Last minute RHSCVO errata, Ver 7.xx

[m10bob]

1. The Kingfisher planes on Omaha class CL s upgrade to Mustang F6 recon planes.
(I just corrected in my game by turning off the upgrade option for that plane on that ship.)

2. The CV Langley starts the game with planes aboard,(they were small scouting seaplanes in my game), but once off-loaded, they cannot reload with other planes. Is this intentional?..IRL of course the ship was being used to ferry P 40's....
I tried to reload with planes using both "transport" and then "air carrier" type missions.

[el cid again]

The production model is difficult for the Allies - and I did set some things to upgrade for production reasons. Players should NEVER permit automatic upgrades - the Allies are never played by AI either - so it won't mess up (Japan is set for AI in AIO). Never upgrade by accident - monitor your units and pools and upgrade intelligently. I tried to get the production numbers right - and also to save slots - because I wanted production near the map edge - and there are too many plane types.

In spite of this, I have compromised on the Kingfisher: newer editions have it not upgrade - hurting the production of the F6. It seems this particular compromise, done the other way, bites too often. What I did was have the F-5B/C Lightining upgrade to the F-6. That means you will no longer get any more F-5s after the F-6 starts production - and you might have pool problems in the long run - forcing some units to upgrade to other recon planes. This is better than producing too many - and you will get the right number for each scenario.

[el cid again]

Langley is an interesting case: it was the very first "CV" in the USN. It was not a happy ship in terms of air operations - and it was no longer used in this role by WWII. Instead, it was a sort of seaplane carrier. It is classified as an AV in CVO and EOS families - and as a CS in BBO family. Technically it should be a CS in all IMHO - but that was the will of the forum. It has seaplanes on board - because it DID have seaplanes on board! It won't let you transfer other planes on board because that is the sort of ship it is.

Now if this isn't confusing enough - there is ANOTHER USS Langley that IS a carrier - it starts with carrier planes - and it is a CVL. Later in the war.

[mlees]

USS Langley was converted from the collier Jupiter.

Small, unable to exceed 20 knots. More of a concept ship than a fighting unit by the 30's.

[mlees]

USS Langley, after conversion to a seaplane tender (AV-3):

[mlees]

USS Langley, sinking, 27 Feb. '42:

[mlees]

An Independence class CVL (converted from the CL-85 Fargo) was renamed USS Langley, and commissioned in August, '43.

As for why the embedded aircraft may not be allowed back onboard ingame, it may be that somehow, the unit resized and won't fit. It may also be that the A/C unit adopted a restricted command...

[el cid again]

Good bet - that last. Langley is in Manila - and so if they went ashore in range - they were in a restricted command.

[m10bob]

Since it was at last, used to ferry P 40's, what type of ship would allow it to ferry aircraft as a main function?
Is there such an animal?.If so, there are certainly other ships which this applies to.

[el cid again]

I just ran tests. No ship type works. Too bad: AV and CS should BOTH work as ferries. Japan did that all the time, and US sometimes (as here).

It WILL let you ferry seaplanes however.

We COULD classify it as an AK - and that would do it (but then I fear we cannot make seaplanes work and the AV function - which is her MAIN function in WWII - transport was a special mission). You could put planes on board as cargo - humans only - AI won't unload aircraft due to a bug for AKs. Or a CVL - but that surely would be abused - and still won't let the seaplanes work - or the AV function work.

No happy compromise available I see. Lots of ships will let seaplanes fly. Few will tend flying boats - her main job - so AV may be right. She could carry many seaplanes - but there are only a handful available - so CS does not make much sense (except in a BBO scenario with more seaplanes).

The fix is to make AV able to transport fixed wing. I wonder if Matrix might consider that?????

[wdolson]

If Matrix does make AVs capable of serving as aircraft ferries, the large numbers of AVs the Allies get could be put into use ferrying single engine aircraft.  That may give the Allies an extra advantage bringing planes to the front.

What if the Langly was classified as a CVE without aircraft ordinance?  The would prevent it being used for offensive missions.  Though I believe carrier capable fighters would still fly CAP from it.

