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

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

CVO 5.51: Misspelling in Airgroups 1060 - 1063, 1066 - 1068, 1070, 1087 : Persuit instead of Pursuit

Now you know. I was taught phonic spelling. It works in Japanese or Tagalog or even German - but not in English. Too many options - too many variations - you are supposed to memorize each word - and I don't. I also am guilty of using British spellings instead of American ones - due to reading authors who use that form. There are at least 18 identified types of intelligence - spelling is one of them - and I don't do that well in that area.

Thanks.

Issuing microupdate x.52 now. It INCLUDES x.51 microupdate - which should be withdrawn from the listings in due course (when Cobra posts x.52 he will probably erase x.51). This will be part of that.

[Dili]

[You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not."

 
I am only talking about static units. Are you saying that:("there must always be" STATIC "units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command") ? i  dont know the reason so i ask: why? it isnt enough to have the HQ to get new units there?
Btw I think you want to mean that Southeast Fleet bases are still not Japaneses controlled instead of 4th Fleet. Right now 4th Fleet goes from Saipan to Kwajalein.
 

There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class

 
Chokai/Maya is already a new class, distinct from Takao, Atago. Takao and Atago got their DP suite updated to 5" in 1942 while Chokai/Maya will only get them and 6 turrets instead of 4 in 44 with CLAA update. In instance Chokai was never updated since it was always in use and got sunk.
 

How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions

.
 
That was done for some destroyers. Some sets have 1 reload others have 2.
I am not aware that Chikuma had half the torpedo tubes of Tone and some destroyer classes have less changes between them then half the torpedo tubes and a dif DP suite since 1942. So i dont think i am asking something unreasonable since this arent minor details.
 

and C require I pick a real ship - usually the leader of the class - and real dates - usually the dates from 155 -
and use the configuration at war start or on that date for that ship. This means ALL other members of the class
that differ in ANY detail - including the date of conversion - are (at least momentarily) "wrong". Fact of life

 
Some the data seem to have been from stock. AA  is wrong, those ships(5500t CLs)  were already converted to 25mmAA , range too, for example Kitakami still has the 14kt/9000nm when in reality was 14kt/4000nm. That was one of the reasons that prevented it's use in frontline units and ended working as an APD most of the war.
 

It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA).

 
I think the solution brings more problems than let it stay with the gun they have even without the ability to fire AA that seldom operated that way. It makes them have much more AA ability they had. It turns them worse at surface combat.  Btw from my research Kageros didnt have the 75º turret.
 
 
 
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

[You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not."

I am only talking about static units. Are you saying that:("there must always be" STATIC "units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command") ? i  dont know the reason so i ask: why? it isnt enough to have the HQ to get new units there?
Btw I think you want to mean that Southeast Fleet bases are still not Japaneses controlled instead of 4th Fleet. Right now 4th Fleet goes from Saipan to Kwajalein.

Actually - there is only a single 4th Fleet unit at Truk - 4th Fleet HQ - and it is not static. Since Truk really is SE Fleet area - it may be best to revert to calling it that. THEN you will see the base and static units all of the same command - and they may do better AI wise. But that means AI will NOT "know" that Truck is the logistic root of 4th Fleet area - and who knows where it will draw from?

And no - it isn't enough to have the HQ to get units there. We have a 4th Fleet HQ at Truk. How does that tell AI anything at all about getting any other units to 4th Fleet area - or where that area may be? What it "knows" is probably in hard code - and we don't know for sure what that is. But having the HQ does not do anything for us at all.
Since there is no 4th Fleet "place" to put it - unless Truk be that place - it is associated with no place except by where it is. And that gives AI little data about where to send other units. Not sure there is a good answer to this sort of problem either. But I guess that 4th Fleet locations appear as such when captured- or maybe only if captured by units of that command?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

[You still do not grasp the situation at Truk: One may assign it to EITHER fleet - but since BOTH fleets land units MUST begin there - one cannot have it assigned to both - and there must always be units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command. UNLESS we change ALL 4th Fleet units to SE Fleet - make the base SE Fleet - and in that case we just killed 4th Fleet in AI games. 4th Fleet locations are not yet Japanese controlled - so where do their units go? I use the command as a way to "program" (indicate) to AI "this unit should move South, that one not."

