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

[Sneer]

another issue
is it possible to get auto upgrades path for plane factories?


not a problem i will do it for myself by databese editor

[Sneer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


A complicating factor is that you can affect your losses by your operational tactics. For example, a 3 inch AA gun of the classic type normal in 1941 has a ceiling of 22,000 feet (due to fuse limitations) - and you can elect to come in above that level. Similarly, you can avoid all MMG if you are above 2000 feet, all HMG if you are above 4000 feet,
and all medium AAA if you are above about 12000 feet. Losses can run from 30 to 120, depending on the tactics you select. The statistical normal case is 2 battleships sunk IF you permit the Kates to go in with 800 KG bombs - and that is right. [We only admit 2 losses at PH - both still there. Technically there was a third - although the ship didn't sink until 1946 - and then not at Pearl! But she was never useful again and did ultimately sink.]

i know that but to make any comparison you have to freeze everything what is possible
initial altitudes and air groups targets are same as in stock / i did not change that/
so ceteris paribus we can compare that with stock which is close to historical result

i think that lower durabilities are good ideas - i like penalties to over-active players
maybe effect of AAA guns should be lowered ???
i know it is difficult as some of them are DP guns
but certainly we can influance smaller guns

[Sneer]

few questions

1.how snorkel works in game ? it is 0 range radar ??? does anything with zero value actually work ?
2. YU class subs are without weaponery - i think they should carry kaitens basing on artwork - or they are transport subs ?
3. RTN Sri Ayuthia should be CA like Soerabaya - PG can't bombard
4. why h2s/mk6 radar has 9999/unlimited range ??

[TulliusDetritus]

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them [:)]

[Sneer]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them [:)]

damaging BBs is not worth effort only sinking them is ok
you can check my PBEM with Raverdave - KB in dei speeds up everything a lot + paralyses enemy + offers him opportunity to loose BB in open waters
it is not only losses ratio but also gives you better position

not counting that i prefer one timezone port attack surprise that allows mauling manila/singapore/clark in opening hours

[TulliusDetritus]

Well, I don't think this is a mere mathematical problem. As I see it, you spare the 8 BB's in Pearl Harbor => the allied player may send them to the Dutch East Indies, etc. Americans have a lot of oilers after all (and fuel). Then we have the many variables... Are you sure you will always detect & attack every BB? Again, this is not a mathematical problem. No absolute rules. Some will be detected, but others won't. And these nasty things may massacre your convoys (and troops): allies gain time. And above all, Nagumo's horde can't be everywhere.


I'll be optimistic: these BB's are sent to DEI and are heavily damaged or sunk. But I am pretty sure you will have damaged (and/or sunk?) ships as well (BB's, CA's, DD's). You will lose transports and troops, therefore the allies are slowing down your offensive. But all these naughty hypotheses can be avoided if you attack the rat's nest itself. So what should be the cost? a) some dozens of planes, or b) ships, troops, time (AND planes as well)? [:)]

We should trust the real life planners [:)]

[m10bob]

I must agree with Tulius..If a BB is damaged sufficiently, it is not only out of action for a time, it is also cluttering a repair yard somewhere..Ships in repair yards are immobile potential targets..
If AA is now a bit too effective,maybe it or plane durability can be tweaked a degree further?
I appreciate Sid's thought on limiting the effective altitude of the AA guns.
As in real-life maybe very high flying planes will be near invulnerable, with a trade-off in the damage they cause..?

[Sneer]

we are hijacking thread and i'd like to see Sid answering my questions
i'll gladly play PBEm on my terms against any of you

[TulliusDetritus]

Sneer, well, that's your own respectable opinion [:)]

But to me (hypothetical scenario), not attacking Pearl Harbor means the initial OOB CAN be "different". You should have to add 8 battleships to the port of Soerbaja. You are assuming that this won't make any difference. I'm just saying that you can't assume what can't be assumed (redundant): uncertainty is a very important variable in war [8D]

Anyway, I can agree with you. If you don't attack Pearl Harbor AND the allied player does NOT use these BB's... Oh well.

