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

[el cid again]

It is possible you are running into a classic GG thing. Gary loves to program algorithms with many conditions - so if you don't have enough HI points at the location of the ships - or not enough supply - or a list of other conditions - they won't advance in date - just as if you had suspended construction (which no doubt is another condition in the list).

[Terminus]

Wow, you must be psychic...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

I have fixed the problem, somehow. I took some map panels from "here", others from "there". Thank you anyway. And yes, that "update" is truly necessary. People (especially those who start from zero) just can't find the "map". I did but because I had 2 (or 3?) different "versions"; one of them had Madagascar. Or did I do something wrong? Maybe v.6 never had this island, but I suspect it did contain it. I just can't recall that -- so maybe I mixed v.6 & v.7 maps. It's kafkaesque, sorry [:)]

Madagascar is in Level 7 only. Used to be Madagascar was the DEFINITION of Level 7, but we combined that with Level 8 (that no longer exists) - which involves a new Panama area mini map. Level 9 was also killed - as it required a total redo to a different projection. The pwhex issues (133,000 hex sides, thousands of communications codes, thousands of hex type codes, thousands of terrain type codes, etc) were too big to implement. Level 7 is going to be our final product - although we may go on to give you seasonal maps for all levels. Level 7 will take until summer if we are lucky. Levels 5 and 6 will be revisited after extensive human use reports - to address the inevitable technical issues they will uncover.

[el cid again]

A comprehensive review of communications (that is, rail/road/trail) codes has shown many changes are required - and will cause greater efficiency in play. Some of these changes were done in the past - but got "lost" somehow. Regardless of how - they all need coding back in - and this is my present task. Cobra is finalizing the map art - and we will do a joint release - probably tomorrow.

[m10bob]

The landing craft flotilla are working fine..I just hit the button for "Build barges"(Allied) and it built a USMC LC company of 60LCVP's..Another LC company loaded part of the 2nd USMC Division at San Diego..

The rivers are yeilding another benefit.I had to evacuate some old Walrus planes from Hong Kong, and they now sit at Chungking..
I suspect some rivers might not be able to handle some of the larger craft, but I think the benefits outweigh that problem.
IRL, a plane as large as a Sunderland landed IN London, (and the Thames is not one of the larger rivers.)..

Too bad the game will not allow another Icon for those river craft..

[el cid again]

I am not having any problems with river craft in testing - except that AI rarely uses them. When it does, it prefers to use them on the longest rivers - and sometimes issues nonsensical orders (sail to Osaka from Harbin anyone?).

The interior river systems are very large ones - and in general are not representing the entire navigable length. RHS use minimalist methods - and we are gradually extending some of the river systems as we learn more about local conditions. But initial assumptions were very cautious so as not to overstate their operational significance.

These systems potentially greatly change the game IF players use them (AI more or less won't use them much).
The effect on production is minor (you get fuel produced at HI centers that used to be "inland" and would not produce them). But the effect on operations can matter. You can flank - or be flanked - just as IRL - and you can land "behing" the enemy - cutting his LOC - at the same time gaining for yourself an airfield and source of supply in many cases. Ignoring these points may be foolish strategy - and trying to garrison every point may present the same problems it does IRL - you cannot be strong everywhere unless you have overwhelming local numbers. Once you (or the enemy) have (has) a port on an interior river system, you can often "create landing craft" and establish a water logistic/movement capability you (he) didn't have before. In some places (see the Yellow River) the "river is the road" - you can go places far more efficiently than trying to march overland. And I love the "Grand Canyon of China" - the Yangtze River Gorge - more or less from Wuhan to Chunking - a channel of blocked hex sides down which there is a river route and a trail route - easily blocked by a single unit - and much easier to travel fast by water than by land.
No major gunboats will ever exist on this system - so "naval combat" is at the machine gun level! Wonderful. The Upper Yangtze really did divide from the Lower Yangtze at Wuhan - since the 19th Century ocean ships could sail to Wuhan but not up the canyon beyond. And that upper system really did connect to a system of lakes and rivers South of Wuhan - Japan built special gunboats for them - wholly changing the nature of the interior of China. And note that while Japan dominates the Lower Yangtze, ROC dominates the Upper Yangtze. Very nice.

[m10bob]

Minor point . I noticed the RHS Rajula is listed as an AP, and the RHS Rhona is listed as an AK..In fact, they were sister ships. The Rhona was sunk off Carthage Tunisia by a German guided missile in 1943 enroute to Bombay India.
Here is the Rajula:

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Minor point . I noticed the RHS Rajula is listed as an AP, and the RHS Rhona is listed as an AK..In fact, they were sister ships. The Rhona was sunk off Carthage Tunisia by a German guided missile in 1943 enroute to Bombay India.
Here is the Rajula:

Here is the Rhona:

[Hipper]

Hi Cid
 
If you are doing this for China  how about the Burma river systems.... I can post some details about Slims improvised warships in 1944 & 1945  ... only army general to commision "warships"  for the Royal Navy plus a bundle of barge types.  

