RHSCVO Level 7 Observations

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

Is there respawning in CVO? I just sank the Marblehead and Boise and I wonder if I will see them down the road.

no

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

In a stock game with DBs, when you fly them at targets in a high altitude they attack in strings of 9 (for the most part). When I attack around 9k I normally get DB groups of 3 planes.

My preference normally is to run the DBs so they attack in groups of three but I'm finding the AAA murderous over PH. Any suggestions in attaing smaller attack groups w/o getting creamed by flak?

Just curious - do the flak guns have an accuracy level? If we reduced the accuracy level a little of AAA guns what would be the effect on flak losses?

When attacking enemy shipping what was the standard doctrine with TBs and DBs? Was the intent to perform a High/Low attack with DBs and TBs to split the number of AAA guns and make them choose between DBs and TBs?

There is a difference between the game and real life

and we don't entirely know how the game works

but I have just learned a little about the AAA from Matrix

and I have learned some from testing.

The point is - what works in game terms is only loosely related to what works IRL. The game system is very, very, very simple - and for its simplicity it works remarkably well. But it does not do all we might wish. It will be slightly better in AE: apparently facing is not used in WITP I - and will be in AE for example. But in theory, what guns can shoot should matter! WITP I just assumes half of them can - a crude but not horrible assumption. [Sometimes ALL the guns can bear. Sometimes 1/3. Half is in between.]

In general, the object is to maximize the attack (of course). Your observation - higher altitudes permit bigger strings - is astute, correct, and well modeled by WITP. You only face the AA one time if you use bigger strings, and you have more survivors, so you are more effective. Your preference is the problem here: you should NOT want to have strings of 3 - unless you face huge numbers of tiny, almost unarmed targets (e.g. landing craft).

Another object is to run em out of ammo. This is hard to do - but if you have truly gigantic forces - it works superbly well. The first time it worked decisively IRL was at Midway. It was accidental - as so many things were in that battle. "Ineffective" air attacks were said by one IJN officer (Adm Yamaguchi) to be "brilliant" - he thought it was on purpose - because they DID run them out of ready ammunition and combat air patrol. Just as these reached close to zero - a single squadron managed to get into an effective position to dive on three of the four carriers.
[The fourth was under clouds and not sighted] The attack was not badly cut up by either CAP or AA - because there was virtually none of either to cut it up - and of course that would be the idea - if indeed it were not an accident. While WE didn't do things that way, during the Cold War the Soviets formalized it doctrinally (and the Soviets thought long and hard about attacking carrier forces even if not from other carrier forces). Their idea was "simultaneous, multiple engagement on several vectors, in waves, the best wave last" so (a) the CAP had to choose which en engage - or split up so much as to risk being combat ineffective; (b) the surface weapons risked being "saturated" (run out of the ability to fire aimed shots or, failing that, run out of ready rounds - a big deal in the modern age which lacked the many mounts of WWII ships) and finally (c) the last wave - with the best pilots/weapons - is least likely to suffer any attrition - it is most likely to face damaged ships which are probably on fire - so infra red homing weapons may be used - weapons difficult to defeat with electronic countermeasures.

In WITP we can run em out of ammo - if not in a single attack then in a voyage - and if you have done the Midway thing - hit em over and over and over again - you just might do that. IF you think you did - THEN send in the good stuff.

But basically - overwhelm by numbers at one moment. Dive Bombers should go in at 13 or 14 000 feet - and you want strings of 9 every time - which that altitude almost insures.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

In a stock game with DBs, when you fly them at targets in a high altitude they attack in strings of 9 (for the most part). When I attack around 9k I normally get DB groups of 3 planes.

My preference normally is to run the DBs so they attack in groups of three but I'm finding the AAA murderous over PH. Any suggestions in attaing smaller attack groups w/o getting creamed by flak?

I think you do know, but if you don't (or for others), the number of DB's attacking together IS dependent on the altitude you attack from. The larger plane groups will attack from 16,000 ft+, but the lower altitude attacks (with smaller number of planes) have a higher percentage to hit, (if you are willing to take the AAA risk).
It is a trade off.

Hi m10bob,

I'm not sure about improved accuracy with 3-plane groups vs 9-plane groups but what I've experienced for the most part in other games/mods is about the same number of hits with either attack method. 9-plane groups are great if I want to put multiple hits on a target while 3-plane groups hit more targets with less hits. Also, at least from the manual, DBs/TBs run thru multiple levels of flak as they come down to their attack altitude.

In initial Naval Attack operations with DBs/TBs I like to spread the number of hits out and slow down as many enemy ships as possible. After that I like to come in with 9-plane groups the next day and try to clean up. What I'm noticing is a much stronger loss rate of TBs and DBs in RHS EOS. Maybe the losses are realistic from a historical perspective but in other mods and the stock game I don't think I've experienced DB/TB losses as heavy as what I'm noticing in RHS EOS.

I just wanted to ask if the loss ratios are modeling the intent of the mod designers. It is not my intent to nit-pick; I just noted that El Sid is planning test games and I'm asking if the results I've experienced so far coincide with the intent of the AAA warfare modifications that have been designed into this mod.

