RHS EOS Questions

[1EyedJacks]

Hi el cid again,

When does the Ki-100 Tony become available? I can create a factory for it and I C it in the list of Japanese aircraft but I don't C it in the Aircraft Replacement Pool screen so I'm not sure when it's supposed to be available.

Is the Ki-44IIa Tojo really supposed to have a GV of 8 as stated in the Japanese aircraft window?

Is the A5M4/Ki-33 Cluade really supposed to have a GV of 14 as stated in the Japanese aircraft window?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi el cid again,

When does the Ki-100 Tony become available? I can create a factory for it and I C it in the list of Japanese aircraft but I don't C it in the Aircraft Replacement Pool screen so I'm not sure when it's supposed to be available.

REPLY: The Ki-100 does not appear in RHSEOS - although it used to - and it still appears in CVO and BBO families. It appeared in 1945. Instead you get the Ki-64 - in 1944. This looks exactly like a Ki-51 or Ki-100 - because it is exactly like them in terms of appearence. But burried inside the fusilage, behind the pilot, it has a second engine: you won't believe your eyes. Anyway - in EOS family you now get the Ki-64 in leiu of the Ki-100 - in the same slot - using even the same art - sooner - with better performance - but the same armament, tanks, etc.

Is the Ki-44IIa Tojo really supposed to have a GV of 8 as stated in the Japanese aircraft window?

REPLY: Yes it is. In RHS - all flavors - the Ki-44IIa has 4 x .50 cal hmg. And a .50 cal = 2 points (while a .30 cal = 1 point - making the British practice of using twice as many .30s become a wash - so you can engage in endless debate if you are better off with .30s or .50s? and the truth is - neither!).

Is the A5M4/Ki-33 Cluade really supposed to have a GV of 14 as stated in the Japanese aircraft window?

REPLY: An A5M4 normally has 2 x 7.7 (.30 cal) mmg - for a GV = 2 - and you will find it in that form in CVO and BBO family scenarios. However, IRL the A5M4 was used as a test bed for the 20 mm guns eventually fitted to the (then future) A6M2 Zero. The A5M4 prooved they were a tactical advantage. And in RHS a 20 mm Type 99 cannon has a GV of 7 - so 2x7 = 14 - and the value is indeed correct.

It is an RHS armament reform that aircraft guns are not rated by some seat of the pants system. Instead, the GV is proportional to the weight of shell, except at the bottom end, where a .30 is defined as 1 and a .50 is defined as 2. That .50 becomes base - and all other values are multiples of it. Note, however, that screen reported GV is not all there is to the story - nor is the base device effect all there is. You need to multiply this times accuracy - which is a disguised way to say "rate of fire" - and that is literally how it works. In this instance total firepower for the A5M4 = 2 x 7 x 24 = 336. In CVO and EOS it is 2 x 1 x 30 = 60. [You can see the cannon is better] And the Ki-44 II is 4 x 2 x 28 = 224 = which isn't bad either. Anyway - the original CHS (and WITP) data grossly understated the value of cannon - and paridoxically grossly misrepresented the value of mg as well. We fixed it - and now aircraft firepower is a function of ROF and weight of shell and number of weapon - just as it ought to be. [Until RHS a .50 was 150% the value of a .30 cal - and the near equality of 8 x .30s in RAF or 4 x .50s in USAAF is not apparent from that data. At the same time a 20 mm was worth only 133% of a .50 or 200% of a .30 cal - utter nonsense in terms of impact on a target aircraft.] We "calibrated" various things - including weapons and durability - and found we had to adjust durability values (using a K or constant) to get reasonable values - we now use a K = 2 value and the outcomes are in the right range statistically speaking.

Nevertheless, the values for maneuverability, durability and firepower are all calculated by completely different schemes in RHS - and take getting used to. In all three cases, the standards are not only defined, they are published, and they were evolved with considerable help/feedback from the Matrix Forum (which, in turn, is credited as the author of RHS - see the scen file where "author" = Matrix Forum RHS Team). A great deal of effort was put into not only defining standards, but to applying them consistently - whereas formerly aircraft data showed remarkably inconsistencies. Because of this, relative aircraft performance should be better in the RHS scheme: and it seems to be. [This should not be read to say RHS is the only WITP system to have achieved better relative aircraft performance: it was not even the first to do that: at least two other modders tried before we did - and there seems a consensus they succeeded as well.] The standard of the industry is to use "seat of the pants" values - and a noted game designer (with probably more designs than any other) named James F. Dunnigan writes that this is a better system than trying to be a "bean counter" using strict formulas. In his day computers were new and primitive, and software was not generally available to approach some of these matters - and he may even have been correct. But I was "spoiled" by access to million plus dollar systems with even more expensive USAF and NASA software - and I learned how to build numerical models that worked. Then along came Matrix and GG - who tried to use computers with far simpler algorithms than I believed possible - and since GG is a genius - he came up with idea after idea that almost worked (except for the problem of time to get the data right). All we are really doing is getting the data right for his model. To the extent we do that, it works!

[1EyedJacks]

Hi el cid again,

Thanks for the indepth discription of the fire power - that helps a lot. Right now in my EOS 075 that I downloaded on Thursday I have the Tony as part of the upgrade path for a Claude. Do you have a way to confirm this (I'm hoping you have a test-mod of the last version posted)?

I also see the Tony in the list of Japanese aircraft and can see it in the list of planes available to build on the factory screen.

I will check for the Ki-64 that yuo mentioned.

I'm just hoping that I installed everything correctly and didn't do something bone-headed <grin>.

[el cid again]

Possibly you are confused because Tony is the code name of the Ki-64! It actually IS the SAME airframe - the difference being there are two (contra rotating) propellers on the nose - something hard to see. I am sure it would have the same code name - although eventually it would be given a suffex. Maybe Tony III (if a Ki-61 I is a Tony I, a Ki-64 a Tony II).

I myself do not think in terms of code names - which do not always even exist. I think in terms of Japanese designations - so that is how I write.

I have just published in a thread (and uploaded) a list for RHSEOS giving all statistics - including RHS firepower values - for Japanese fighters. [CVO and BBO to follow after a few changes]