RHS 7.757 Errata

[el cid again]

A pretty clear idea. We have loaded a new ship art set - and it was based on a less than current art set - pretty obviously. This is a case where we were formally asked to adopt a standardized art scheme (for CHS, stock and RHS) by the lead WITP programmer - and I handed that over to artists - since I don't do art. It will be cleared up bye and bye after a review of the new art set.

Meanwhile we can probably get around it by downloading the previous art - confusingly listed as "EOS ship art" on the RHS site. [Confusingly because there is only ONE RHS ship art set - each scenario uses a subset of it - no scenario uses all of it] Testing this now. Then we will release 7.758

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

[The Dutch Marten 139/B10 bomber (slot 197) squadrons should be allowed to upgrade to the American version of the B-25C/D. The Mitchell III/B25 is not a suitable substitute because the production rate of 15 per month makes it unrealistic that the UK would provide these aircraft to the Dutch. The B-25C/D, which is available in great numbers, would clearly be available when surplus numbers are built up (perhaps as US units upgrade to later models).

This is a difficult matter. In fact, the reason production is 15 per month is to permit this upgrade. This was done specifically so that the Dutch could not easily upgrade - the politics are/were complex - and IRL it didn't happen. It should be difficult - and it is set this way to reflect that. There is also another political dimension: the US did not support Dutch colonial war aims. We dragged out feet on the Dutch Marine Brigade - and never did deliver it to the war zone - precisely for that reason. The British attitude about return of the colonial regimes was very different than the American attitude was. Yes - the Americans COULD provide the planes - but WOULD they provide the planes? IRL they didn't.

A good explanation. I buy it.

[witpqs]

Slot 955 - USAAF 11th Pursuit - Is a 24 plane squadron and equipped with a fighter aircraft, but is scheduled to upgrade to the JRM-1 Mars patrol plane.

[el cid again]

Wow. Well - like the Emily - the Mars is probably very hard to shoot down. With ten pairs of .50 cal guns,
it certainly is a porcupine. I will take a look. What you have not said is - in what scenario at what level? The JRM is not in all scenarios, however, so that is a clue. Might even be the cause - if a unit upgrades to something in that slot - and that slot changes in some different scenario - I might not have noticed.

EDIT: OK - this is inherited, kind of. The 11th Persuit upgrades to slot 165 in CHS - and it apparently never got changed. That should have changed when the P-38G moved to a different slot - but all editors don't update pointers properly - and in this case it has never changed. No one ever noticed either. It should upgrade to slot 135 in all RHS scenarios - IF CHS research is correct. Since I have the USAAF squadron listing - I will confirm that.

EDIT AGAIN: I do NOT confirm the CHS upgrade. It had the P-40 from 1942 to 1945. Upgrade should be to 140.

I took the opportunity to check ALL USAAF fighter unit upgrade paths for non-fighter aircraft. Found no other case. [Often a thing like this indicates others also point at the same wrong value, for example]

I did find Slot 2241 (311th Fighter) should be P-40E upgrading to 144 (P-47) vice starting at P-47. Its CHS arrival date is too early and in the wrong place: It appears at Brisbane 21 Nov 43 and should be SW Pacific Command.

I found slot 2244 (331st Fighter) should upgrade to P-51s - but does not.

[Never look at any part of the WITP data set if you are afraid of finding eratta]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. Well - like the Emily - the Mars is probably very hard to shoot down. With ten pairs of .50 cal guns,
it certainly is a porcupine.

FYI, in EOS 7.56 the JRM-1 Mars shows up as "Unarmed". In the database for 7.758 micro-release (latest) it is defined with only Radar.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wow. Well - like the Emily - the Mars is probably very hard to shoot down. With ten pairs of .50 cal guns,
it certainly is a porcupine.

FYI, in EOS 7.56 the JRM-1 Mars shows up as "Unarmed". In the database for 7.758 micro-release (latest) it is defined with only Radar.

Thats right. The JRM is the unarmed transport - of which only 5 were built IRL. There was also a different Mars - only one built IRL - a heavily armed patrol version. That is the one I thought you meant.

This is fixed in x.7591 update.

[witpqs]

Thanks, Sid. I'm not sure what your fix entails, so here is what else I just noticed (still present the most recent released version):

Two air groups are introduced with the JRM-1 Mars during 1942. There might be others later in '42 and later years - I don't know. They are:

Slot 1613 - USMC VMR-152

Slot 1643 - USMC VMR-253

I know (from your last post) that this aircraft is a hypothetical, but here's the problem. The plane begins production in 45-06 at 2 per month. The two per month sounds fine, but if it really begins in June of '45 then how do two units get the plane in '42?

[el cid again]

The fix entailed looking up Fighter Squadron 11, finding out its real upgrade, and setting it to that. I also checked ALL USAAF fighter units - and found two other upgrade errors (which, being fighters, were not terribly severe). One of those also had the wrong type of fighter to begin with.

Now JMR should be "fixed wing - marine - transport" so the type of unit is right. The Mars transport is present in all scenarios, but not in the same sense: in the BBO scenarios it get a lot higher priority - and indeed the patrol version is also made in numbers (vice Navy two and four engine land based bombers you get heavy two and four engine flying boats of several kinds). In the CVO set (which includes EOS) you get only a small number of the transports in 1945. This has to do with development investment priorities - as they originally were (BBO) or as they were amended (CVO).
It may not be that all things are in sync with this outline - but that is the plan.

EDIT: Slot 1613 is right in non EOS scenarios - it is a C-47 Skytrain which upgrades to a C-54.
It appears to be wrongly set to a JRM Mars in EOS - still upgrading to a C-54. This is not a classical editor error -
because it is not one position off - but a rarer type - the whole field is quite wrong.