I am only talking about static units. Are you saying that:("there must always be" STATIC "units at the base assigned to the "wrong" command") ? i  dont know the reason so i ask: why? it isnt enough to have the HQ to get new units there?
Btw I think you want to mean that Southeast Fleet bases are still not Japaneses controlled instead of 4th Fleet. Right now 4th Fleet goes from Saipan to Kwajalein.

There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class

Chokai/Maya is already a new class, distinct from Takao, Atago. Takao and Atago got their DP suite updated to 5" in 1942 while Chokai/Maya will only get them and 6 turrets instead of 4 in 44 with CLAA update. In instance Chokai was never updated since it was always in use and got sunk.

How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions

.

That was done for some destroyers. Some sets have 1 reload others have 2.
I am not aware that Chikuma had half the torpedo tubes of Tone and some destroyer classes have less changes between them then half the torpedo tubes and a dif DP suite since 1942. So i dont think i am asking something unreasonable since this arent minor details.

and C require I pick a real ship - usually the leader of the class - and real dates - usually the dates from 155 -
and use the configuration at war start or on that date for that ship. This means ALL other members of the class
that differ in ANY detail - including the date of conversion - are (at least momentarily) "wrong". Fact of life

Some the data seem to have been from stock. AA  is wrong, those ships(5500t CLs)  were already converted to 25mmAA , range too, for example Kitakami still has the 14kt/9000nm when in reality was 14kt/4000nm. That was one of the reasons that prevented it's use in frontline units and ended working as an APD most of the war.

It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA).

I think the solution brings more problems than let it stay with the gun they have even without the ability to fire AA that seldom operated that way. It makes them have much more AA ability they had. It turns them worse at surface combat.  Btw from my research Kageros didnt have the 75º turret.

Well - in the broad scheme of things they are truly minor. The reason we don't review every field for every ship is time. We have a lot of bigger issues. Many ships in the game NEVER were in PTO at all!!! Others are missing. Getting the right ship is a big deal to me - and it will be YEARS if ever we do that for LSTs and probably even destroyers - on the Allied side. Just doing radar I found cruisers - CAs no less - appearing 4 to 12 months late - on the Allied side.
That is a much bigger deal IMHO. But the really big deal is we don't have a master list of all the eratta - and if we did we would not have any way to say "this field matters more than that one." In fact, we only address what comes to our notice or attention.

On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side).
Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that.

On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them.
But mostly I have to do other things - and when I do rework ships - I always get sick of it before I run out of more ships to look at. I think things like wholly wrong armor and fuel and range were more vital - since they were often bad by hundreds of % - even infinite % - and I put my initial efforts into fixing that. But having just spent 4 days on Allied ships - you will note many detail changes besides radar. 3 inch SP didn't exist even - so I created it -
and put it in place of 3 inch DP - on ships that should have it - stuff like that. [I turned the "IJA 75mm Field Gun Ship Mount" into a generic "75mm SP Gun" so both sides could use it.]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are literally thousands of cases where members of a class differ from the nominal class in this detail or that. Unless we create a new class

Chokai/Maya is already a new class, distinct from Takao, Atago. Takao and Atago got their DP suite updated to 5" in 1942 while Chokai/Maya will only get them and 6 turrets instead of 4 in 44 with CLAA update. In instance Chokai was never updated since it was always in use and got sunk.

How do you tell AI "there are 1.5 reloads per tube" for example? You MUST say "1" or "2" - the field does not accept fractions

.

That was done for some destroyers. Some sets have 1 reload others have 2.
I am not aware that Chikuma had half the torpedo tubes of Tone and some destroyer classes have less changes between them then half the torpedo tubes and a dif DP suite since 1942. So i dont think i am asking something unreasonable since this arent minor details.

Well - in the broad scheme of things they are truly minor. The reason we don't review every field for every ship is time. We have a lot of bigger issues. Many ships in the game NEVER were in PTO at all!!! Others are missing. Getting the right ship is a big deal to me - and it will be YEARS if ever we do that for LSTs and probably even destroyers - on the Allied side. Just doing radar I found cruisers - CAs no less - appearing 4 to 12 months late - on the Allied side.
That is a much bigger deal IMHO. But the really big deal is we don't have a master list of all the eratta - and if we did we would not have any way to say "this field matters more than that one." In fact, we only address what comes to our notice or attention.

