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

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I have yet to see a single auto-convoy originate from the South Atlantic base..I have intentionally sent more AK's and tankers there, trying to determine if it might be related to number of ships available.(A larger "target" might be easier for the auto-convoy "AI" to "see"??
If indeed auto-convoy point of origination can be created, why not create them at certain river cities, (in a smaller way,of course), like maybe Chung King?
BTW, what I read about those "Independent companies" in coastwatcher memoirs I re-read lately, led me to believe the one in Guadalcanal was not especially trained as an offensive military unit, as much as a guerilla warfare unit.
They did not oppose the initial Japanese landings, but "retreated hurriedly" into the jungle, and apparently laid low to begin a semblance of hinderance activities later, till evacuated.
If I have this wrong, I can re-read the passages I refer to. (It was either in LONELY VIGIL by Walter Lord, or COASTWATCHERS by Eric Feldt.....)
Both are excellent accounts of an important group of men and women.

When you face a major enemy (compared to you) you should not offer battle. I did that once - faced a battalion with a squad - but it was a very special case - and I don't recommend it. [Also - I cheated - and had an Allied squad of militia in support]. Information is the main thing a small unit can contribute - and that is very worth doing.

For a long time auto convoys could not originate at Capetown or Stanley or South Atlantic Entry Point. PWHEx issues.
Now they can. They seem to - later in the war.

Why cannot you create a convoy where you want to?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Sid,

A couple of questions/comments/request for clarification:

1. It stands to reason that if a couple of PCs or SC are lumped together as a single unit then a single enemy munition could destroy the entire group. E.g. if a Betty manages to drop a torpedo which hits one of the two-PC groups then wouldn't both PCs be considered to have been sunk by that single torpedo?


REPLY: The two ship group has twice the durability of the single ship element. I review the durability value - decide what it is for one - then double it. Further - I put weapons in groups PER SHIP - so you never take out all the weapons with one hit - just all of that facing on one of the ships.

2. Have you changed the durability of the ship units to account for the fact that you are lumping two ships together betimes?

REPLY: Yep

3. I suggest that you do not lump DEs into two-ship units as by war's end Japan will be forced to rely on DEs etc in surface combat and AAA roles and I'm not convinced that the two-ship TFs won't unbalance surface combat results.

REPLY: I am not convinced that by war's end surface combat is a viable activity. Everyone on both sides in 1945 thought otherwise. I bet they were right. Since the main job of a DE is ASW - and since Japan will face the biggest sub campaign ever in 1945 - why should they not be configured for that mission?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Not one was ever armed to hunt submarines nor operationally employed in such a role.

Thanks. I agree that their DC's should be deleted immediatedly.

18 vessels are listed in CHS and RHS - of which 12 are no problem = 6 each at Manila and Pearl Harbor serving as MS - we can reclassify these into 2 ship units without an issue.

4 others should "disappear" - serving as tugs which we do not show in WITP: Kingfisher at Pago Pago, Oriole at Dutch Harbor, Robin at Johnston Island and Seagull at Lahiana. Alternatively, we could classify them as gunboats - a role this class was successfully able to perform during the war.

You told us you that status on 7 Dec 41 is most important. I have info that reclassification to tugs were on June 42. So these ships should be retained as MSW. But if you chose otherwise, 11 ships (not 4) should be made PG's, as they all were made tugs on June 42: Bobolink, Grebe, Kingfisher, Oriole, Rail, Robin, Seagull, Tern, Turkey, Virero, Woodcock.

I looked up each ship record. There were 6 independently deployed - and I looked up each one. One was an AV - and we can do an AV - and it has a unique ability too - so I did it that way. [ It can CARRY a seaplane - but it loses its after gun ] Only one of the other 5 was nominally a MS - but it was not being used that way. It was being used as a sort of coast guard patrol vessel - to enforce maritime law and patrol the coast of Guam. The rest were all classified as tugs 20 years before - and RECLASSIFIED as "old tugs" in 1942. Some additional vessels were by then also rated as old tugs.
Others were lost - hard to say what would have happened to them? Still others were given somewhat better AA - apprently the guns were unshiped in favor of 40mm and 20mm AAA. I cannot do more than one thing to any class slot - so I went that way - these vessels will upgrade their AA if you allow it- and remain MS. You end up with 12 MS (in 6 two ship units), 5 gunboats (PG) and 1 AV. It might be useful to get eyes out in some situation. If not - you can let it convert to a gunboat as well. I also corrected range and crusing speed for all.