Bill

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

If Matrix does make AVs capable of serving as aircraft ferries, the large numbers of AVs the Allies get could be put into use ferrying single engine aircraft.  That may give the Allies an extra advantage bringing planes to the front.

What if the Langly was classified as a CVE without aircraft ordinance?  The would prevent it being used for offensive missions.  Though I believe carrier capable fighters would still fly CAP from it.

Bill

Kinda gamey but what if they were made CVE's with a complement of 1 or 2 recon-type seaplanes?.Would the ship still be able to carry land-based planes and prevent them from taking off? Maybe the planes being carried should be set to either "training" or set another mission at "0"% (to prevent take-off)???
Gotta be a way.
Heck, in SPWAW I was able to replicate German Goliath robot tanks by fiddling with what the game provided..

[el cid again]

This is interesting.

FYI Japan invented the "Goliath" first - and it IS in RHS already. This is the real meaning of "electric" engineer regiments - they have wire or radio controlled micro demolition vehicles - invented in the 1930s in Japan. Goliath is similar - but a later concept - possibly an imitation. In CVO and BBO families there is only one such - and in EOS there are two.

I don't think a CVE will fly CAP if there is no aircraft ordnance. It should not.

The compliment of Langley was typically 4 seaplanes.

And a land plane on a CV of any kind will NOT fly. Only a carrier plane will fly. Further - there is no reason you could not fly off Langley - as she had catapults. It is landing (and handling) that would not work - except of course a seaplane will be able to land alongside. I wonder if a seaplane will work on a CVE????

[m10bob]

Sid, if you are thinking of re-working the Pwhex. file for RHS ver 7., please look at Bethel Alaska.
This city has a reported port size of "2", but convoys cannot be sent there as it is not listed as a "port".
Is Bethel an interior city on a river?

[el cid again]

Bethel is a fishing port and an export port for minerals of modest import. Its location is important as an airfield if the Aleutians are contested or held. It is the location of one of the few Alaska Territorial Guard battalions (eventually). I tried to make it a river port - and failed - seems the river there does not connect to the Yukon (although it probably did in the geologic past) - so turning the Yukon into an interior river was not practical. It should be rated as a port and not a base - and that is not a pwhex thing - but a location file thing - which I will fix.

Except I cannot fix it - it is a base already. Hmmm...

So it probably IS a pwhex thing - wrong coding of the hex itself - it must be coastal or the port won't work. The hex sides are right.

[m10bob]

I do not really think this is a problem whatsoever, just an observation..
In level 7 RHSCVO with the Allied aircraft production finally all "on map"(how innovative, guess it is now in the AE as well), I had turned off all "repair functions of planes in RD but left them on for the planes currently in use.
Did not see any harm in this, and really was not sure if any of this had to be turned on anyway, but by late February, I turned on a couple of "RD's" on planes I knew would be in production soon, just to see what might happen.
I cannot prove this caused it, but Douglas Dauntless 3/4 production ceased entirely,(much to my chagrin), and it became very noticeable at Pearl where one of my flattops had been waiting for fresh replacements for approx 10 days..
(I have them set for no replacements to prevent re-sizing, but on that 1st day back at Pearl, had been allowed to take in new planes till the then-stock was depleted..)
Once I realized no Dauntless planes were forthcoming, I turned off R&D and the very next turn, there was a brand new Dauntless 3/4 waiting for me!
In the meantime, a new unit of Dauntlesses scheduled to arrive with the planes did come in, but this was approx the same day my flattop arrived at Pearl, and since it came in as a new unit, I don't believe it drew from stock anyway.

Question: Should all of the aircraft production repair be turned off, and left off, for the entire game??

[el cid again]

Aircraft production center repair should be ON for any type NOT in R&D - but OFF for any type IN R&D. This means production will "ramp up" for new types at those centers - instead of start at full value.

I don't think production has anything to do with repairs at other centers. It has to do with die rolls - supplies - HI point pools - etc.