RHS - A few questions before I get started

[ny59giants]

I will be starting 2 PBEM's in the next few days after the newest patch comes out with the Allied production on map. Thanks Sid. [&o]

I have looked back to the beginning of the year in this thread section to get a better handle on some of the changes. The one, for now, is about ships up river. What are the restrictions for the sea going ships using the rivers?? I don't want to see KB launching at Dehli. [:D] Can I create barges in a river port?? Any link to a thread on this would be appreciated.

I thnk my plane art is not correct (some come up blank or incorrect). What did I do wrong??

My first game will be against John III using RHSCVO. The second will be Empire Ablaze against 1EyedJack. Is there a list of EOS files that I need to download and install (or a link to those specifically)??

Thanks for the assist. [;)]

[John 3rd]

I about to kick Michael's tail and would like more of a scenario description of the RHSCVO version.  Most of the manual focuses on on the newest scenario.  What are the changes regarding ship production?  Aircraft?  Some of this is hinted at but not too specifically.
 
Thanks.
 
 
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I will be starting 2 PBEM's in the next few days after the newest patch comes out with the Allied production on map. Thanks Sid. [&o]

I have looked back to the beginning of the year in this thread section to get a better handle on some of the changes. The one, for now, is about ships up river. What are the restrictions for the sea going ships using the rivers?? I don't want to see KB launching at Dehli. [:D] Can I create barges in a river port?? Any link to a thread on this would be appreciated.

RHS has divided rivers into two types: the type that always were in CHS (but never talked about much) - and there were so few and they were so short they only technically existed: external river systems (or waterways). Thus, Andrew Brown gave us the Inland Sea - and I think the Inland Passage by Vancouver Island - and later he added the Lower Yangtze (and probably others I forget). The only difference between these and RHS external rivers is their length: I let you sail ocean ships to Wuhan on the Yangtze - because they always could and can at this time. The Great Bridge (the farthest downriver) at Nanking was designed so the Queen Mary can bass below it - and a modern supercarrier can do the same. On an external river system, you might see a player send the KB way upstream - although neither AI nor any player I ever heard of ever has done so. There are tactical issues - but in principle rivers a mile or more across are just very narrow seaways. But Dheli is quite safe - because the Ganges/Bhramaputra river system is NOT an external one. It is Wuhan (a triple city in the heart of China) that isn't safe. One part of it can be bombarded by battleships - but while that never occurred - technically it could be done - even now. [Wuhan shipyard builds all the conventional submarines of PRC today - very deep draft large vessels - worse than surface ships in terms of draft requirements]

The other kind of river system is "internal" - a river system NOT connected to the sea. This type drives AI nuts - because it thinks it can send ships between regular ocean ports and internal river ports. It cannot. Neither can you. In the one AI oriented scenario (RHSAIO) - the internal river systems do not exist - so AI won't be confused. However, that said, these rivers are otherwise just micro seas - and you CAN create barges (or PT boats or a few wierd patrol vessels that I tricked the game by calling them AG) in these locations - and I recommend it. Internal river systems offer great advantages of a logistical and tactical sort - they are the fastest way to certain places for land units - and they permit flanking of enemy positions - as IRL. Some are big, some are small, some have micro navies on them, and all can be surpressed by diligent use of air power. At least two mattered in the historical campaign (the big triple Russian/Manchu Amur river system, and the Mandalay) - and were used with great effect. The rest MIGHT matter in a game world - depending on the situation. Some mattered historically for logistics - see the Yangtze, the Mekong, the river in Thailand, or the Ganges/Bhramaputra river system - which was the most important communiations route in India. And in most games these functions will exist even if they are not used operationally. Note that most internal river systems have SHIPYARDS on them - and ports big enough to repair vessels. So the "trapped" "navies" can be repaired (and have logical places to appear if they are built during the war). Not one of these shipyards is fictional either.

The problem with this divided system is that small vessels may not cross the line. While they should not cross oceans (although some indeed did that when they were delivered) - they are not really (usually) stopped hard at a line. [There is a wierd exception - the Mekong - divided into more than one river system - both internal - and they meet at a line that really is a line!!! It is a waterfall/rapids.] This is the nature of compromises - and on balance we have a very fine compromise here - implemented with great care and detail - each hex being studied. If we implement winter and monsoon maps, look for significant changes in the river systems in them.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I will be starting 2 PBEM's in the next few days after the newest patch comes out with the Allied production on map. Thanks Sid. [&o]

I thnk my plane art is not correct (some come up blank or incorrect). What did I do wrong??


Thanks for the assist. [;)]

You must not have the correct plane art. There are no blank plane art bitmaps in RHS! There are two different ones - standard and EOS. But the Allied art is the same in both sets - only the Japanese art changes between them. You can find the art on the RHS site. Or Mifune, WITPQS or Cobra - or I - can send it to you.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I about to kick Michael's tail and would like more of a scenario description of the RHSCVO version.  Most of the manual focuses on on the newest scenario.  What are the changes regarding ship production?  Aircraft?  Some of this is hinted at but not too specifically.