On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side).
Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that.

On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them.
But mostly I have to do other things - and when I do rework ships - I always get sick of it before I run out of more ships to look at. I think things like wholly wrong armor and fuel and range were more vital - since they were often bad by hundreds of % - even infinite % - and I put my initial efforts into fixing that. But having just spent 4 days on Allied ships - you will note many detail changes besides radar. 3 inch SP didn't exist even - so I created it -
and put it in place of 3 inch DP - on ships that should have it - stuff like that. [I turned the "IJA 75mm Field Gun Ship Mount" into a generic "75mm SP Gun" so both sides could use it.] I have not taken the time to rework every field of every ship - and if we are to play in 2007 - I won't get to them all. In fact - it is by playing I find many errors. I know the ships so well I spot them in the ship data pages - and take notes. Otherwise I learn of errors because people point out possible errors and I can investigate them. But how to express the real data in our data set is partly art - and it is not always clear how to do it "right" - or which way is "best" if there is more than one way to proceed? There also sometimes are differences in materials. I have facimilie of hand recorded data done for the Allied powers by a Japanese naval architect named Fukui - who knew the ships intimately - and so I tend to use the original data (as did authors of most references). But that means I am looking at line drawings with a magnifing glass - and reading notes in not always clear form by a person who didn't use English as his primary language. My conclusions might not always be the same as you see in references - and in particular not the same as in Jane's - which is done at the time from less complete information - sometimes even rumors. There must always be some points at which an informed person will disagree with another.

[/quote]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

It is likely code - which is still being worked on - may modify how it treats these matters. Anyway - the old gaming standard (and rule of thumb IRL) was "elevation" ALONE decides if it is AA or not? IF it elevates - even if only to 60 degrees - and always if to 75 or 90 - then it is DP (or AA).

I think the solution brings more problems than let it stay with the gun they have even without the ability to fire AA that seldom operated that way. It makes them have much more AA ability they had. It turns them worse at surface combat.  Btw from my research Kageros didnt have the 75º turret.

Oddly, this is my baliwik. I was (and sort of am in a consultant sense) a USN "anti-air warfare" specialist. And my first ship had WWII era guns - and fire control. We had a somewhat ultra-professional chief gunner who worked the guns to perfection - always winning the E - and outshooting every other ship in the Atlantic Fleet (which generally has higher standards than Pacific Fleet - ever since Adm King was its boss). He permitted his gunners only "one round per tube" to evaluate if they had properly solved the fire control problem - or not - and his gunners rarely missed - perhaps 20-25% of the shots were not judged "hits" (they shot at a canvas sleeve towed through the air - so it was not "shot down" - a "hit" was a burst within so many feet of the sleeve - 2 or 3 maybe - I don't remember exactly).
It is hard to know - and I have been collecting statistics - but tentatively I think ALL AAA is GROSSLY undervalued in WITP. USAAF recorded AAA was the primary cause of damage and loss due to enemy action. That is, if you add up air air combat, planes lost to air strikes on their bases, planes lost to anti-shipping (or anti-train) strikes on their carrier vehicles, and planes lost to enemy ground action on their bases, ALL of those COMBINED is LESS than those lost to AAA (same for damaged). AAA was a really big deal - and the models we are using will not allow a Takhishi Hara to defeat a skip bomber - when IRL his solution was almost perfect - and would have worked in terms of shooting down the plane at least 9 times in 10. It was a big deal at the time - his crew was terrified - but they had great faith in him. He himself had no clue what to do - he had worried about it for many months. When it happened it came to him - from his subconscious - and it violated several different aspects of norms in IJN. But it was a technical solution that - once applied - would generally work - just as skip bombing itself was such a general technical solution useless before someone figured it out. I am loth to force program ZERO into a real capability - and since the simulated capability is almost certainly far less than it should be - I have no problem with that. In the present age - if you have professional gunners (RN or RAN standards, not USN standards) - you have nothing like the number of AA guns firing you did in WWII. But it is deadly dangerous to fly in their range - and it does not matter very much what method is used to solve the fire control problem - provided the method works at all. We train gunners how to shoot WITHOUT radar because it is very normal not to have valid radar data in the modern age - not because it isn't issued or because it is broken - but because it is defeated by countermeasures. Matters very little to the first plane in the sights - he is dead meat. It is only later planes that have a shot at delivering ordnance. This is why it is preferred to stand off with weapons that they can shoot down - or not - without casualties: flying into AA range is a great way to make someone a widow. [Once a C-130 deliberately tried to get shot at - to record some signals - and on inspection we could not find any part of the plane undamaged. It was a very miraculous thing it returned at all - and it was a write off. In effect a delayed kill. Some WWII pilots in Viet Nam said MAYBE the flak was as deadly as they remembered - but only maybe.
It was pretty much same same.]