I don't think a PBEM is relevant. Remember: 8 BB's in Soerbaja (or any other port/s). It's common sense [8D]

El Cid Again has sort of answered part of your question: it depends on the altitude. Low altitude: high losses. High altitude: low losses.

[Mifune]

Sneer, El Cid is on Alaska time so it will probably be a bit before your questions get answered. Usually 5 or 6 hours from now, but you never know.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

another issue
is it possible to get auto upgrades path for plane factories?


not a problem i will do it for myself by databese editor

Actually, this happens. I run tests continuously - and I have had some trouble with getting it right.

There are a number of considerations.

First, auto-upgrade is not always realistic - it can be very gamey. Imaging converting a line from a 1 engine plane to a 4 engine plane at full capacity! It is not much better to convert from building a Ki-36 to building a Ki-44. Some auto-upgrades are gamey and should not occur. In general, however, an upgrade to the next in a series is always realistic, and often IRL occurs SIMULTANEOUSLY (that is, BOTH versions produce for a while) - with no loss in efficiency. The view that auto-upgrades are ALWAYS wrong is itself wrong!

Second, once you upgrade, you cannot go back. If you try it will auto upgrade again. So IF a plane is a type that we need to keep in production - I tend to skip one level - and upgrade the line when the SECOND in the series occurs.
That way we won't run out of the older plane if it is required for a large number of groups.

Third, the upgrade path impacts the upgrade logic of hard code. Some auto upgrade settings are meaningless in terms of production - since there is zero production - but important anyway - so the player gets the choice to upgrade this type to that type. Crossing type lines particularly is helpful here. The code logic is not wholly understood - both the manual and what programmers at Matrix say is incomplete - but clearly this matters - and is a factor (along with aircraft type and nation) in the code upgrade options players see.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

ORIGINAL: el cid again


A complicating factor is that you can affect your losses by your operational tactics. For example, a 3 inch AA gun of the classic type normal in 1941 has a ceiling of 22,000 feet (due to fuse limitations) - and you can elect to come in above that level. Similarly, you can avoid all MMG if you are above 2000 feet, all HMG if you are above 4000 feet,
and all medium AAA if you are above about 12000 feet. Losses can run from 30 to 120, depending on the tactics you select. The statistical normal case is 2 battleships sunk IF you permit the Kates to go in with 800 KG bombs - and that is right. [We only admit 2 losses at PH - both still there. Technically there was a third - although the ship didn't sink until 1946 - and then not at Pearl! But she was never useful again and did ultimately sink.]

i know that but to make any comparison you have to freeze everything what is possible
initial altitudes and air groups targets are same as in stock / i did not change that/
so ceteris paribus we can compare that with stock which is close to historical result

i think that lower durabilities are good ideas - i like penalties to over-active players
maybe effect of AAA guns should be lowered ???
i know it is difficult as some of them are DP guns
but certainly we can influance smaller guns

Difficult. The smallest guns have a value of 1 - going below that is not meaningful. The ratio of guns firepower is also important. And below a certain value effect often has a test in code (I don't know what that limit is for AA either - but for artillery it is 5). As well, AAA was grossly understated before - and if it is NOT higher - we have got it wrong - and we didn't accomplish what we set out to do. PH as a benchmark is plain wrong - things are not normal there -
and in fact the FIRST raid was UNOPPOSED by AAA (the ammo lockers were locked, no one had keys, the shore establishment was on a peacetime basis and many batteries had no ready crews, etc; the ships lacked warning - the first attack was amid them before people realized there was an attack, so guns were not manned, and no fire control stations were manned - but at least ready ammunition was not locked up! ). Yet if I damaged every AAA gun at PH players would scream. What we can do is damage more of them. What we cannot do is mess with things like durability or AAA because of a non-standard single moment. The charge is get it right in general - and tweek Pearl if need be. Otherwise we would be getting PH right and spend the rest of the war wrong!