[CobraAus]

so I will abort x.657 and go directly to x.658 with these two changes.

all the multi MSW ship art is now done and sent to you 5 min ago you might want to fold into Vx658 as well - changes to map art should also follow in 2 - 3 days

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Definely not Kingfisher - from DANFS:

Assigned to the Train Force, Pacific Fleet, Kingfisher departed Hampton Roads, Va., 9 August 1920 for the West Coast. Arriving San Diego 3 October, she began duty as a fleet tug and minesweeper. Over the next 19 years fleet maneuvers and supply, towing, and minesweeping operations sent her to the East Coast, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Canal Zone, and Hawaii. During the summers of 1933, 1934, and 1935 she supplied naval ships and bases in Alaskan waters for the Aleutian Islands Survey Expedition.

Departing San Diego 4 October 1939, she sailed to Pearl Harbor for duty with the Base Force, Hawaiian Detachment. Arriving 19 October, she towed target rafts and conducted gunnery and minesweeping exercises until sailing for Samoa 26 October 1941. Kingfisher reached Tutuila 5 November and was on station duty 7 December when hearing of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Oriole - there is not any info in DANFS about any reclassification.

Robin:

On 7 December 1941 Robin was en route to Hawaii from Johnston Island. She arrived at Pearl Harbor on the 10th and until the end of February 1942 served as a salvage and minesweeping vessel.

Only Seagull started the war as not-MSW. I hope you didn't overreacted and did not delete ships which clearly should be in game.

I obtained records from something called "The Splinter Fleet Association" - sailors of wooden MS and PC and such like - who feel their vessels records are somewhat slighted in the major publications available.

I also have a technical problem: any single vessel cannot be a MS in RHS terms - because it cannot do a sweep. It takes two to tango as it were. [Now it can use paravanes - but so can any ship - and paravanes do not turn a ship into a minesweeper. My 10,000 ton APA had paravanes, but no one considered it to be a MSW!] I had two options for single vessels: take them out (they are so minor - and it frees a ship slot - this is a good idea) - or treat them as PG. Since they are usually in places where there is almost nothing else - I regarded that as a better idea. They can be "eyes" - and they can argue with merchants, raiders, or surfaced subs. More fun than nothing. Since a number of this class DID serve as PG - this preserves the "flavor" of the real history as well.

Since the class was designed as dual function MS and tugs - classification may not mean much. They may all have been able to be sweepers. Even if the sweeps were removed (which I bet they were) - it would not be hard to put them back.
Essentially, it is a question of "do you carry the sweeping cable? or not?" Slightly more complicated than that, but boiled down to the lowest level, that would be the difference. I consider the PG versions not to have embarked sweeps - and not to be able to sweep even if they were because there is no other vessel to take the other end of the sweep. In game terms, they cannot sweep because they are not in a pair, and lack the gear. And in compensation, they carry more ammunition, and can shoot longer - useful for a gunboat.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

so I will abort x.657 and go directly to x.658 with these two changes.

all the multi MSW ship art is now done and sent to you 5 min ago you might want to fold into Vx658 as well - changes to map art should also follow in 2 - 3 days

Cobra Aus

Do any of these change bitmap numbers? If not - they will not change any file - just dump in the art folder.

[CobraAus]

Do any of these change bitmap numbers?

only 1 its in the cover notes on the e-mail

Cobra

PS hard work has its rewards - took a break this afternoon and went to my club -in 5 mins I had won $2000 so came back home and back to work again

[el cid again]

Level 6 files slightly modified to x.658 standards uploaded - these require a new art package from Cobra to safely run.
They will show Allied MS in pairs - wether or not they really are in pairs. Over time all Allied MS will convert to pairs - as eventually will PC as well. Japanese (and Soviet) MS and PC already are. One day maybe we will do this for DEs and other MS vessels. Technically speaking, ships cannot sweep alone - only in pairs.

