RHS x.753 corrected eratta (report)

[el cid again]

HMS Warspite class definitions are wrong - and at least some of these class definitions are applied to ship files - in all 18 RHS scenarios.

Class 184 has the forward guns classified as "left side" guns.

Class 1406 has the forward and aft guns defined as 5.5 inch guns.

Both will be corrected - and applied to all ships that use the class definition - in a microupdate - which is NOT being released at this time.
This is a notice of the issue - and you can fix it by hand if you like. We are not going to issue an update for every single eratta. But we will collect them - give notice of them - and eventually issue them. With this much data information theory says there will be errors - no way around it. We will correct them in due course.

[Herrbear]

Thank you for posting it this way so we can make our own changes as many of us change parts of your mod to changes things ourselves.

[el cid again]

I is my intention to post all unincorporated errata between updates - to this end - and for anyone wanting to use pure RHS without the eratta.
Also the errata often apply to CHS users - a major fraction of it being inherited - sometimes all the way from stock. Not having a copy of CHS with me (on a new computer 1200 miles from home) I didn't check this particular one to see if it is in CHS.

[el cid again]

Location 2108 Soviet Tank Brigade Device Number 8 should be 403 vice 80 (land .50 cal AAMG vice naval .50 cal AAMG).


This device will work properly in a unit - but there is no production or replacements for it.

[el cid again]

Scenario 62 RHSBBO ONLY

Location 192 Western Air Command (Canadian) is missing

[el cid again]

The problem of the RIN command appearing as Japanese remains present even if the slot is changed. This is a true mystery,
but a workaround is to change it from India Command to UK Southeast Asia Command. I am doing this - and changing back to
Location 189 (from 198) - but not yet releasing an update.

[el cid again]

Air Group 100 (87th Independent Chutai) in EOS (all Levels) is wrongly assigned to the Kwangtung Army command.

It should be assigned to the 4th Fleet.

[Buck Beach]

[quote]ORIGINAL: el cid again


Class 1406 has the forward and aft guns defined as 5.5 inch guns.

[quote]


What size guns should they be?

[Bliztk]

Weapon ID 026: 15in/42 UK Mk I Gun

[m10bob]

I found an American ML on the West coast in 1941 with an observation plane. This plane upgrades to a Ventura night fighter!
RHSCVO.

[Buck Beach]

Thank you Bliztk.

[el cid again]

Ship slot 3217 USS Vincennes sunk date should be 420809 in Scenarios 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75

Ship slot 7833 Empire Avocet sunk date should 420929 in Scenarios 71, 72, 73 & 74

Ship slot 7882 Herstein sunk date should be 420120 in Scenarios 70, 71, 72, 73 & 74

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Class 1406 has the forward and aft guns defined as 5.5 inch guns.

What size guns should they be?

15 inch - this is normal for a WWI British Battleship. In this case, device 26.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I found an American ML on the West coast in 1941 with an observation plane. This plane upgrades to a Ventura night fighter!
RHSCVO.

This is a bit too undefined to prosecute: we have neither name nor ship slot number to look at - nor the type of aircraft.
There was at one time a problem of this sort - and it may be it is still a problem in a scenario. We don't even know the Level
involved here. If it is identified we can look at it - but there are about 260,000 fields - so a little more information is needed.

This problem pretty well had to involve one of two US floatplanes. It need not be in the aircraft data - and I found no such case.
But I DID find a case where the floatplane upgraded to a PB4Y (B-24) ! I forced all air units to look like aircraft data in all Level 7 scenarios on principle - so we do not have to find the individual unit to fix it. It must be fixed (unless you were not in Level 7). But this is an unreleased fix.
I will release all this eratta at one time - probably in 1 to 3 days - whenever eratta reporting dies out.

I went on to check Levels 5 and 6 as well:

RHSRAO (all levels) had aircraft slot 160 (Seagull) upgrading to PB4Y. This is typical - it is a one slot slippage of the field - and Matrix editors do that a lot. It should upgrade to itself (160).