Thanks.

CVO is more or less CHS done to RHS standards/concepts. The change list - if there was one - would have thousands of lines - probably tens of thousands of lines! But most changes are very tiny and trivial ones: the date of appearence, the thickness of armor, the arrangement of AAA, the addition of MMG or light mortars, stuff like that. CVO - and its brother RAO - are attempts to recreate the historical war situation. CVO has Russians passive. Since this does not work very well - you can do CVO with them active - and that is RAO (Russian Active Option). RAO assumes you have intelligent human players able to grasp there is no war between Japan and Russia in 1941. It lets the Allied player move things - build (or not build) things - and be an equal partner to the Japanese in deciding when war DOES begin. Japan ALWAYS can invade Russia - but if it does not do so in exactly the right way - the Russians are still inactive!!! RAO prevents that ever being a problem. CVO (CHS, stock) - with passive Russians - mean you must watch helplessly as the Japanese build up a gigantic invasion force - and not move anything. They also forbid you to resupply outlaying bases by ship - but RAO permits it. In this sense, there are two different forms of CVO - CVO as such is for those who simply must have passive Russians - with all their disadvantages - and RAO is for those who can handle the concept of active but not bellegerent. [The ONLY reason there is a CVO is I could not convince some players that Russian active is the way to go - but it really is - there are many problems with passive Russians - including the entire submarine force cannot appear before 1945 - even if there is war!] The latter also get great uncertainty - no one knows just WHEN the war will start - just as IRL. That will keep the Manchu garrison in the North bigger - I hope. CVO and RAO lack some aircraft and ships found in other RHS variations - because the Japanese didn't opt to do them in a big way. Things should seem very familiar - in normal form - if you know history or do historical gaming. Ship names will correspond to what you remember rather than be recast in a different form. Generally, a ship that can appear as a carrier does so - Shinano is a CV, Ibuki is a CVL, stuff like that. Most ships of that sort will not convert to the other kind (as they will in EOS) - you are "stuck" with Ibuki as a CVL even if you want it as a CA. [And you may go the other way by using BBO - there Shinano appears as a BB, Ibuki as a CA, etc. There is even a Russian passive form of BBO - for those who just must have passive Russians: RHSRPO]. As to what "changes" exist, it depends on what your reference point is? Production is a function of what happened IRL - in CVO family scenarios most of all. [BBO is based on the war as planned - before the war and in 1942 - and is probably more historical insofar as it is more likely things would have been implemented that way in steel - but CVO assumes the changes wrought by early battles really were made] If CVO differs from CHS, it is because we believe the "change" is more correct, or it is related to the greater number of units we have permitting us/requiring us to do it differently. Many RHS aircraft represent more than one model - and the exact details of that do "change" production somewhat. But the greatest "change" is the detail - RHS ships and land units are much more detailed than generally found elsewhere - with more elements - and more attention to how they work. Thus, where CHS might have AAMG facing "all" - RHS will have them facing Forward, Centerline or Rear - on different lines. Other changes are due to RHS defined standards: we have our own way to calculate durability and maneuverability for aircraft; we do ASW differently than other mods or stock: DC are combined into "shots" of the size of the pattern - no matter how many mounts/racks fire/drop them. And ships are classified according to how code works - thus a ship may be a DE that is not a DE in another mod or a naval reference - IF it is an ASW ship with active sonar that I want to have better ASW capability (because code gives DE the best ASW). Stuff like that.

[John 3rd]

Wow.  Sounds interesting.

I am a HUGE fan of the 'what might have been' school for Japan so I REALLY look forward to something like this.  I have a stock game that is in Oct 1944, my AAR Stock Game with Mandrake, a pair of 1.4 Big Bs and now this one.  That is an awful lot but I am getting a feel for the changes within the Stock and Variant Mods.

RHS is logical next step.  Thanks for taking to the time to answer my questions.

[el cid again]

For "what might have been" consider two options:

1) BBO family (BBO with active Russians, RPO with Russians passive, PPO with lots of political points - but many units not assigned to forward commands). These are based on what was planned pre war - and early in the war - before lessons learned at Coral Sea/Midway changed things dramatically - for both sides. I regard this as a very likely situation - naval investment is long term - you usually get stuck with what you ordered. More likely in fact than what did happen.

2) EOS family (EOS with active Russians, AIO with passive Russians, or in two days the new EEO). These are based on an assumption of better Japanese planning. EOS and AIO since July 1941 (mobilization) and EEO since the end of 1937. Both Allies and Japanese are stronger and have more "toys" in these scenarios.