ORIGINAL: Halsey
On the map.
The road that crosses the river 2 hexes east of Yenen doesn't show up on the "W' key.
So I guess it is a phantom road hex. [;)]
Edit...just rechecked the map...I thought you were referencing the light rail near Sian.
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
ORIGINAL: Halsey
On the map.
The road that crosses the river 2 hexes east of Yenen doesn't show up on the "W' key.
So I guess it is a phantom road hex. [;)]
ORIGINAL: spence
CHS has the CGC Haida and CGC Onondaga as "Taney Class" cutters. They are each seperate classes.
CGC Haida approaches Taney in AA/ASW armament but was slower. Onondaga was slower still and much less capable.
CGC Taney - 2700 tons, 19.8 kts max spd, 15 kts economical, 2 x 5/51 cal, 4 x 3"/50 cal, 4 x.50 cal (1941) increased 1942 to 8 x 20mm (1942) - rearmed in unique 4 x 5"/38 cal in single closed mounts in early 1943 but then deployed to Atlantic. Converted to AGC in 1944 with 2 x 5/38 in open mounts, 8 40mm in 2 quad mounts and 8 20mm.
Initial ASW armament in 1941 was 2 DC racks and 1 Y-gun. Increased to 4 K-guns in 1942.
CGC Haida - 1506 tons, 15.5 kts max, 9 kts econ, 1941-42 armament: 2 x 5"/51 cal, 1 x 3"/50 cal, 2 x .50 cal, 4 x Y-guns, 2 x DC racks. Refitted 1/43 with 2 x 3"/50, 4 x 20mm, 4 K-guns, 2 x Mousetraps, 2 DC racks
CGC Onondaga - 1005 tons, 12.8 kts max, 9.4 kts econ, 2 x 3"/50 cal, 2 x 20 mm, 4 Y-guns, 2 Mousetrap, 2 DC racks.
None of these ships had any armor though they all had shell plating double that usually found on a DD since in their Coast Guard duties they often operated in waters with sea ice. They were not however, icebreakers. Serving on CGC Duane, a sister of Taney, in 1973 I witnessed us plowing through 1-2 inches of sea ice pancakes at about 15 kts without any damage though (it was a little tough on the paint so that did not make the BMC very happy).
good site for all CG cutters of any sort: http://www.uscg.mil/history/WEBCUTTERS/
Photos of Onondaga and Haida in wartime regalia are in "Another obscure ship" thread. The lines of the Taney Class ship side in CHS are really sweet.



ORIGINAL: asdicus
The allied paratroop units have several items of equipment which will not transport by air in the game eg 75mm pack howitzer. In real life all the equipment in para units could be broken down into air transportable loads - so please can we adjust the various weapon stats to do this.
ORIGINAL: wdolson
I don't know if the Torpbeau was ever used in the Pacific, but torpedo carrying equipment became standard on all Beaufighters midway through the Mk VI production run.
Andrew, this was part of the AA upgrades. Historically by mid 1943 British and Commonwealth cruisers lost their catapults and all aircraft handling gear. This enabled them to mount more AA guns. It seems that most British cruisers had serious topweight problems and had to sacrifice weight somewhere.ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
After upgrade they are not, IIRC, forgot to say that (O19/20). I'll check the cruisers today, if I have time.
I see it now. Thanks again.
Allof this was hased oout in previous RHS discussions. Here is a breakdown of the Engineer regimetns assigned to the Pacific:ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: VSWG
It's the other way around: they start the game with construction engineers, but will start filling out with combat engineers, and will never draw engineers during the game. I'd say the bug is in the formation unit, which should only contain construction engineers.
Of course you are right - that is what I intended to write, but managed to stuff up the wording (all too common for me).
There are also 5 US CBT Engineer Regiments in CHS - pure combat engineer units (they don't have a formation unit). A sixth combat engineer unit would be the 301st Provisional Engineer Bn., a Filipino unit. Then there are the combat engineers embedded in the Army and especially Marines Divisions... I'm no expert either, but I think this is a bug that can be fixed without further research.
And I missed these as I just did a very quick search looking for any other units that used the formation template (no others do). It has been so long since I actually played this game that I am very rusty on the details these days...
I agree - this can be fixed by simply correcting the formation template.
Thanks,
Andrew
ORIGINAL: Reg
No No No!!! RAAF Beaufighter squadrons were raised, equipped and trained for the long range fighter (strafer) role. Though their aircraft were theoretically capable of torpedo strike, the squadrons were never issued with the weapons or trained in their use. (Ever wondered in the game why they are are classed as fighter/bomber rather than torpedo bomber like the Beaufort??) This was done (after a long hard fight) so the Beaufighter squadrons could conduct their historical missions.
If you can put up a convincing argument that RAF Torbeaus were used in the India/Burma areas, I'm sure you will get a sympathetic hearing for the creation of a new aircraft class as a torpedo bomber.
ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Get rid of the bombs on the P-61A. These planes were strictly night fighters and never carried bombs,and were never designed to carry bombs.
ORIGINAL: wdolson
The LB-30 was a very limited use plane. It might be better reflected to set the initial quantity to the 78 produced (I'm pretty sure it was 78, though it may have been something close to that) and set the production to zero.
The T.IVa, though a torpedo bomber by design, was never used for torpedo carrying during the war. Just after Dec. 7, 1941, they were field modified with bomb racks and carried depth charges on submarine patrol in rear areas.




ORIGINAL: Terminus
EditorX really is a superlative tool. It's almost scary how much better it is than the stock editor.[X(]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: wdolson
The LB-30 was a very limited use plane. It might be better reflected to set the initial quantity to the 78 produced (I'm pretty sure it was 78, though it may have been something close to that) and set the production to zero.
I've thought about doing that, actually. I am not sure the number was 78. I will have to check.

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Just cheked, and I stand corrected. Though the armament of the 47th should be changed to 2x 7.7mm and 2x 12.7mm. The production Mk IIb had 4x 12.7mm, though the later IIc had either 4x 20mm or 2x 12.7mm and 2x 40mm. I haven't seen which was the most common model yet. For changing the armamment of the 47th, you could do what el cid has been doing with RHS and edit the unit's aircraft armamnet.
I would upgun the Tojo to 4x 20mm and modify the 47th with the weaker armamnet since the 20mm armed version was probably the most important.
Bill