I also have uploaded a copy of the 6.655 level pwhex file which works - so no changes are required. I will use this to make a full pwhex package tomorrow. [Thanks to Herrbear] We don't have a Level 5 copy that works yet later than 5.541.

I also have uploaded an economic utility that is at 6.658 standard - reflecting changes in the Eastern DEI - and also correcting a technical issue that prevented all UK/CW statistics from totalling properly.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I obtained records from something called "The Splinter Fleet Association" - sailors of wooden MS and PC and such like - who feel their vessels records are somewhat slighted in the major publications available.

People who tries to remind things which happened 40 years ago are not a source at all. DANFS is a source. You seem to often use very doubtful information, which effects in weird things such as Uragan's in coast guard, Vnushitelny completed two years before it did histroically, etc.

Since the class was designed as dual function MS and tugs - classification may not mean much. They may all have been able to be sweepers. Even if the sweeps were removed (which I bet they were) - it would not be hard to put them back.
Essentially, it is a question of "do you carry the sweeping cable? or not?"

I showed you they were practicing minesweeping during that time. So we need a common logic: was this possible with sweeps removed? No it wasn't. They still had their sweeps.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I have yet to see a single auto-convoy originate from the South Atlantic base..I have intentionally sent more AK's and tankers there, trying to determine if it might be related to number of ships available.(A larger "target" might be easier for the auto-convoy "AI" to "see"??
If indeed auto-convoy point of origination can be created, why not create them at certain river cities, (in a smaller way,of course), like maybe Chung King?
BTW, what I read about those "Independent companies" in coastwatcher memoirs I re-read lately, led me to believe the one in Guadalcanal was not especially trained as an offensive military unit, as much as a guerilla warfare unit.
They did not oppose the initial Japanese landings, but "retreated hurriedly" into the jungle, and apparently laid low to begin a semblance of hinderance activities later, till evacuated.
If I have this wrong, I can re-read the passages I refer to. (It was either in LONELY VIGIL by Walter Lord, or COASTWATCHERS by Eric Feldt.....)
Both are excellent accounts of an important group of men and women.

When you face a major enemy (compared to you) you should not offer battle. I did that once - faced a battalion with a squad - but it was a very special case - and I don't recommend it. [Also - I cheated - and had an Allied squad of militia in support]. Information is the main thing a small unit can contribute - and that is very worth doing.

For a long time auto convoys could not originate at Capetown or Stanley or South Atlantic Entry Point. PWHEx issues.
Now they can. They seem to - later in the war.

Why cannot you create a convoy where you want to?

In the game, enemy controlled area evolves into a large "lister bag" shape on the map..The major flaw with auto convoy(as stated) has been the friendly AI continually wants to plod right thru tthat enemy area,(with the expected results.
Too, the pathway from Aden/Karachi to "refuel" at Pearl just makes no sense whatsoever as they just departed a major fuel dump, and with (what to me should be such a major error in-game for the auto convoy concept), maybe the auto-convoys should KNOW THEIR LIMITATIONS,(range-wise), and not venture into/beyond say, the middle third of the map,(that lister bag area)??
IMHO, the lanes you created for the South Atlantic areas might go a long way toward effecting a cure for this problem, especially when servicing the more southern points on the map.
If this only effects 1/3 of the auto-convoy ships, it would be a vast improvement on that system.

Of course we have the ability to create convoys anywhere we wish,(manually), but this defeats the idea I am addressing.
Why was Edison not content with candles?[:)]
I cannot offer the cure, just ideas..
I really believe your added "areas of origination" might be part of that solution.
I do not believe I am over-evaluating the concepts you have implemented to date.
Andrew Brown showed us how a stock "area of origination" could be stretched, or moved,and you may be showing how it might be multiplied.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I obtained records from something called "The Splinter Fleet Association" - sailors of wooden MS and PC and such like - who feel their vessels records are somewhat slighted in the major publications available.

People who tries to remind things which happened 40 years ago are not a source at all. DANFS is a source. You seem to often use very doubtful information, which effects in weird things such as Uragan's in coast guard, Vnushitelny completed two years before it did histroically, etc.