Scenarios 52, 53 and 55 had aircraft slot (Seagull) upgrading to the Mars Patrol plane. It should upgrade to itself (160).

I forced all air units to look like the parent aircraft with respect to these observation planes.

[witpqs]

In EOS 7.741 I have noticed two Australian air units equipped with the ROC SB-2. The units are:

slot 1502 RAAF No 32 Squadron

slot 1481 RAAF No 7 Squadron

[el cid again]

Both units are equipped with the Hudson at source. I do NOT confirm this problem - so you have somehow got incorrect air group files. I have one air group update above - so air group files will update with the next update - even if it is a micro. You also can set them to Hudson yourself.

[witpqs]

In EOS 7.741, the USS Saratoga air group starts the game as:

USMC VMF-221 with 15 aircraft
USN VB-3/VS-3 with 36 aircraft
USN VT-3 with 12 aircraft
==============================
Total = 63 aircraft, which is well below the carrier's capacity (the way things normally start).

Very early in the game (within the first 2 or 3 months), a resize occurs that yields:

USMC VMF-221 with 24 aircraft
USN VB-3/VS-3 with 16 aircraft
USN VT-3 with 13 aircraft
==============================
Total = 63 aircraft. This resize is supposed to bring the carrier air group up to full strength, but you can see it is still well below the carrier's capacity.

For comparison, note that the Lexington's air group after the same resize is x24-x16-x16-x13. The Lexington starts the game with four squadrons, while the Saratoga is starting with three.

It seems that the game engine's resize code really wants to have there be two dive bomber squadrons on the US fleet carriers until it decides to combine them into one (larger) group.

[witpqs]

I will open the scenario under the latest version and confirm that it's not an issue. Thanks.

[el cid again]

Location slot 2998 the HMG should be device 403 (vice 80)
Most of these locations also the MMG should be device 404 (vice 76)

Same for Location 3021, 3060, 3103, 3133, 3133, 3152, 3164, 3182

Slots 1550 to 1563 produce error checker errors but are not errors. These have a device that is too high to produce
or replace. But in fact these are old guns, there are no spares, and it is perfect simulation to use them in this way.
In general, high slots are used in RHS for devices that should not produce or replace.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In EOS 7.741, the USS Saratoga air group starts the game as:

USMC VMF-221 with 15 aircraft
USN VB-3/VS-3 with 36 aircraft
USN VT-3 with 12 aircraft
==============================
Total = 63 aircraft, which is well below the carrier's capacity (the way things normally start).

Very early in the game (within the first 2 or 3 months), a resize occurs that yields:

USMC VMF-221 with 24 aircraft
USN VB-3/VS-3 with 16 aircraft
USN VT-3 with 13 aircraft
==============================
Total = 63 aircraft. This resize is supposed to bring the carrier air group up to full strength, but you can see it is still well below the carrier's capacity.

For comparison, note that the Lexington's air group after the same resize is x24-x16-x16-x13. The Lexington starts the game with four squadrons, while the Saratoga is starting with three.

It seems that the game engine's resize code really wants to have there be two dive bomber squadrons on the US fleet carriers until it decides to combine them into one (larger) group.

OK - strictly speaking this is not related to eratta. It is also not something we can fix - theoretically. It is hard code that carriers resize. Matrix has in fact "fixed" this - and you can read about it in a thread. And I find it is no longer going to overfill the ship.

BUT - knowing that this is an issue - I have taken two steps - which require player understanding and action:

a) NEVER allow your carriers to resize - period. Stay out of a command port at any date that might be eligable (see the comments by Mike Wood about when).

b) IF you make a mistake - RHS now has filled CVEs with air units and deck ratings that will "resize" to the normal sizes you need for your big ships - transfer em in. I gave you land based naval air groups on CVEs - particularly those that sometimes DID go to sea - on ships that usually would be transports only. So you have lots of choices.


Finally let me say the numbers above do not add up - and so I am somewhat confused. But what code does I cannot fix - at least not without intelligent player help. You need to understand the resize code and work around it - either by avoiding it - or by changing air units.