From the manual:
Altitude also affects airstrikes as follows:

Planes on a Search Mission will have a greater chance to bomb the target when flying at lower altitudes, but will suffer from more flak.

Dive bombers and fighter bombers always automatically dive down to 2,000 feet to release their bombs, which means that they will first suffer flak at their assigned altitude and then take flak at their lower diving altitude (note that fighters bombers dive bomb, but not as well as dive bombers).

Torpedo bombers must drop down to 200 feet to engage their targets, so they also suffer flak at their assigned altitude and then eat flak again at 200 feet.

fighters flying escort will automatically fly a few thousand feet above the bombers they are escorting.

Planes that are assigned an attack Mission at an altitude of 100 feet will bomb and strafe their target.

Planes on a Sweep Mission will always drop to 100 feet and strafe (taking flak at their set altitude and again at 100 feet).

Planes flying Recon Missions are more likely to detect the enemy at lower altitudes.

Planes flying a Naval Attack Mission with an altitude of 100 feet will skip bomb and strafe their target. Skip bombing is a very accurate way to bomb a ship if the experience of the pilots is over 60, but the accuracy falls when their experience is below 60 and very dramatically below 50. Of course, flak from ships will be very intense at 100 feet.

Planes that strafe a base will attack aircraft on the ground, support troops at the base (HQ, AA, ART, ENG, and CD type ground units), ships at anchor in port, and they can also reduce the morale of aircraft stationed at the base. Strafing occurs during a Sweep
Mission, or during an airfield or port attack where the altitude of the attacking planes is set to 100 feet. Strafing may also occur during an attack on ships if the altitude is set to 100 feet, in which case they also attempt to skip bomb the target. Strafing may also occur when attacking a ground unit and the altitude is set to 100 feet.

Aircraft that are not Fighter-bombers or Kamikazes must be given an altitude of 100 feet in order to be eligible to attack a TF of all barges or PT boats. Fighter-bombers or Kamikazes will automatically dive down to 100 feet when attacking one of these TFs.

When a group flying CAP attacks bombers, they reset their altitude to that of the bombers.

When fighters attack other fighters, the fighters deemed to have initiative will change their altitude to that of the fighters they are attacking.

If a group flying escort is flying over 3,000 feet above the nearest bomber group it will drop down to 3,000 feet above the highest bomber group. If escorts are below the lowest bomber group, they will rise up to the altitude of the lowest bomber group.

Other than impacting P-39 and P-400 performance, altitude does not impact air to air combat with one exception: aircraft that are reinforcing CAP due to a radar contact of the incoming strike may not be able to climb fast enough to engage the incoming bombers.

Level bombers attacking at below 5,000 feet will have their accuracy and effectiveness reduced.

No level bomber will hit a ship with more than one of its bombs on any particular Mission (they assumed to spread out over such a distance that at best one hit will occur from any particular bomber).

Level bomber groups that have more damaged aircraft than ready aircraft near the end of the Resolution Phase and are ordered to attack at an altitude of below 6,000 feet will have the possibility of having a 30 point Morale loss.

Inexperienced bomber groups will jettison their bombs early

Planes attacking at 100 feet will climb to 1000 after the attack

Bombers flying too high for CAP will not be attacked.

[el cid again]

You didn't tell us (directly) that you are playing the Allies.

But - you did say EOS / EEO - and you are saying flak is stronger - so

since ALLIED flak is the same

it means you are playing the Allies facing better Japanese flak.


Now that is the point. That is the mod intent. EOS is a "Japan enhanced scenario" in which they "do it better" - although I don't let them do it as much better as they should have done in 1941 when the war begins - because they had not yet learned the lessons of the war (so there are not enough light guns and no 40 mm Bofors whatever - the few 40 mm are Vickers - and they are very limited in numbers and not on important ships at all). Thus a DD might get a 25 mm mounting on each side - possibly a twin (but a triple in EEO) - instead of one or two 13.2 mm HMGs (or even 7.7mm MMGs) - but that is hardly sufficient. But by standardizing on the wonderful 1938 (1938!!) gun designs - a 4 inch and a 3 inch 60 - they gain an awful lot of AAA firepower (although, to be sure, the big ships tend to use 5 inch guns). A 5 inch gun not mass produced also comes on line as the war begins - and it soon adds to the list of AAA problems. Then they put the Bofors in production earlier than IRL - they did eventually anyway - and by mid war the AAA gets bloody awful. Instead of producing obsolescent 75mm Type 88s, they are producing 76mm/60s. Instead of 120 mm guns (several kinds, old and new) they build 100 mm guns far more efficent and with higher ceilings. And many 127 mm are replaced either by 100 mm or by 127 mm of a better type.

