RHS 5 & 6.758 comprehensive update uploaded/frozen/final?

[witpqs]

I haven't looked at the Soviet L subs in 4.47 yet (the reloading mines problem), but if that is still pending it might be v5.00 fix.

[CobraAus]

RHS v4.47 avail at download link page and at web site

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, time to pony up....

I can help with this. My girlfriend is visiting until Saturday so my free time till then will be limited. I can put in a 24 hour shift on Saturday though with little problem. So, call it 30 hrs this week. So, if there's data and it needs to be plugged into cumbersome equations then I can be of help.

If, OTOH, we're talking about applying figures from books to get the data in the first place then you are better of sticking with a single point source as, I'm sure, my books would differ and have some info he doesn't have and not have some info he does.


As to making Karachi another entry point.... I think this is a big mistake... All you would be doing is re-creating the original Karachi spawn point which can cause such trouble in games.... IF you want to remove Aden then, by all means, add Madagascar and have British troops etc arrive there but don't have them just magically appear in an uninterceptible form at Karachi.


Ok, I'll bite, how many troops did the miners at Lae tie up and does this come anywhere close to 6+ divisions?

Tell me more about Kerachi. Never saw that issue. Before my time.

Now I didn't mean Japan sent six divisions to New Guinea. I am talking ratio of forces here. In New Guinea even almost naked troops mattered (see the photographs of the NGVF - I particularly like its Command Master Sergeant - who I gather was something of a piece of work - a soldier's soldier - with great command preseance and field craft.
But he is almost naked in his "official" photograph. Sodiers need not look like soldiers.] I doubled my force in a critical (to our survival) situation in Vietnam using militia. I believe in em - otherwise I would not be here.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I haven't looked at the Soviet L subs in 4.47 yet (the reloading mines problem), but if that is still pending it might be v5.00 fix.

Remind me what this problem is?

I am going to make some changes and do a 4.48 with little stuff. No need to restart games - but no need for future games not to benefit from these:

1) Some name changes for Soviet ships / classes - and correction of some nationalities.

2) Programming all RHS scenarios EXCEPT EOS not to make engines not used in those scenarios.

3) This problem - if you can identify it.

4) Any eratta I find making my opening standard turn.

ADD to this list increasing industry at Patna India - which will be turned from an airfield into a base - a river port - for 4.48. The Ganges is navigable to Patna - if you use the 4.47 pwhex file.

We have a reported problem with units reporting to a HQ formation. They don't report TO&E - instead you get a
"not available" message. This goes all the way back to stock - we didn't create HQ pointing at this formation.
It may or may not be important - but it is fixed.

I am reverting mortars and ATG units to artillery symbols - since the code does NOT look at the suffex to determine attack options. If you only have guns - you may only bombard with them. More sophisticated than I thought.

I am adopting the suggestion to make the generic leaders (used for supply sinks among other things) very poor.
This won't be perfect: leaders learn. So there is a premium on taking objectives soon - fine for Japan. And the Allies have fewer problems massing overwhelming force later in the war. It is not ideal - but it might help a little.

I also am adopting a suggestion or two that might help prevent CV respawn. I have learned how to kill it completely - but that kills other respawns which we need. The small craft won't respawn if there are no slots for them - and that is not good. There are only a tiny fraction - so respawn is a good way to simulate their numbers. You get some - and they get replaced.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I haven't looked at the Soviet L subs in 4.47 yet (the reloading mines problem), but if that is still pending it might be v5.00 fix.

Remind me what this problem is?

This (copied the other post):

Sid,

In EOS 4.46 (and prior versions) there is a problem with the Soviet L class subs (slot 1585) - the ones with the mine racks. Whenever you reload them, they get messed up. Here's what I mean. There are 2 mine racks, with 14 ammo (which means 7 ammo each rack). Upon reloading (after laying the initial mine loadout), the ship display changes to now say there are 7 mine racks, with a total ammo of 2, and the '2' is displayed in red.

I looked at the database and tried to correct the problem so I could pass that on to you. First, I noted that Turrets (Mounts on the in-game ship display) is set to 0. Other mine-laying subs have 1, so I changed that to 1 and updated the ships. No change.

Second, I noted that the weapon is set to facing R, while other mine-laying subs have their mines as facing C. So, I changed the facing to C (leaving Mounts as 1). Still no good (same results as initially described).

At this point, I don't know what else to try changing, because everything else looks fine. I also looked at the device record and compared it to other mines - it looks okay as far as I can see.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 9/20/2006 1:54:19 PM >

[el cid again]

I am uploading an update to the pwhex file.

It is NOT required. It MAY be installed for use with an ongoing game. It goes in the top level WITP folder.

This version is mainly released to do something special for Trang, Thailand - a new place.

Trang is inland - in mountains in fact - and not susceptable to invasion by sea. So the seacoast side of the hex
is blocked. The other sides are all land - you can enter the hex by any of these - but only the one to the NE has
a rail line of communications.