[m10bob]

Have noticed these since the most recent update on RHS-CVO.(Never noticed them before, but I was not looking.)
1.The Dutch Fokker TG IV still has the correct bombload, but there is nothing listed as a default load.(I.E. bombs or a single torp.)
Maybe the AI knows which to give it?
2.Japanese recon are flying over the USSR now, and their planes are sighting and hitting Soviet subs in the Sea of Japan.(No agression by Soviet planes yet, but they are scrambling to intercept those overflights.)
3. The planetop for the ROC Hawk 75/P36 is showing a "south flying" Supermarine Seafire with white stripes on the wings.(Makes it look like the Spit is trying to runaway.)
I may have gotten my planetops messed up but my most recent application is that of stock RHS..
BTW,I wish Cobra would consider replacing that sideview of the Anson with one showing the armed/turreted model??[:)]
4.At least one version of the C47 is only showing a range of "6",whereas other models of the same plane are showing a range of 8 or 9.
I know this has been gone over before, but the plane had a range of 1500 miles.Currently, it won't even supply Johnston island from Pearl!(The USMC/USN version will make it,however.)

[CobraAus]

BTW,I wish Cobra would consider replacing that sideview of the Anson with one showing the armed/turreted model??

when I get time I am upgrading/fix air panels will look into Anson for you

Cobra

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

BTW,I wish Cobra would consider replacing that sideview of the Anson with one showing the armed/turreted model??

when I get time I am upgrading/fix air panels will look into Anson for you

Cobra

Thank you Cobra..

[TulliusDetritus]

m10bob, I think El Cid Again said -- months ago -- that the Soviet submarines must not leave their ports. The Japanese -- or the AI -- will attack them. I think he said this was inevitable. But maybe my memory fails and they are going to correct me [:)]

The Japanese recon planes flying over the USSR has to be normal, I think.

[BlackSunshine]

any eta on the latest "freeze" version?

Myself and my opponent are wanting to restart our current campaign, but I'm getting antsy [X(]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

m10bob, I think El Cid Again said -- months ago -- that the Soviet submarines must not leave their ports. The Japanese -- or the AI -- will attack them. I think he said this was inevitable. But maybe my memory fails and they are going to correct me [:)]

The Japanese recon planes flying over the USSR has to be normal, I think.

Thank you Tullius, I seem to recall that ..I see Soviet recon over the Japanese mainland as well..
With Soviet subs getting sunk,(I have confirmed at least one), I wonder if this international incident might provoke the USSR into an earlier intervention??

[el cid again]

Cobra and I are integrating art, data files and pwhex. A comprehensive review of pwhex was indicated by the problems casual review produced. There were many (many, many) discrepencies between art and pwhex.
Some of this was because at some point we "lost" revisions (e.g. in Japan proper) - and went back to an earlier version - building changes on that. Some were inherited, both errors and deliberate "deceptions." Now there is a lot of technical stuff here - and you will find I do unusual things players cannot see sometimes myself. Someone detected Vancouver and Seattle have road coding instead of rail. That is really a trick - a way to help these ports have enough supply points - but it also is good simulation: ride rail through either and you will find out what I mean (sitting for long periods idle waiting for traffic to clear). This does not slow down IMPORTS of anything - but it slows down EXIT of units or supply points - both reasonable effects. Still - it is a technical discrepency between art and pwhex. Well - turns out that previous pwhex writers did this sort of thing in China, writ large - completely "breaking" the lines - no connection - as a way to prevent efficiencies they don't think should occur. I believe that a rail line (road, trail) needs to be generally represented correctly - so players direct operations appropriately. So I am reforming this. The only real exceptions are what I call a "sandwich" - a combination of road and trail hexes designed to make a long trail actually work for movement - see the ALCAN highway for example. It only appears as trail (although, in a way, a sandwich is accurate - the road is always segmented with long segments under construction - you even have to drive where there is NO foundation! on every trip).

Art research has produced an amazing Russian aircraft carrier on the Amur river - seaplanes only please - so we probably call it a CVS - and extended the Sungari via the Nen River to Tsitsihar - which remains to this day a significantly developed river port. But these are unintended side effects of checking out the final details. PWhex should issue shortly - Level 6 first - then the data files. Cobra will release the art files as they complete and the whole thing put on the RHS site as 6.64 (and 5.64 after that).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Minor point . I noticed the RHS Rajula is listed as an AP, and the RHS Rhona is listed as an AK..In fact, they were sister ships. The Rhona was sunk off Carthage Tunisia by a German guided missile in 1943 enroute to Bombay India.
Here is the Rajula:

Looks to me like an AK with passenger spaces. Do you know the slot numbers? If not - what is the class?
Cannot fix em unless we can find em!