Slot 1643 is similar but even stranger: it is wrong only in EOS Level 7 - not the other levels. In precisely the same way -
it is a C-47 which upgrades to a C-54 in 17 of 18 RHS scenarios - but a Mars upgrading to a C-54 in one. This is not yet addressed, but neither unit should have the Mars.

[witpqs]

For some reason, the unit CA Prince Rupert - slot 2753 has arrived in San Francisco (instead of in Prince Rupert, Canada). I say 'for some reason' because the record in the database looks fine to me. Maybe there is something wrong that I am missing? This is in EOS.

[el cid again]

CA = Canada

Prince Rupert should be stated Prince Rupert Fort

Looks like it works to me

[witpqs]

In EOS v 7.57, but still present in the latest micro-release (I checked the database):

Slot 2315 - USMC 2A Wing VF Sqdn - arrives 11/29/42 equipped with F4U1D-AU1D. The trouble is, that plane begins manufacturing in 05/44 (18 months later). I presume it's a typo and should be equipped with the F4U-1/AU-1, which begins production about a month after the unit arrives?

Slot 1584 - IAF No. 3 Squadron - arrives 07/15/42 equipped with Hurricane IV. But Hurricane IV begins production 06/43 (11 months later).

I noticed tankers (TK types) taking a very long time to repair. It turns out that large tankers have durability comparable to battleships. Some have durability even greater than battleships.

Tankers are still sinking fine, but repairs are very unrealistic. Doing a simple AA upgrade on a tanker will take several times as long as doing a major overhaul on a heavy cruiser. I think the word "Durability" might have gotten in the way here - the code is using that (so-called) durability setting for much more than the word implies.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: witpqs

In EOS v 7.57, but still present in the latest micro-release (I checked the database):

Slot 2315 - USMC 2A Wing VF Sqdn - arrives 11/29/42 equipped with F4U1D-AU1D. The trouble is, that plane begins manufacturing in 05/44 (18 months later). I presume it's a typo and should be equipped with the F4U-1/AU-1, which begins production about a month after the unit arrives?


REPLY: This happens when one is too historical and used historical types and dates without checking the game values. This is indeed a typo for the F-4U1 - and this unit seems to have had it BEFORE it was operational PTO. So we need to change the date to 1/43 or have it upgrade to the F4U - it also had F4Fs.

Since the unit existed on 11/30/42, I think we should assign it the FM-2 Wildcat (slot 90) and upgrade to the F4U-1 (slot 127)

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In EOS v 7.57, but still present in the latest micro-release (I checked the database):


Slot 1584 - IAF No. 3 Squadron - arrives 07/15/42 equipped with Hurricane IV. But Hurricane IV begins production 06/43 (11 months later).

is using that (so-called) durability setting for much more than the word implies.

Fit this unit with the Hurricane IIc - probably an editor generated error (one slot shifts are the classic symptom) - otherwise a typo.

These values are not scenario specific - in general Allied air units do not change with the scenario unless associated with a carrier.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In EOS v 7.57, but still present in the latest micro-release (I checked the database):


I noticed tankers (TK types) taking a very long time to repair. It turns out that large tankers have durability comparable to battleships. Some have durability even greater than battleships.

Tankers are still sinking fine, but repairs are very unrealistic. Doing a simple AA upgrade on a tanker will take several times as long as doing a major overhaul on a heavy cruiser. I think the word "Durability" might have gotten in the way here - the code is using that (so-called) durability setting for much more than the word implies.

This is quite intentional, and with the possible exception of repair time you note here, it is also right and proper. Note it also affects victory points. IRL a major tanker (a minor tanker is not a problem here) was treated as a strategic asset MORE valuable than an aircraft carrier and always MORE valuable than any battleship or cruiser. Staffs and flag officers put much more energy into positioning tankers for operations - or routing them for strategic movement of liquids - than they ever did into what laymen think of as operational management of naval units. In this case, my intention was to make tankers harder to sink - and I did this by multiplying their normal durability value for tonnage by four - representing a combination of compartments - most of which are tanks - and pumps - which mean a tanker can actually manage flooding and buoyant liquid transfer between compartments in a sense normal ships cannot. Tankers often took days to sink - not something I am seeing happen very often - but the effect has been as intended. Also - this helps make up for the fact repair is too fast - and repair of a tanker should not be as fast as a non-tanker - it is hard to get into those compartments - and when you do - it is hard to breathe properly. A messed up tanker is not easy to patch up in the sense of "put a new skin on that frame" techniques we use on AKs and even warships.

FYI I found that merchant ships and naval auxiliaries were inconsistently valued re durability. I rated a naval auxiliary as twice as hard to sink as the SAME ship in merchant service (due to extra manpower in the form of damage control parties and also extra fire fighting equipment and a few lesser things). I rated durability as a function of size, but not a pure linear function - in part to prevent very large ships from being unrealistically hard to sink. [Japan has an AK (Yamatama Maru) the size of the Queen Mary - and both are much bigger than any battleship - both in terms of displacement or in terms of above the waterline target area. But we don't what them to have too large a durability rating.] A graduate (with gold certificate - meaning perfect practical and written test scores) from the Long Beach Naval Base Damage Control School (which an ET should never have attended - but that is another story) - I have some grasp of these matters.

[witpqs]

I've been looking through past threads and I found some notes you wrote a couple of months ago. Along with what you just wrote I think that covers the situation.

The trade-off is that 'repairs' - like adding AA guns - that should be easy wind up being hard. But that's the code for the time being.