For reasons unclear AI loves Trang - and collects supplies, resources and oil there - in spite of the presence of NO units of any sort! Should be a great place to upgrade the airfield.

Other changes include:

Making the River Ganges navigable to Patna - the next city upriver from Asanol. Also Patna will be upgraded in terms of factories in 4.48 - because it is a major manufacturing center in modern times. A lot of the resources from Asanol get used at Patna - short trip - by river.

I also corrected mismatched hex sides in the Malacca Strait - making it clear which path is passible - mainly for ships.

I added impassible mountains on Borneo (that is, blocked hex sides) - as I did long ago to New Guinea. I doubt anyone is going into the interior of Borneo - but this is one of several reasons why.

I checked most of the lower DEI for coastal hexes - without finding any errors - but I did find a "coastal" hex IN the interior of Borneo!

[el cid again]

OK - WITPQS - I found a problem - with the sub and some Soviet destroyers. Some of these classes didn't have proper fields in the class file. Should be fixed now.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well, time to pony up....

I can help with this. My girlfriend is visiting until Saturday so my free time till then will be limited. I can put in a 24 hour shift on Saturday though with little problem. So, call it 30 hrs this week. So, if there's data and it needs to be plugged into cumbersome equations then I can be of help.

If, OTOH, we're talking about applying figures from books to get the data in the first place then you are better of sticking with a single point source as, I'm sure, my books would differ and have some info he doesn't have and not have some info he does.

Research pretty much needs to use a single set of materials - and the researcher can ask for help on any point.

What we need is a review of small weapons for British and CW units. I believe the main combat units don't have proper numbers of machine guns and mortars. They had NONE - so I guessed - and I prefer actual data.

ALso - we have thousands of ships - many of them wrong. We need to cull out the ones never in PTO so we can add in those that are missing.

And anything you want to look up - we accept ALL changes if they are better data.

[TulliusDetritus]

Er... more chaos, El Cid Again => RHSCVO v4.47 [8D]

A lot of japanese artillery units are now listed as INF[antry] units.

The list (and it is complete):

Curved Gun Rgt's:

- 2nd

Curved Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 21st

Rpd Fire Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Er... more chaos, El Cid Again => RHSCVO v4.47 [8D]

A lot of japanese artillery units are now listed as INF[antry] units.


REPLY: This went back a few sub versions - and I did mention it. I had problems when I redid
device values for consistency - problems because if you go below certain values a weapon won't
bombard. I just found my notes on this from earlier - I also forgot there is a minimum range (3).
The minimum anti-soft value is 5. And one other minimum - I forget the field name just now.
Anyway - what got changed was small mortars (81mm ) - and "rapid fire gun" (AT) units.
The former I got to bombard - and 4.48 will restore the artillery symbol since the infantry one does
not permit a regular attack anyway. The latter will never attack - the range is too short at (2) -
and I am not sure what to do - but I left them as infantry - in case they attack in that form.
I have not got one in the right situation to tell. [It must be in an enemy hex, in supply, and a few other
things - or it won't give an option to attack]. Eventually these may become attachments if they won't
ever attack on their own? Or maybe armor. Tanks with these values do fire. I like the RHS device
values - but code has minimum limits (a strange concept) - and while I can play statistical games with
most fields - range isn't one of them. Giving an ATG too much range is bad simulation. Arab tanks
had a range of 3 when I was in Israel during a war (oops - we didn't officially fight any wars in Israel) -
giving a WWII 37 mm a range of 3 just seems wrong.

The list (and it is complete):

Curved Gun Rgt's:

- 2nd

Curved Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 21st

Rpd Fire Gun Bn's:

- 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Making the River Ganges navigable to Patna - the next city upriver from Asanol. Also Patna will be upgraded in terms of factories in 4.48 - because it is a major manufacturing center in modern times. A lot of the resources from Asanol get used at Patna - short trip - by river.

The Ganges is only navigable for ocean-going vessels up to Calcutta. If you make Patna a port it will be possible to send battleships far inland...

(It is not even a good idea to have Calcutta as a port - the designers of WITP probably intoduced Diamond Harbour, a suburb of Calcutta, as the port of Calcutta to make it impossible to directly land or bombard Calcutta)

[Hornsby]

In 4.47 EOS the troops which formerly garrisoned Alor Star now seem to be sitting in what is now impenetrable jungle (hex 24,44)
They are 2384&nbsp; ISF 2nd Base Force, 2393 Indian 6th Bde and 2394 Indian 15th Bde

[el cid again]

I have uploaded RHSEOS, RHSCVO and RHSBBO micro updates 4.48
via high speed. I lost the cable modem - so I am down for two days.
I have uploaded RHSRAO by wire and am attempting to upload RHSRPO and RHSPPO at this time by the same means. Details as above. The 4.48 level extended test game still has not had a carrier battle - so no clear answer to the respawn issue yet.