Also, you appear to be confusing AA losses and total losses. The losses to US fighters varies wildly with the tactics of both sides. What fraction of your 50-60 is being lost to AA? And what is happening at other places in more normal conditions?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

few questions

1.how snorkel works in game ? it is 0 range radar ??? does anything with zero value actually work ?

REPLY: Apparently. It was invented and tested by Andrew Brown, and it is said to matter significantly. A surprise to me, I just copied it.

2. YU class subs are without weaponery - i think they should carry kaitens basing on artwork - or they are transport subs ?

REPLY: Correct. They are ARMY transport subs - to resupply isolated posts. Useful for raids - more so in RHS as we have reduced values for support units and more special ops folks - and for evacuations - and nothing much else. They might spot something though.

3. RTN Sri Ayuthia should be CA like Soerabaya - PG can't bombard

REPLY: Well - it is a thought. It really is a PG - and I don't have any information suggesting RTN did bombardment from gunboats. If we did that, many PG in many navies should be classed as CL. Presumably the WITP design had PG the way they are on purpose. But I call for comments on this - and I will consider reclassifying ALL gunboats of ANY navy that DID bombard with them. [RN and USN probably could]

4. why h2s/mk6 radar has 9999/unlimited range ??

REPLY: They are Navigation radars and you must ask Matrix. No data. But look at stock nav radar. These are identical except I modified the name to show the Japanese version as well as the Allied one.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them [:)]

This is entirely correct. The historical outcome of PH was ALL battleships unfit for combat for various periods.
The number sunk is not the only factor. Further - we actually used weapons from sunk BB! [Two batteries of 14 inch triples were constructed on Oahu - too late for action - one was proof fired in Aug 1945 - and the other would have been ready about September]. There were other casualties as well - and planes are the ammunition of carrier warfare. Sinking cruisers, destroyers and auxiliaries all counts. Neither is the plane loss trivial: how many planes are dieing on the Allied side in your tests? One of the few things clear in AI vs AI is that Japan wins in terms of planes destroyed on the ground early on.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sneer, even if you don't sink a lot of BB's, you are damaging the lot of them (the Japanese real objective). I mean in RHS. Eight [obsolete] monsters which will not interfere with the Japanese early conquests. They may be old but I guess the "traditional" Japanese convoy escort (CL + DD's) in Tarakan, Menado, etc., want to avoid them [:)]

damaging BBs is not worth effort only sinking them is ok

REPLY: Cleary you are in league with Sun Tzu! [An ancient Chinese military theorist - and IMHO the best of all time - he says "cutting off one finger matters more than injuring five"]. However - that was neither the historical object nor the historical result of the PH attack. The object was to prevent War Plan Orange from being implemented immediately - the fleet sets sail to mess up Japanse ops in the Western Pacific. It was achieved.


you can check my PBEM with Raverdave - KB in dei speeds up everything a lot + paralyses enemy + offers him opportunity to loose BB in open waters

REPLY: You can do this at PH too. In fact - it is why I permit the enemy to sail on turn one. It is probably stupid to leave port and get sunk rather than stay in port and get damaged. The BB are too slow to escape KB.


it is not only losses ratio but also gives you better position


REPLY: This is probably wrong. The reason the fleet went to Hawaii was and remains valid. And DEI permits naval air power from land bases sufficient to control the seas. Players NOT controlling the sea from land are simply not playing well.

not counting that i prefer one timezone port attack surprise that allows mauling manila/singapore/clark in opening hours

REPLY: You can maul Manila all you want and benefit from without KB. And there is no one timezone rule in RHS.
It didn't happen that way IRL and it does not matter as much as players think. The invasion went in AT NIGHT at Kota Bahru because dawn was not the only thing.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I must agree with Tulius..If a BB is damaged sufficiently, it is not only out of action for a time, it is also cluttering a repair yard somewhere..Ships in repair yards are immobile potential targets..
If AA is now a bit too effective,maybe it or plane durability can be tweaked a degree further?
I appreciate Sid's thought on limiting the effective altitude of the AA guns.
As in real-life maybe very high flying planes will be near invulnerable, with a trade-off in the damage they cause..?

