CHS version 3.0

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Here's something that I'm finding out about the current CHS.

The extra bitmap slots that show upgrades DO change as the upgrades progress.

Mostly Allied BB's, CA's, CL's, and DD's.

My own personal bitmaps now refect this.[;)]

Yes.
I've noticed the upgrade bms are in the 400 range. I've kept all those and opened up the whole number range from 400 - 499 to accommodate the 30 or so upgrades and have 70 more available for paint job mods.

[Halsey]

Cool, the hardest part will be finding corresponding graphics to represent the changes.

But then, you are the master.[&o][;)]

[Blackhorse]

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).
2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.
3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).

Even CHS 2.0.8 scenario 159 has problems with queuing up of damaged fighters for repair. The Nik Mod is worse. This may help.

2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.

Agree, but the resulting base sizes need to be checked.

3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.

Sounds good. I do have software skills.

[el cid again]

Note that Matrix formally proposed a uniform standard for art (not just ship art but also plane art if I am not confused) for CHS, RHS and stock. I referred the matter to Cobra - who does all RHS art and sometimes contributes to CHS art -
and he said that the proposal was approved. For reasons of waiting on the details from others, this work has taken some time. But it is formally planned to implement the new standard when it is wholly developed. Independently, just before the proposal was made, I had proposed and Cobra had agreed to revert to the Matrix art system where a bitmap number corresponds to a data slot number insofar as is feasible. We have already implemented this for aircraft.

RHS is a creature of CHS first of all, and all the art (and data) developed for RHS is always available for CHS - or any other forum user. Aside from downloading it from the RHS site or Sendspace addresses posted by Cobra, it is also possible to get anything of interest from me (data) or Cobra (art).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).
2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.
3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.

I have the names of all the American divisional commanders, if needed.??(Groundpounders only, not AAF)..

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

I'm willing to help with a CHS 3.0 project. I have no software skills. I can help with OOB and especially leader research -- I still think it is outrageous that the vast majority of general-grade "leaders" in stock are fictional.

Changes I favor:

1. BigB's A2A variant. (The effect, in practice, seems to be about the same as Nik's, and the data changes are "cleaner" -- don't have to mess with durability and flak).
2. Treespider's effort to (appropriately) reduce base sizes.
3. Adjusting aircraft ranges and incorporating ElCid's work on fuel tanks.
4. Persistently lobbying Matrix to disconnect supply/resource production (just call it a "bug"). Until this occurs, no one will be able to create a moderately accurate economic-logistics-shipping model for WitP. ElCid's "supply sinks" are a clever concept, but create much-discussed issues of their own, and the entire approach breaks down once a base is captured and the supply sink is eliminated.

Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
I have the names of all the American divisional commanders, if needed.??(Groundpounders only, not AAF)..

Thanks. The database for USA division commanders (and above) was scrubbed by yours truly and should be mostly accurate in CHS. There are still some anomalies I would like to correct -- for example, "General" Van Fleet is available at start. IRL, he was a Colonel in 1941, did all his fighting in Europe, and was eventually promoted to Major General and commanded the III Corps in 1945. He would have been available in late 1945 commanding ETO troops earmarked to participate in the invasion of Japan.

LCU leaders and HQ leaders are mutually exclusive in WitP. A workaround I used for division commanders who eventually commanded corps HQs was to designate them as HQ commanders, but start them in command of a division. Two drawbacks: 1. Once the general is removed from the LCU he can only ever command HQs. 2. Unless the player searches the database he has no easy way of telling which potenial corps commanders are currently commanding divisions.

Ideally, CHS would have an on-line manual tipping would-be players off to the effects of mods such as this -- or Andrew's rework of industry so India needs to import oil and supply at start.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.

All to the good. Additionally, I am skeptical but willing to be convinced of the benefits of the additional bases you've added on Mainland Asia, and especially the 5,000 AV guerilla bases and the airborne Chinese guerillas. The bases and airborne designation are clever workarounds to game engine limitations, but I'm concerned that they'll require even more house rules to prevent abuse (not to mention explanations for the first-time CHS player wondering how China developed the world's largest airborne army).

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
Ideally, CHS would have an on-line manual tipping would-be players off to the effects of mods such as this -- or Andrew's rework of industry so India needs to import oil and supply at start.

Mea culpa. There are a LOT of things that should be in the CHS docs but are not, such as the Allied industry changes.

Just to provide a small update. I am still getting my next map update prepared. I have completed the map art, but have yet to do the map data changes. Once that is done I can release the next map update (which will be version 6.5).

Then it will be back to the next CHS version, which is partly completed already as I have stated.

Andrew

[m10bob]

I wonder if every unit in the game will ever be given uniform speed measurement, and if it would be workable?(Knots, MPH,KPH,etc.)

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: treespider
Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.

All to the good. Additionally, I am skeptical but willing to be convinced of the benefits of the additional bases you've added on Mainland Asia, and especially the 5,000 AV guerilla bases and the airborne Chinese guerillas. The bases and airborne designation are clever workarounds to game engine limitations, but I'm concerned that they'll require even more house rules to prevent abuse (not to mention explanations for the first-time CHS player wondering how China developed the world's largest airborne army).

As I see it more places in China = more places that need to be garrisoned= more places the Japanese have to commit trrops to. Currently in any form of the game the Japanese player is able to create a sizable offensive army right from the very beginning that is not tied down because of the anemic garrison requirements.

The 5000 AV guerilla bases represent "relative" safe havens for the guerillas to retreat to should they choose to. Likewise the Guerilla bases will require a very substantial investment of time and resources to reduce by the Japanese should they choose to try and reduce the base.