[el cid again]

Andrew made Asanol a port the same time I made it a port in RHS.
Our information is that the Ganges is the major transportation system of India - and that it was long navigable to ships. Several things have degraded the system in our era - pollution first of all - and also silting because of a gigantic hydro 'barrage' not far from this city. It is a major source of political problems between Bengladesh and India. But it was passible to my warship in the 1960s - and I saw much bigger vessels loading and traveling along the river. While my ship was nominally a "destroyer" - it was the size of a WWII cruiser and - with its sonar dome - had the draft of a battleship of any era. Where does your information come from?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hornsby

In 4.47 EOS the troops which formerly garrisoned Alor Star now seem to be sitting in what is now impenetrable jungle (hex 24,44)
They are 2384  ISF 2nd Base Force, 2393 Indian 6th Bde and 2394 Indian 15th Bde

Turns out this is correct. That is, it is wrong - in 4.47 and 4.48 - since Alor Star moved.

Also British LAA have an incorrect formation in 5 scenarios - only the one I work in (PPO) was right. Seems CHS has it wrong - the weapons are all 40mm Bofors - no 20 mm Orlikons - and I corrected all the units - but not the formations.

Regretfully I am uploading a 4.49 micro update JUST with the location file to fix these issues. If we are lucky Cobra will post the 4.49 version without the 4.48 step.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Andrew made Asanol a port the same time I made it a port in RHS.

Perhaps you are thinking of Nanking El Cid? I have made Nanking, and Calcutta, a port on my map, but not Asansol.

Some people do not like the idea of Calcutta being a port for the reason Kereguelen mentions: it makes it too easy to bombard the port with BB TFs. I am hoping that this is not a big problem, but in case it is, I have created a pwhex file for my map that returns Calcutta to being a land hex not reachable by ship. I have yet to make this file available, however (should do that soon...).

Andrew

[el cid again]

Having been to Calcutta by ship, I do not understand the issue. Even today the silted waterways don't prevent ships from reaching Calcutta. Well - not "today" exactly - but 35 years ago. I wonder if we were confused by terminology? Maybe they said "Calcutta" but we were not really there? I will see if I can find the pilot charts?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Having been to Calcutta by ship, I do not understand the issue. Even today the silted waterways don't prevent ships from reaching Calcutta. Well - not "today" exactly - but 35 years ago. I wonder if we were confused by terminology? Maybe they said "Calcutta" but we were not really there? I will see if I can find the pilot charts?

Nobody doubts that ships can reach Calcutta or that Calcutta has a port. The problem in the game is that Calcutta may be bombarded by Bombardment TF's and that landings in Calcutta proper may occur if Calcutta is defined as a port - thus having Diamond Harbour as the port (hexside) of Calcutta is a good solution for the game (the Mississippi is navigable too - but do you think that a battleship could bombard Baton Rouge in a raid and escape?).

[el cid again]

I am still not with you - why is that a problem? I worked with Big J shelling target more than 20 miles inland. If the river is navigable, it is navigable, and if a ship goes up it - it can shell WE went up MEkong - a bad place for an aluminum superstructure ship to go - just so we could shell farther inland.

[el cid again]

Due to a possibly significant erattum related to an aircraft carrier, we will be releasing RHS 5.00 tomorrow or the next day.

Since we are doing that, we will fold in all lessons learned/eratta reported by now or in the next 12 hours or so.

Also, since we are doing that and since we have a consensus to make aircraft operational ranges more correct, we will fold in these as well.

We hear that we will have an ETA for aircraft maneuverabilty by Friday - and it will be some time after that the data is done. The problem is getting aircraft weight data for all the Allied types - no surprise - it isn't in our data set and there are 174 of them! So that will be in 5.1 or so. But RANGES will be folded in.

The 4.48 level medium term AI vs AI test has reached October 1942. Three US carriers have been sunk (and 2 British Illustrious as well - but only one Japanese seaplane carrier): Lexington, Enterprise and Saratoga (apparently in that order). NONE have respawned. Two were lost in June - so they should have respawned (in the sense of show up on the reinforcement list) by now.

Another unexpected development is that the AI is taking supply sinks with battalions rather than divisions and brigades. Apparently it prefers SNLFs (and one CSNLF - a sort of double battalion). These were used at Padang successfully - and two (plus a airborne battalion) have just tackeled Tabaoli - which I don't expect to work out - but we will see.

A complaint by AK Warrior has sufficient merit I think we will try an interim fix in the form of making Colon a level 10 port - so ships - which cannot enter loaded - can load at a more reasonabe rate. This has the merit of not making Panama City/Balboa a big port - which it isn't - and still not penalizing the loading rate so badly. Longer term I hope to have other solutions. But this isn't something I had been thinking about - and it is a valid issue.