If not sunk until 1943 - en route to Bombay - that is properly in the game - unless there is a late scenario.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Hi Cid

If you are doing this for China  how about the Burma river systems.... I can post some details about Slims improvised warships in 1944 & 1945  ... only army general to commision "warships"  for the Royal Navy plus a bundle of barge types.  

Go ahead - but be quick. We DO have rivers in Burma you know. But I only have river transports and barges - didn't know about "warships." What you got?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Have noticed these since the most recent update on RHS-CVO.(Never noticed them before, but I was not looking.)
1.The Dutch Fokker TG IV still has the correct bombload, but there is nothing listed as a default load.(I.E. bombs or a single torp.)
Maybe the AI knows which to give it?

REPLY: IT is armed as IRL - with DC! I don't think these show in visual reports - but they do apparently work.

2.Japanese recon are flying over the USSR now, and their planes are sighting and hitting Soviet subs in the Sea of Japan.(No agression by Soviet planes yet, but they are scrambling to intercept those overflights.)

REPLY: Wether or not it is aggression is a delicate point - for you to decide! I advise Soviet players (AI of course is an idiot) that I will shoot them down if I can - but I won't consider it war if they overfly. I want them to see I am pulling back - and not be afraid and get too paranoid (a very Russian thing). I programmed Recon to fly- but bombers not to fly. SUBs are different: RHS says "keep your subs in port" - if they go to sea they are automatically at war - and properly attacked. UNTIL you are at war (as Soviet player) do NOT send subs to sea - or lose em. Again - AI is an idiot. I used to put NO subs in Russian passive scenarios - they thought they were USN - but Matrix fixed that problem - so now we have em in all RHS scenarios. What to do is a problem - historically subs DID sail from Russia - and historically one was sunk (off the US NW coast) by a Japanese submarine too!

3. The planetop for the ROC Hawk 75/P36 is showing a "south flying" Supermarine Seafire with white stripes on the wings.(Makes it look like the Spit is trying to runaway.)

HMMM checking with Cobra (RHS Art Manager - not to mention primary artist)

I may have gotten my planetops messed up but my most recent application is that of stock RHS..
BTW,I wish Cobra would consider replacing that sideview of the Anson with one showing the armed/turreted model??[:)]
4.At least one version of the C47 is only showing a range of "6",whereas other models of the same plane are showing a range of 8 or 9.

REPLY: Turns out the base C-47 has the wrong range - and the navy version a slightly wrong range as well. C-47 was identical in USAF and USN service - purchased from the same contracts - not like B-24 done differently for the USN. The range of the base C-47 was modified from CHS values - while the Navy one was done from reference. Until RHS C-47s had way too short a range - and our correction to 42% vice 50% then made that worse. Fixed.


I know this has been gone over before, but the plane had a range of 1500 miles.Currently, it won't even supply Johnston island from Pearl!(The USMC/USN version will make it,however.)

REPLY: Perhaps you are confused by code. RHS "reformed" transports so they fly to 42% of transfer range - and that is much more than the 33% code reports in displays. NEVER believe transport ranges in ANY version of WITP - you must divide the reported transfer range by 2 to get the actual game transport range. Sorry - I didn't write the code.
Maybe we didn't do the Marines right. But probably you will find it is real - USN flew the same planes to greater ranges with less payload and more fuel (see B-24 for example) - a function of oceanic orientation. N

EDIT: OOPS - we didn't do the Navy version conversion - so bye bye - they lose the extra endurance too. But don't be dismayed by the printed "ranges" - just use transfer range and divide by 2. I never worry about game impacts - just get the data right. Map distortion issues may or may not allow a particular flight - and we also don't get to pick alternate loadouts - regretfully. With two plane types I can do that though - will look at it - give the navy less payload more range? Maybe.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

m10bob, I think El Cid Again said -- months ago -- that the Soviet submarines must not leave their ports. The Japanese -- or the AI -- will attack them. I think he said this was inevitable. But maybe my memory fails and they are going to correct me [:)]

The Japanese recon planes flying over the USSR has to be normal, I think.

I think recon is permissable - but PLAYERS may decide otherwise. You can say "if I see any plane I will regard us as at war." Problem is - then you have to go to war - probably at the wrong time. I don't think it is worth it. You CAN shoot em down. Set your CAP at very high altitudes!