In the current version of CHS 2.08 once the At-start Guerilla units are eliminated from the rear area in the first 1-3 months of the game they have no way of re-entering the areas where they historically operated. So yes the Chinese airborne units are a workaround given the limitations of the game....CHS already has a whole page of recommended house rules. How difficult would it be to say - Chinese airborne units may only operate in China.

If I had my preference the Chinese garrison values would be editable in the editor which would eliminate the need for the guerilla units altogether. I would keep all of the added bases however as they would then need to be garrisoned or the Japanese start to have supplies destroyed.

[argaur]

i´m going to start a new chs game.... some release date? should i wait? for how long?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Beren

i´m going to start a new chs game.... some release date? should i wait? for how long?

Don't wait, unless you are very very very patient, because the pace I am moving at is currently very slow indeed.

Andrew

[argaur]

OK, thanks

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: treespider
Most of these are covered in my mod...A2A weapon accuracy has been cut...Bases modified .....Aircraft ranges adjusted ....Aircraft rated in terms of knots ....and fuel tanks applied.

All to the good. Additionally, I am skeptical but willing to be convinced of the benefits of the additional bases you've added on Mainland Asia, and especially the 5,000 AV guerilla bases and the airborne Chinese guerillas. The bases and airborne designation are clever workarounds to game engine limitations, but I'm concerned that they'll require even more house rules to prevent abuse (not to mention explanations for the first-time CHS player wondering how China developed the world's largest airborne army).

As I see it more places in China = more places that need to be garrisoned= more places the Japanese have to commit trrops to. Currently in any form of the game the Japanese player is able to create a sizable offensive army right from the very beginning that is not tied down because of the anemic garrison requirements.

The 5000 AV guerilla bases represent "relative" safe havens for the guerillas to retreat to should they choose to. Likewise the Guerilla bases will require a very substantial investment of time and resources to reduce by the Japanese should they choose to try and reduce the base.

In the current version of CHS 2.08 once the At-start Guerilla units are eliminated from the rear area in the first 1-3 months of the game they have no way of re-entering the areas where they historically operated. So yes the Chinese airborne units are a workaround given the limitations of the game....CHS already has a whole page of recommended house rules. How difficult would it be to say - Chinese airborne units may only operate in China.

If I had my preference the Chinese garrison values would be editable in the editor which would eliminate the need for the guerilla units altogether. I would keep all of the added bases however as they would then need to be garrisoned or the Japanese start to have supplies destroyed.

You're forcing the Japanese to garrison bases that they don't have troops for?
Have the IJA forces been compensated so they can do it?

You should try the scenario yourself as the Japanese.
Not against the AI.
Anyone with either side can win against the AI.[;)]

I'm an AFB but, I don't want to play a scenario that isn't a challenge.

As it stands now, the old CHS scenario should have a majority of the India Command LCU's as static also.

The UK forces are as overpowering as the Chinese are.
They can retake Burma in 12/42 by shoving in the India Command units.

While the Chinese can stomp the IJA in China by 9/42, driving them back to the coast.

It makes the Japanese player reinforce Burma and China to unhistoric levels, just to stalemate these two areas.
Is your update going to alleviate this outcome?

[JWE]

Well, the CHS art is done (except for about 4 or 5 little bits); there are some various Aux minelayers, minesweepers, and coastal patrol boats, that I haven’t quite decided on yet, but once I get some good, ‘terminal’ (arrh arrh arrh) input from Kristian, Don, Joe, and Justin, these will take minutes to finalize. There ought to be enuf to satisfy any AFB.

The art is organized in accord with a J mod proposal, sent to Andrew, and numbered accordingly. The basis CHS 2.08 has some anomalous bit map pointers as well as some anomalous ship class characteristics, so I did not feel comfortable developing an art set for CHS per se. The CHS Pros From Dover can take what they need from the blank panels and renumber accordingly. A background panel will be included, so that the art will play with the Stock set and the CHS JP set.

I’m sending them to Andrew for hosting; don’t know if that will fly. If not, I’ll send to Monsieur le Spook. Anyway, enjoy. Panel 1 follows, other panels on subsequent posts.

[JWE]

Panel 2,

[JWE]

And, panel 3; oh, did I mention that the rest is generally compatible with the Stock Art Set?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Halsey



You're forcing the Japanese to garrison bases that they don't have troops for?
Have the IJA forces been compensated so they can do it?

Why?? They couldn't garrison everything IRL...and we currently see in evry game that i am aware of the japanese forming an offensive in china right from the start...instead of waiting for their forces to build as they did IRL. China needs to be a quagmire until 1944 when after having fought for three more years the Chinese are without supplies a sizable portion have defected to the Nanking side...then facing a Japanese offensive they crumble.

You should try the scenario yourself as the Japanese.
Not against the AI.
Anyone with either side can win against the AI.[;)]...

....I'm an AFB but, I don't want to play a scenario that isn't a challenge....

...While the Chinese can stomp the IJA in China by 9/42, driving them back to the coast....

In current version of CHS 2.08 I think I'm doing quite well with the Japanese against Spence in China...unrealistically so. And I don't think Dixon is in much danger from my Chinese in my game with him...

In the new China - Yes the Japanese have more bases to defend but the Chinese units have been stripped of engineers and Chinese support has been reduced. In addition the Japanese have received/ will receive some Nanking Army Units although they are very weak...

As it stands now, the old CHS scenario should have a majority of the India Command LCU's as static also.

The UK forces are as overpowering as the Chinese are.
They can retake Burma in 12/42 by shoving in the India Command units.

It makes the Japanese player reinforce Burma and China to unhistoric levels, just to stalemate these two areas.

Is your update going to alleviate this outcome?

Haven't really looked at the Indian Command units yet...