I checked ALL Japanese fields - and G8N had a value of 1. ALL should be zero. The theory "there must be errors - plan on it" is a bit more real than I like. Sharp eyes. Thanks.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Tell me about slots 1000-1064 for Soviet Air units - and how we know this?

I have find this by luck to set the scenario start date of a CHS scenario to the date of the Soviet automatic activation. After a day where some USAAF squadrons exchanged for Soviet aviation Divisions.

What is that date?

And thanks. Will address this.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Not sure why you think it is wrong to have CVLs with 801 Squadron?

I mean that the 801 squadron is not attached to a ship/CVL but on the header RN CVL's waht only os txt but no ship.

OK - 801 Squadron NEVER was in PTO. I only served on ONE carrier - Furious - which never went to PTO. Otherwise it served in UK. So we should delete 801 squadron - and I guess I didn't do that effectively enough. Thanks.

[Ol_Dog]

According to my research, starting with the B-24D, it had an internal bomb load of 8,800 and 2 external mounting for 2 4,000 lb bombs. The same for the B-24H/J.

The B-17C had 4,800 internal bomb load with external mounting brackets.
The B-17D had 4,800 internal bomb load, with external brackets removed.
The B-17F/G had 9,600 internal bomb load max, but short range so typical load was 4,000-5,000 for 1,400 miles. It had 2 external mountings for 2 4,000 lb bombs, bringing the bomb load to 17,600, but was extremely short range and seldom used.

In your data files for max load, you are using 10,000 for the B-17D, 17,600 for the B-17E/F/G - these include the external mounts for 2 4,000 lb bombs in these figures.

In your data files for max load, you are using 8,800 for the B-24D, 12,800 for the B-24J. These both should be 8,800 internal and/or 16,800 including 8,800 internal and 2 4,000 external mountings

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Terminus:  Re Active Russians and aircraft slots:

Two of my three scenarios have Russians active. Dozens of test runs have not produced this effect. However, these run in 1941 and 1942. Your scenario presumably runs in 1945. So perhaps the problem occurs only if the Russians are active after a certain date.

I see these slots are the stock slots for the Russians. And the land units do behave that way - eventually anyway. I would not find it surprising if the air units do to. This is a problem - the number of US fighter squadrons cannot be represented in the given range. We must divide them - or something else - if they are to not use this range. I hate hard code limitations!

Are there any OTHER aircraft slots off limits (other than the atomic bombing unit)?

Probably, but I haven't found them yet... And yeah, my scenario kicks off in late October 1945.
 
And the Soviets auto-activate on 8/1/45.

[el cid again]

It appears this Russian air group thing is a red herring. But I will proceed to "fix" it anyway - because it is thought the AI will behave better for all games not PBEM if I do. [Did I say how much I hate hard coded slots? The mere rumor of them can cost me a day or two.]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

According to my research, starting with the B-24D, it had an internal bomb load of 8,800 and 2 external mounting for 2 4,000 lb bombs. The same for the B-24H/J.

The B-17C had 4,800 internal bomb load with external mounting brackets.
The B-17D had 4,800 internal bomb load, with external brackets removed.
The B-17F/G had 9,600 internal bomb load max, but short range so typical load was 4,000-5,000 for 1,400 miles. It had 2 external mountings for 2 4,000 lb bombs, bringing the bomb load to 17,600, but was extremely short range and seldom used.

In your data files for max load, you are using 10,000 for the B-17D, 17,600 for the B-17E/F/G - these include the external mounts for 2 4,000 lb bombs in these figures.

In your data files for max load, you are using 8,800 for the B-24D, 12,800 for the B-24J. These both should be 8,800 internal and/or 16,800 including 8,800 internal and 2 4,000 external mountings

There might be a problem or two, but generally I think your data is pretty good. However, there may be some confusion about the way WITP works. We only have two things we define: "normal bomb load" in the form of a specific definition (including internal and external weapons) and a total weight "maximum bomb load." The design requires we state the maximum load - actually it can be MORE than bomb load and IS MORE for some planes - if they have drop tanks or if they are transport planes.
This data is ONLY used (according to Joel Billings) to determine the airfield size - and the system cannot work as intended unless we tell it the truth: what is the maximum load the plane could carry (the more the longer the runways). [For an interesting discussion of this, see Luftwaffe Over Amerika - a new book - on the problems with very heavy German bombers and runways too long for any site in Europe unless tows or RATO is used.] Anyway, I don't care if the fitting is "rarely used" - if it is present - it counts - unless there is a technical reason to ignore the designer's intent - which I will consider (but I don't just ignore the design intent - I have to have sound reason to violate the system).

I don't think there is much doubt about the B-24 - it has the same load even as a transport (due to not removing the armor!). But the B-17 shows a lot of different data in lots of books - and likely it is all "true" in some sense or other. About the only surprise for me is your "4800 pounds" figure - it is uniformly 5000 pounds in all references I have seen - but that sort of difference is often just a matter of rounding - operators probably called 4800 pounds a 5000 pound load and maybe it confused people? Since the plane carried 500 pound bombs, it seems unlikely the normal load would be something other than a multiple of 500. Since the USAAF tables are for range with 5000 pounds, it seems very likely this is the right value. But a 500 pound bomb does not weigh 500 pounds - so maybe that is the problem? I don't remember exactly what it is. Anyway - an error under 10% is not important enough to matter and I regard it as a quibble. Since I (and my reviewer) had many books with 5000 pound figures, the standards of CHS and RHS require we use the reference book data - the data "easily verifiable by average users with access to a library."