What makes a ship a Shimikaze is indeed its fine guns. And the 100 mm guns of Shimakaze are fabulous - they outrange the 5 inch with a better shell. [You cannot tell this in this game because I restrict DP gun range to = effective AA ceiling]. The 5 inch guns do NOT make a ship a Shimikaze because they are not as good. And in fact they DO make it a MUCH WORSE DD at long ranges - since the DP guns have much less range than even the real DP guns do. IF I permit a DP gun to have full SURFACE range it is far too effective as an AA weapon. Ships with SP weapons, on the other hand, get the max range of the gun. IRL the Japanese often compromised: many DD had one mounting of 5 inch 50s and one of 5 inch 40s! Both could shoot at surface or air targets, but the 50 was much better at the surface (with more range) while the 40 was much better at the air target. Tracking this for each ship would be hard - all the data isn't even known - and we lack the slots to try - even if we had - say - five man years JUST for IJN ship entry.

Other factors helped Shimikaze. She had the first AA plot in IJN - before almost any other ship in the USN did.
But we don't have a way to show that sort of thing having impact. But I just invented a way! Maybe - if I get time.

[el cid again]

Two scenarios have ship eratta not covered by 5.51 or 5.52 - CVO and RAO.
So this - and a change of a command assignment for Truk - are folded into
x.53 - which remains a micro update but INCLUDES EVERYTHING in x.51 and x.52.
It is only some of the files - you must do this AFTER installing 5.5 or 6.5 files.

This uploading now.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

CVO 5.51: IJN Naval Station Battalions are now supposed to be a artillery units instead of engineer? (for example Location 1777 - and MANY others)

[TulliusDetritus]

Monter, yes, they all are ART units. If I remember correctly it is intended: months ago I asked him about these "weird" ART units. El Cid Again has to have good reasons.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

CVO 5.51: IJN Naval Station Battalions are now supposed to be a artillery units instead of engineer? (for example Location 1777 - and MANY others)

It is a difficult designation (for me at least). However, this isn't exactly new - it is in many versions of RHS. And it has some merits. The technical advantage is that it permits me to "anchor" a naval station (by calling it a "coast defense unit" and classify that as "fortification" - WITHOUT the use of a static device. Most static naval station and naval bases are done in this way. The rest are called "artillery units" so they look similar - and are transportable (movable). Those still classified as "engineer" units are just inherited and for some reason not reworked. Now it solves two problems to do that:

a) A base that should not and would not "wander" all over the map - mainly under AI control but also under ignorant player control - now stays put;

b) IF I need a small supply sink (one that is not a big problem combat wise) at a location, I can "hide" it inside the now static unit - and it will stay there - eating supplies - and doing the other function of a supply sink: rendering greater damage to resource centers if the place falls to land combat. Sometimes in RHS a naval station that COULD move is also anchored - because it is hiding a supply sink.

The merit of this designation is that a naval station in that era always had some coast defense guns - even if small ones - and (in one case or) medium caliber (4 to five inch) AA guns that can function to some degree as coast defense guns - and these guns are uniformly the heaviest in the unit. Such units are not infantry heavy, have no armor,
and not a whole lot of engineers - so they are somewhat "artillery units" of a peculiar sort. Their other function - as support units - is still implied in the name "naval station" - so I think it is a reasonable designation. But I would prefer a separate category altogether for bases and stations - and the option to pick "static" or "transportable" under that.