REPLY: Possibly a poor example. I used Conways - which is not "someone trying to remember things which happened 50 years ago" - and in any case - the splinter fleet association does not do that either. They simply make available more records than you can find in a normal source with a focus on larger ships. But IF that were the case - anyone interested in history should PREFER the eyewitness to the academic version. I can tell you things about naval warfare in the Cold War and Viet Nam in no referene - admitted in no official source - which are quite true. SLAM taught "if we want to know the truth, we need to ask those who know the truth, and not work via secondary sources." Compared to what an eyewitness knows, even a formal record can be wrong. Not a few things get into logs and reports which are incorrect. These are important indicators - not garantors of gospel. And note that a reference book is not a log or a report - nor generally derived by reference to them. And here you have confused my using a reference book with using an eyewitness. I did it your way - but still got the heat for not! Nice job.

Since the class was designed as dual function MS and tugs - classification may not mean much. They may all have been able to be sweepers. Even if the sweeps were removed (which I bet they were) - it would not be hard to put them back.
Essentially, it is a question of "do you carry the sweeping cable? or not?"

I showed you they were practicing minesweeping during that time. So we need a common logic: was this possible with sweeps removed? No it wasn't. They still had their sweeps.

REPLY: You did not show that - and you do not know that. A cryptic line in a brief history like DNFS does not tell you that on a certain date a sweep was embarked. Nor are you understanding that it is not germane: if it was embarked - it could not be used by a single sweeper in the effective way (that is - a wide sweep towed by two ships). You could tow both ends from the same sweeper - but our code would not know you were doing this - it would not divide by 10 (or whatever) the effectiveness - and it would mislead to classify it as a MSW. It is for TECHNICAL reasons I am not classifying as a MS - even if it was so fitted. Because I am introducing a reform - MSW work in pairs IRL and - now - in RHS.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

[Of course we have the ability to create convoys anywhere we wish,(manually), but this defeats the idea I am addressing.
Why was Edison not content with candles?[:)]
I cannot offer the cure, just ideas..
I really believe your added "areas of origination" might be part of that solution.
I do not believe I am over-evaluating the concepts you have implemented to date.
Andrew Brown showed us how a stock "area of origination" could be stretched, or moved,and you may be showing how it might be multiplied.

What I cannot do is change the number of British Exit Points slot wise. I have taken one of them and given you more ways to reach it - from both map edges in fact. But it is still only two slots. Similarly, there is only one PH slot. IF that is the auto convoy refuel point - I can put it anywhere - but only one anywhere. It might have other impacts too. Assuming it does not - or we can live with them - where should that somewhere be? My first guess is Melbourne. Cobra's was Columbo.

[I did create more entry points - not only for units but for supplies - but this is pretty technical and minor in most cases. The only significant change is that such points on the ship track can enter on either East or West map edge. Very soon you will get this in stock - not with shipping tracks but by off map holding boxes. Matrix is not done developing WITP I - has not decided to fund WITP II yet - and might itself reform auto convoys]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

[Of course we have the ability to create convoys anywhere we wish,(manually), but this defeats the idea I am addressing.
Why was Edison not content with candles?[:)]
I cannot offer the cure, just ideas..
I really believe your added "areas of origination" might be part of that solution.
I do not believe I am over-evaluating the concepts you have implemented to date.
Andrew Brown showed us how a stock "area of origination" could be stretched, or moved,and you may be showing how it might be multiplied.

What I cannot do is change the number of British Exit Points slot wise. I have taken one of them and given you more ways to reach it - from both map edges in fact. But it is still only two slots. Similarly, there is only one PH slot. IF that is the auto convoy refuel point - I can put it anywhere - but only one anywhere. It might have other impacts too. Assuming it does not - or we can live with them - where should that somewhere be? My first guess is Melbourne. Cobra's was Columbo.

[I did create more entry points - not only for units but for supplies - but this is pretty technical and minor in most cases. The only significant change is that such points on the ship track can enter on either East or West map edge. Very soon you will get this in stock - not with shipping tracks but by off map holding boxes. Matrix is not done developing WITP I - has not decided to fund WITP II yet - and might itself reform auto convoys]

If you are able to move the single fueling point from Pearl,(which I strongly see as the crux of the auto-convoy problem), my vote is for Melbourne also, (as was a prior thread suggestion.)
Nearly ANYPLACE in the southern hemisphere, while not historical, would be a darned sight more practical..
It would also force us to keep Melbourne fuel supplied by those manual tanker convoys from Aden and San Diego.
An alternative to Melbourne might be Auckland?