The more practical question is this: do you think somehow the books in my library (and in Joe's) are all way off base? Do you think we need to change these datum points because of some game impact? I regard the range/payload data as much better than what I began with (CHS 155). Your bombers carry much more over a greater distance. Should we not see how that works for a while?

[Jo van der Pluym]

El Cid Again

The following was I forgot to mention.

The added Dutch Marine Squad (370) and added Dutch Rifle Squad (376) has both as upgrade path the Dutch Rifle Squad (367)

They have also both a build rate of 11.

I suggest for the Dutch Marine Squad a build rate of 3 or 4.
And for the Dutch Rifle Squad a buid rate of 5 or 6.
For Dutch Rifle Squad (376) suggest I the same value's like the British Rifle Squad with the available date 4312

Also suggest I for the Dutch Marine Squad (370) a Anti-Armor strength of 15.



The Dutch Marine Brigade has still the Dutch Rifle Squad in place of the Dutch Marine Squad

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It appears this Russian air group thing is a red herring. But I will proceed to "fix" it anyway - because it is thought the AI will behave better for all games not PBEM if I do. [Did I say how much I hate hard coded slots? The mere rumor of them can cost me a day or two.]

Why do you say it's a red herring when both Jo and I have evidence to the contrary?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

El Cid Again

The following was I forgot to mention.

The added Dutch Marine Squad (370) and added Dutch Rifle Squad (376) has both as upgrade path the Dutch Rifle Squad (367)

They have also both a build rate of 11.

I suggest for the Dutch Marine Squad a build rate of 3 or 4.
And for the Dutch Rifle Squad a buid rate of 5 or 6.
For Dutch Rifle Squad (376) suggest I the same value's like the British Rifle Squad with the available date 4312

Also suggest I for the Dutch Marine Squad (370) a Anti-Armor strength of 15.



The Dutch Marine Brigade has still the Dutch Rifle Squad in place of the Dutch Marine Squad

I see the problem with the Dutch Marine Squad - it should upgrade to itself. The Dutch Rifle Squad is 367. 366 is a Philippine unit, so I don't see what you refer to as an added Dutch Rifle Squad.

Now as for anti-armor value - it is the penetration of armor at point blank range. The British get 15 - and so do the sappers - because of the weapons they use. What weapon to the Marines use vs armor?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It appears this Russian air group thing is a red herring. But I will proceed to "fix" it anyway - because it is thought the AI will behave better for all games not PBEM if I do. [Did I say how much I hate hard coded slots? The mere rumor of them can cost me a day or two.]

Why do you say it's a red herring when both Jo and I have evidence to the contrary?

Let us say I have other evidence I regard as likely to be correct. Since I have decided to act as if it is a valid issue (and just spend an awful lot of hours implementing that decision) the question is moot: it doesn't matter if it is a red herring or not? I am advised that in certain circumstances, the AI might behave better if units are in their stock positions. In this case I put all Soviet and also Chinese air units - and the US AVG - in stock slots (the atom bomb unit also is in such a slot). Note that CHS does not have the AVG in a stock slot - and in fact it is split into three parts NONE of which have the AVG code - while some other unit has it!
The circumstances that matter are AI controlled games only - player vs player games would probably not have a problem with the slots assigned.
But some of our players want the ability to play vs AI - and even though AI is NOT capable of playing the Allies well I am trying to make it as capable as practical. Frankly I suspected you might be right because of the way Soviet land units behave after a certain date. I was surprised to find otherwise. But I have two rather different bodies of information which pretty clearly indicate it does not happen: one of them is the fairly decisive one of "it does not happen in fact" - which supports the "this should not happen in theory" opinion. Complex software can be very tricky to understand - and things can seem quite different than they are: one of the principles of troubleshooting is that "there are multiple possible causes of similar behaviors." I am always interested in better understanding of programs of interest. But in this case, that would be only an academic interest: I have acted as if you are right - in spite of learning you probably are not right - partly because I had already begun the process of acting - and partly because of technical advice it might be better to use the original slots in certain circumstances. You get what you wanted: the entire range used by stock for Russian air groups is now used by Russian air groups; beyond that every original Russian air group is in its original slot - and other Russian units are in empty slots. More than give you what you want I cannot do - wether or not I think you are right! I feel the matter was worth my time - because it led me to discover an issue re AVG - which I am sure CHS didn't understand either. Now presumably everyone will do better.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

El Cid Again

The following was I forgot to mention.

The added Dutch Marine Squad (370) and added Dutch Rifle Squad (376) has both as upgrade path the Dutch Rifle Squad (367)

They have also both a build rate of 11.

I suggest for the Dutch Marine Squad a build rate of 3 or 4.
And for the Dutch Rifle Squad a buid rate of 5 or 6.
For Dutch Rifle Squad (376) suggest I the same value's like the British Rifle Squad with the available date 4312

Also suggest I for the Dutch Marine Squad (370) a Anti-Armor strength of 15.



The Dutch Marine Brigade has still the Dutch Rifle Squad in place of the Dutch Marine Squad

I see the problem with the Dutch Marine Squad - it should upgrade to itself. The Dutch Rifle Squad is 367. 366 is a Philippine unit, so I don't see what you refer to as an added Dutch Rifle Squad.

There is also a Dutch Rifle Squad in 376

Now as for anti-armor value - it is the penetration of armor at point blank range. The British get 15 - and so do the sappers - because of the weapons they use. What weapon to the Marines use vs armor?

Tankbuks M.38 and Democharges

[Terminus]

Tankbuks M.38? An AT Rifle?

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Tankbuks M.38? An AT Rifle?

Yes