[m10bob]

"The merit of this designation is that a naval station in that era always had some coast defense guns - even if small ones - and (in one case or) medium caliber (4 to five inch) AA guns that can function to some degree as coast defense guns - and these guns are uniformly the heaviest in the unit. Such units are not infantry heavy, have no armor,
and not a whole lot of engineers - so they are somewhat "artillery units" of a peculiar sort. Their other function - as support units - is still implied in the name "naval station" - so I think it is a reasonable designation. But I would prefer a separate category altogether for bases and stations - and the option to pick "static" or "transportable" under that. "

In a very similar vein, when modding units for Steel Panthers,I was able to replicate both the Piper J3 and the German "Goliath"(r/c demo tank).
The J3 would not fly without ammo, and I did not wish to use it as a "weapon", so I created a weapons slot called a "honey pot" for the pilot to carry, and if he had to "fire it", there was no damage done to the enemy.
The radio controlled Goliath required a "crewman"(in game terms), so I did put a man aboard, but with no weapons other than a napalm-type device which would explode anything within so many hexes of it.(I would keep it hidden in brush/holes, and move it only when an enemy tank moved near it-then KER-BLAMM).
I knew the real Goliath had no crewman, but I accomplished the mission.
You have had to think outside the box on several issues to get around things, but in the end, mission is accomplished.

[TulliusDetritus]

El Cid Again, I am perplexed. I did an air transfer: from Panama Canal to West Coast (a PBY Catalina). The unit had 12 planes (and pilots). After the transfer there were only 4 planes (2 ready and 2 damaged) [X(]

I have tried other air transfers and have seen the same. Anyway if I well understood (and I know this is a very rudimentary analysis) this only happens when the range is extra long [?]

Back to my example: the unit had 12 planes. It lost 8!

I never saw such operational losses in this game before: in stock, CHS and other RHS versions. What is going on? Or may this be intended? [&:]

[TulliusDetritus]

One more observation:

The unit is in Cristobal (Panama Canal).

If the destination is San Diego => "normal" operational losses
If the destination is San Francisco => the trip is a massacre (the losses mentioned above).

These extra hexes make the difference?

[el cid again]

Dili: I checked Shinshu Maru. It is appearing at game start. It has the proper outfit of 5 x 75mm AA guns.
It is classified as an LSD. I see no sense in which it is "screwed up." Can you be more specific?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

One more observation:

The unit is in Cristobal (Panama Canal).

If the destination is San Diego => "normal" operational losses
If the destination is San Francisco => the trip is a massacre (the losses mentioned above).

These extra hexes make the difference?

Maybe. Never encountered this specific matter. But - yes - I observe it matters at other locations. And by increasing ranges of many plane types (so as to permit ops to 42% of transfer range for all but fighters - which remain at 33%)
we have had a general increase of the POSSIBILITY of "crossing the line" for each type. [It is worse for Japan, and worse for certain types - a GG signature - lots of variables.] Anyway - I warned at the time that just because you can fly farther does not mean it is wise to do so. IF you are not circumspect - you will pay a high price. [Another variable is the number of engines - probably].

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: m10bob

"The merit of this designation is that a naval station in that era always had some coast defense guns - even if small ones - and (in one case or) medium caliber (4 to five inch) AA guns that can function to some degree as coast defense guns - and these guns are uniformly the heaviest in the unit. Such units are not infantry heavy, have no armor,
and not a whole lot of engineers - so they are somewhat "artillery units" of a peculiar sort. Their other function - as support units - is still implied in the name "naval station" - so I think it is a reasonable designation. But I would prefer a separate category altogether for bases and stations - and the option to pick "static" or "transportable" under that. "

In a very similar vein, when modding units for Steel Panthers,I was able to replicate both the Piper J3 and the German "Goliath"(r/c demo tank).