[CobraAus]

An alternative to Melbourne might be Auckland?

to keep distance balanced and as Melbourne is tucked away south Aus so to speak I would go for either Sydney or Brisbane as the refuel point - But I have a feeling (cant prove it)that the Pearl Harbour slot may be a loaded gun and moving may have unforseen consequences
but wont hurt to try and test.

m10bob if you are running an auto convoy out of San Fran in one of your save's check for me and see if refuel is Pearl or San Fran - if Pearl then there is only one refuel point - if San Fran we would be in luck and have two points then moving the Pearl Harbour RFP could be further west and not Aus to cater for the Aden Auto convoys

Cobra Aus

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

An alternative to Melbourne might be Auckland?

to keep distance balanced and as Melbourne is tucked away south Aus so to speak I would go for either Sydney or Brisbane as the refuel point - But I have a feeling (cant prove it)that the Pearl Harbour slot may be a loaded gun and moving may have unforseen consequences
but wont hurt to try and test.

m10bob if you are running an auto convoy out of San Fran in one of your save's check for me and see if refuel is Pearl or San Fran - if Pearl then there is only one refuel point - if San Fran we would be in luck and have two points then moving the Pearl Harbour RFP could be further west and not Aus to cater for the Aden Auto convoys

Cobra Aus

Refuel is Pearl, always has been, from vanilla on..No rhyme nor reason to that, my friend.....

[el cid again]

A wholly revised pwhex.dat for Level 6 is now uploaded. It implements changes near Celebes and the Eastern DEI / Solomans area. It has all the revisions from before and the few new additions. A whole set will follow.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: CobraAus
to keep distance balanced and as Melbourne is tucked away south Aus so to speak I would go for either Sydney or Brisbane as the refuel point - But I have a feeling (cant prove it)that the Pearl Harbour slot may be a loaded gun and moving may have unforseen consequences
but wont hurt to try and test.

Given the propensity for the WitP code to use hard coded slot numbers for various purposes, I was thinking the same thing - using the PH base slot for another location may end up confusing the AI in other ways.

I also agree with Cobra that there is only one way to find out - give it a go and see what happens.

Andrew

[el cid again]

Cobra found a bad art pointer - a PC was pretending it was a CA!

I set out to find more among the minor vessels - and found half a dozen (not quite as glaring) eratta.

There is a debate about airfield size, and I have re-rated a couple of fields.

There is a problem with respawning Soviet naval units - they appear in Central Asia. I tried to change the submarines into PT boats - and have them (and any other respawned naval units) appear at Vladivostok - by slot manipulation.

I thought that we had to redo pwhex. I decided to get Celebes completely right - and set out seeking more issues to include. Panama was a mess - possibly inherited from CHS - except for the rail line nothing was right. I added minor ferries to Samoa and some Japanese and Dutch islands - for which Cobra has released (or soon will release) map art. I have a new theory of pwhex coding - which Andrew thinks is wrong - so I have not coded it everywhere - but only a few places - to see. Good chance it changes nothing at all - but if it does change things - it means units will retreat under control of the modder better (that is, the modder can decide "they would retreat along the coast, not go inland" sort of thing).

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Panama was a mess - possibly inherited from CHS

Can you please verify that, and let me know what the "mess" possibly in CHS is?

I have a new theory of pwhex coding - which Andrew thinks is wrong

Hmmmm. Another correction required - firstly the "new theory" you talk about is not new, or a theory. It is a reversion to the way the map data file was coded before it was changed in WitP patch 1.6. Secondly, I did not state that it was wrong. I stated that it was a reversion to the old way the map data was coded.

Andrew

[CobraAus]

Flash Traffic please put PWHEX v6.659 on hold till I hear back from Sid I think I have found a major problem while looking at anothe problem for some one !!!

should not be too long I hope

Cobra Aus