And there is ONE day in the game that high flying planes should be effective in bombing: the first day. NO raid of the war had the effect of the one at Manila - and it came in at 25,000 feet! The fraction of bombs that hit their targets was better even than a US raid in 1944 from much lower altitudes.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Tullius, you cannot base battleships in enemy base. Soerabaya will be Jabanese before those slooow BBs will arrive, they will became easy points if used.

[el cid again]

There were problems reflagging the Soviets in Level 6. Some dates got zeroed out and that resulted in one submarine and a number of minor Lend Lease vessels appearing early. Some ships remained French (except in EOS).
So ship files are reissued for Level 6.

In addition, Level 5 BBO, RPO, PPO and EOS are uploaded at 5.371 level - with completely correct Soviet ships.

[TulliusDetritus]

Monter, who knows [:)] It's part of the uncertainty. You can't affirm "they won't hurt the Japanese". You may say it, but you may be wrong.

Because after all:

1st hypothesis: the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. They manage to damage the BB's. The cost? Very experienced pilots, true.

2nd hypothesis: the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbor. The allied player may try to create a big mess in the Southern Area. Alright, they will be massacred... but hey, what will be the cost? [8D] Japanese Carriers or land-based planes attack TFx (with 2 BB's) in (example) Java Sea... They are sunk. Ok... and what about the losses due to AA? The Japanese will have to repeat these attacks 1 or 2 or 3 times. More planes losses. You must count these losses too and compare them with the losses in PH. And I still insist, in the process, these BB's will damage, hurt the Japanese. Or we have to assume that the allied player will be 100% incompetent? Why? [8D]

In other words, you will lose these planes the same, in PH or in the Dutch East Indies. But your transports (and troops) will have to face obsolete monsters. Don't forget to add damaged Japanese BB's, CA's, etc. (I'm being optimistic. I am assuming they won't manage to sink any important Japanese ship).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Monter, who knows [:)] It's part of the uncertainty. You can't affirm "they won't hurt the Japanese". You may say it, but you may be wrong.

Because after all:

1st hypothesis: the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. They manage to damage the BB's. The cost? Very experienced pilots, true.

2nd hypothesis: the Japanese do not attack Pearl Harbor. The allied player may try to create a big mess in the Southern Area. Alright, they will be massacred... but hey, what will be the cost? [8D] Japanese Carriers or land-based planes attack TFx (with 2 BB's) in (example) Java Sea... They are sunk. Ok... and what about the losses due to AA? The Japanese will have to repeat these attacks 1 or 2 or 3 times. More planes losses. You must count these losses too and compare them with the losses in PH. And I still insist, in the process, these BB's will damage, hurt the Japanese. Or we have to assume that the allied player will be 100% incompetent? Why? [8D]

In other words, you will lose these planes the same, in PH or in the Dutch East Indies. But your transports (and troops) will have to face obsolete monsters. Don't forget to add damaged Japanese BB's, CA's, etc. (I'm being optimistic. I am assuming they won't manage to sink any important Japanese ship).

That's right...What if the Americans had tried to implement "Plan Orange" after the Phillipines attack of 1941, with a fleet of undamaged Pearl Harbor-based battle wagons?
Likely they would have been slaughtered in open ocean with no ability to seek cover in a dry dock, (or shallow harbor water to be re-floated from)..
Three (or so) American flattops would have had a hard time protecting that line of ships, IF they were free to do so!