[quote]

You may then find it interesting that Japan had a similar vehicle (both wire and R/C versions) BEFORE Goliath - and that you can see it in RHS in the 7th "Electric" Engineer Regiment! [In EOS it is also in the 27th Regiment - renamed "Electric" as well - because that refers to these vehicles]

[TulliusDetritus]

El Cid Again, so players of this mod must know that air transfers can be a pretty massacre. What should be the maximum air transfer range then? 2/3 of the ferry range or something like that?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Some the data seem to have been from stock. AA  is wrong, those ships(5500t CLs)  were already converted to 25mmAA , range too, for example Kitakami still has the 14kt/9000nm when in reality was 14kt/4000nm. That was one of the reasons that prevented it's use in frontline units and ended working as an APD most of the war.

Well - the speed of 14 is pure RHS - no one else uses that. Stock seems to like 15 knots and CHS 18 knots -
but RHS uses the ACTUAL cruising speed for the ship. [For the unfamiliar - a ship has a designed cruising speed - and this is a big deal. It is most efficient at that speed - and we have accurate data for that speed. A ship usually can cruise at other speeds - but we don't know exactly how that changes range (there are formulas that help us guess) -
but if the speed is higher it will be less efficient.]

In this case ALL the old "long" cruisers (Nagara, Kuma, Sendai and Kitakami) had a DESIGNED range of 5000 nm at 14 knots and an ACTUAL range of 6000 nm at 14 knots (which was achieved by slightly different fuel loadings).
Whoever said 9000 (and at 15 or 18) was not checking the data. [WITP makes a class by copying some other class. Often they just leave this field alone. And few Americans would believe a range less than 9000 nm for a long cruiser. But JAPAN designed ships for less range - expecting to fight on its side of the ocean - and more weight to weapons. They also had lower efficiency boilers - reducing range.]

Your data for Kitakami is not exactly wrong either - but it IS wrong for 1941. That is 1944 data - after hp was reduced to 75,000 and (probably) bunkerage as well. Anyway - it is in that configuration the range was 4000 nm - not earlier.

[el cid again]

One more time:

This micro is the same as the last two: It INCLUDES and REPLACES previous micro updates since 5.50.

This one corrects range on a few sub classes of old cruisers

and it corrects pointers for USN Seabee units in 3 of the 10 scenarios (the others were OK).

Uploading now.

[Dili]

Actually - there is only a single 4th Fleet unit at Truk - 4th Fleet HQ - and it is not static. Since Truk really is SE Fleet area - it may be best to revert to calling it that. THEN you will see the base and static units all of the same command - and they may do better AI wise. But that means AI will NOT "know" that Truck is the logistic root of 4th Fleet area - and who knows where it will draw from?
And no - it isn't enough to have the HQ to get units there. We have a 4th Fleet HQ at Truk

 
Okay seems that i am not being understood so will revert to a simple question: Why IJN Truk Base Fortress ; IJN Truk SGNF; IJN Truk NGF and IJN Truk AA Rgt arent 4th Fleet units since Truk is a 4th Fleet base? 
 

On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side).
Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that.

 
I can see your point but to make a judgement i need to know the game routines concerning side firing. If it changes sides when torpedoes are depleted that would be unfair for allies. Also if the Japanese gamer uses all it's torpedoes  it is an increase of 25% from what existed in reality!
 

On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them

 
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.htm  also Combined Fleet and Profile Morskie state that Kageros didnt have High Angle mounts.
What the Takhishi Hara "solution" had to do with High Angle mounts? You can shot against skip bombing with every naval gun a ship had.
Putting a real DP gun in them changes the whole thing.
 

It is hard to know - and I have been collecting statistics - but tentatively I think ALL AAA is GROSSLY undervalued in WITP. USAAF recorded AAA was the primary cause of damage and loss due to enemy action.

 
That depends on war period. From every mission/attack i remember i never saw outrageous casualities except the Devastators at Midway and they were mainly prey of Zeros and not of AA. Yamato attack didnt showed many kills from Japanese AA same for many others like Bismark Sea. 
 

What makes a ship a Shimikaze is indeed its fine guns. And the 100 mm guns of Shimakaze are fabulous

Mixup. You are talking about Akitzukis not the Shimakaze.
 

Two scenarios have ship eratta not covered by 5.51 or 5.52 - CVO and RAO.

Does that means that is the reason i am not seeing Shinshu Maru yet?
 

 Well - in the broad scheme of things they are truly minor.

For the many tiny things that are changed, half the number of torpedo tubes and a diferent DP suite are indeed an important change IMO.