Important CHS announcement

[Halsey]

No more nerfed Allied bombers?

It figures, right after I start playing the Japanese.[:D]

[Lemurs!]

Actually the allied bombers will be less useful as they will now need bigger bases to operate from. Course the allies get a gajillion engineers.

Mike

[Jagdfluger]

So will there be a 2.06 soon?  It does not look like it from everything I read, but I want to make sure. 
 
Also, is there a difference between stock and CHS 2.05 in terms of how large an airbase must be to support bombers?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Jagdfluger

So will there be a 2.06 soon? It does not look like it from everything I read, but I want to make sure.

There will be a 2.06. And there will be at least one more revision after that, as I still hope to add the long delayed Soviet OOB changes. The 2.06 revision is, so far, only a collection of minor fixes. To help you decide, here is the list I have so far:

Changes in CHS Revision 2.06
[ol]
[*]Canada base now has its own (static) base force.
[*]Port Alice Base Force renamed to Coal Harbour Base Force.
[*]The Fort Scratchley CD unit at Newcastle, Australia, now has 30 aviation support, to represent the seaplane base (Rathmines) located near Newcastle.
[*]All Indian Air base forces renamed using the format "No. 1xx RIAF Base Force".
[*]All RAF base forces are now using a consistent naming format "No. 1xx RAF Base Force".
[*]All RAF Groups renamed using the format "No. 2xx RAF Group".
[*]No.457 Squadron RAAF changed to appear at Sydney on 420901.
[*]The Spitfire Vb has been provided with a starting pool of 11 aircraft. These now allow for some replacements to No.457 Squadron RAAF before January 1943, which is the availability date of the aircraft as of CHS 2.04.
[*]The "Max Load" value of the Liberator III has been corrected from 8000 to its original value of 8800 (All other aircraft have already been corrected in a previous update).
[*]Two duplicate leaders have been removed - D'Albiac, J.H. (15667) and Peirse, R. (18484).
[*]The later Essex class carriers have been split off into the separate "Ticonderoga" class. The class is identical to the Essex class, except for the addition of two 40mm Bofors quad mounts forward. The Essex class carriers are dividied between the two classes as follows:

Ship
Class
Essex
Essex
Bunker Hill
Essex
Intrepid
Essex
Franklin
Essex
Hancock
Ticonderoga
Randolph
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Bennington
Essex
Boxer
Ticonderoga
Bon Homme Richard
Essex
Antietam
Ticonderoga
Shangri-La
Ticonderoga
Lake Champlain
Ticonderoga

Replacement carriers for sunk US Navy carriers will still be Essex class.
[*]Type STS Japanese submarines had duplicated Type 22 radar. Fixed.
[*]Tench Class US submarines had duplicated Type SJ radar. Fixed.
[*]Japanese DD Hatsuharu 9/43 upgrade had duplicated Type 22 radar. Fixed.
[*]Port Alice renamed to Coal Harbour.
[*]Baguio and Lucena in the Philippines have been changed from "Philippines" to "US Army" nationality.
[/ol]

Apart from this list there are a few minor tweaks I have yet to add. These are all minor changes. I will probably release 2.06 in the next few days.

There are also a couple of larger changes I may add as well, given that I have the time now while the Soviet OOB changes are still being worked on: I may possibly add a small number of additional Japaneses ships that were being built but were not completed, and I may do a revision of the USAAF recon and transport air units.

Also, is there a difference between stock and CHS 2.05 in terms of how large an airbase must be to support bombers?

No, there shouldn't be any difference.

Andrew

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

maybe one could reduce the Betty's normal range compared to extended so it'd only fly torps to smaller distances ? Is that possible ?

Its range is already reduced over stock, I believe.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: DD696

Hi,

I'm playing my "own" version of scenerio 159 (with other personal changes and with the addition of Ron's "no-respawn ships) and am at 17 Dec 41. One of the changes I made was to create in device slot 144 a new Betty/Nell torpedo which has a dud rate of 50%, and I also set the dud rate of the Beaufort to 50%. This was done in the hopes of getting away from the super torpedo bombers. I made an error when I set up device 144 and left it to upgrade to device 101 (the standard torpedo). So the betties/nells reverted back to their old torpedos. However, I have not seen a single torpedo attack by these planes to date. Perhaps it is because of the lowered experience of the pilots for this particular scenerio, altho I believe that effects the Allies more at the start of the game. I did switch over on the 16th and took a look at the Japanese side and found that the Betty/Nell squadrons were suffering from low morale. In previous games I had reduced the accuracy rating but failed to see any significant change.

So, because I do not have an InGame Editor which would allow me to make a simple change to fix the problem I caused, I now have to restart the game in order to get it fixed. This is what I truly love about this game.....always restarting. I am sure that on my deathbed I will be mumbling "No, not now! I must restart the game one more time"!

I think that dud-rate thing can be very useful. I have been toying with the idea of giving for example aircraft weapons a dud rate to reduce lethality of A2A. Actually, in real life most WWII weapons should have dud rate of at least 10 %.

[DD696]

I really have no idea what the "appropriate" dud rate should be for these aerial torpedos, but I do know that their effects need to be reduced somehow and this is just my way of trying to do so. With every flight of 4 Betties/Nells/Beauforts scoring 1 or more torpedo hits while Kates and TBDs are not nearly so effective, I find that they must be tamed.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


I just did another check of the Max Load values. I only found one error, and it is a small one. The Liberator III was 8000 instead of 8800. That will be fixed in the next CHS update. So there is no problem with the CHS Max Load values [:)]

Andrew

There is no difference between the max load of 8000 or 8800. The manual states the formula for minimum base size for bombers is 4 + Max Load/6500 (rounded down). So a max load of 8000 and 8800 will still be 5.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I think that dud-rate thing can be very useful. I have been toying with the idea of giving for example aircraft weapons a dud rate to reduce lethality of A2A. Actually, in real life most WWII weapons should have dud rate of at least 10 %.

There is scope to play with dud rates and/or air-to-surface weapon accuracy in the experimental CHS scenario. In fact I almost did this. Maybe I should try something along these lines after all?

Andrew

[Terminus]

Probably won't hurt, and might even produce some good results...

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

There is scope to play with dud rates and/or air-to-surface weapon accuracy in the experimental CHS scenario. In fact I almost did this. Maybe I should try something along these lines after all?

Andrew

I'd like to see if it works. I think it may be more "game-engine friendly" way to tweak results to be more realistic.