And I am a AAW guy - so while I limit the number of tubes per ship because Japan was poor - I configure them efficiently - not a highlight of what Japan did IRL. [This will matter more in AE where facing is actually used]

Your observation is correct - AAA is one of the things Japan could have done significantly better. It had the important ingrediants: superb or adequate guns, the best AAA training devices in any nation in the war (planetarium like trainers with flying scale models and analog computers aimed at by students in real directors in ALL lighting conditions - NO other nation did anything like this until long after WWII) - fire control computers - PRE war designed AA fire direction centers (the Japanese AA destroyers were originally AA cruisers - and retained the AAFDC feature - behind the bridge - just as on my Charles F Adams class DDG of 1960s vintage - but these vessels were building when the war began). Use of naval fire control methods and guns ashore by the Army (both happened - late in the war) - but early. This is going to make the Allies need a few of the extra planes they get (I am running vast surplusses in tests though - the Allies seem unable to use most of their planes).

If you do NOT want Japan Enhansed Scenarios - you have two other RHS families: CVO (which is more or less "the war as it was really done") and BBO (which is more or less "the war as it was really planned"). They differ mainly in what form ships take (Shinano is a CV in CVO, a BB in BBO - logically enough!) - and both use strictly historical AAA modeling - start to finish. Similarly, EOS has significant enhancements to aircraft - we assigned PTO code names to Me-109 and Ju-88 - but didn't face either in PTO IRL - the G5N was not built as a bomber at all - nor were some late war planes including the superb G7N - a sort of "Betty on steriods" - with more range, speed, defensive armament and a better payload - or the ultra long range Ki-71 recon bomber - the Ki-64 - a Ki-61 with a hidden engine behind the pilot - two engines driving contra rotating propellers - all the power but none of the angular momentum problems of either two or one engine fighters (the contra rotating propse mean you can roll either way the same, the engines on the centerline mean you don't have that problem when they are out on the wings). That is a bigger deal than the AAA. And they get some better armor organization. Not ideal - but Yamashita's proposals actually implemented - and in a timely way. The Japanese get no more steel, aluminum, engine hp, men - just cast it all in better form.

[G5N4 - the last of the series in RHS - comes in with the guided missiles used by the Fw-200 Condor - originally an IJN project in its armed form. And late in the war the Ki-102b has a very neat Japanese guided missile - the IGo-1b. The G7s deliver a torpedo with more warhead and tactical range - the latter does not matter in this form of WITP but the warhead does - and the G5N3 is a fairly good bomber as such - while the Ju-88 in the 4 series is a superb (if land based) dive bomber that one player thinks may "sweep the seas of everything it can find". In EOS family Japan can play the land based naval air power game writ large - and this is the model the Soviets copied IRL. ]

[1EyedJacks]

Hi El Cid,

Sorry - I should have stated that I'm playing as Japan. I was just noticing more flak kills vs my Vals and Kates then I'm used to seeing. I think this might be because DBs & TBs run thru the flak twice (from what I can tell from the manual) and if the AAA has an increased effect against air units then this is probably what I'm seeing.

I have no kick against the AAA losses if this is the intent of the design - I was just surprised by it - [:'(].

I'm looking 4ward to playing with the Ju-88 as a DB to gauge it's effectivness in comparison to the Val and Sonia. I like the what-if scenarios, and a what-if-the-Japanese-Navy-and-Army-actually-played-2gether scenario sounds like fun to me.

Thanks again for all of the time/effort you've put into RHS and for taking the time to answer questions.

[m10bob]

"REPLY: Historical. Japan had only one true AR, and a few auxiliary ones, several AS and a few auxiliary ones (several were lost by conversion to CVL/CVS), and no AD. I cannot rationalize changing that - so I didn't."

While Sid was responding to a question concerning Japanese AD's, he made this comment.
Technically Sid is corrct in that only 1 (of 3) purpose built AR's was built prior to the war of the 3 ship Akashi class, a 9000 ton displacement ship 500ftx67.5 ft and draft of 18.5 ft, laid down in 1937. The Akashi was armed with 4x5" guns.

The Japanese did however have other AR's, which were either converted during the war, or worked in both the Repair, and/or the salvage role.
Not counting "salvage tugs"(each bearing large derricks), there ware a minimum of 6 merchant conversions made strictly as AR's. They were the Esahi, Hakkai,Harruta(from 1135 to 5115 tons, built in 1938, the last being discarded in 1942, each 422ftx58ftx27.5draft.
There were also the Shoei,(5644tons/1937) Unyo,(2827/1937) Uragami and Yamabiko,(both apparently 6795tons/built 1937).
At least the Yamabiko was 441.5ftx59ftx33.5..

Further, there was an ex-Chinese gun boat(the Ming-Sen) which in its' career was sunk twice and both times raised and converted to both a salvage ship, and then an AR,re-launched in October 1938 as the Hitonose. It was rather small, at 460 tons, armed only with some machine guns.

These ships are only the ones we might seriously consider conventional "AR's" (in our context), but the Japanese also had several purpose built salvage ships which worked hand in glove with those AR's to both salvage and repair.
(I have not named them here, but will if there is interest for inclusion.).

Source:Japanese Warships of WWII, Anthony J Watts(Ian Allen)..

[DonH58]

Hi El Cid
Is there going to be another update of CVO 7 or just the pwhex. Want to start a new game with my boy but thought I would check first. Thanks and I really appreciate all the hard work you and the RHS team have done!!!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi El Cid,

Sorry - I should have stated that I'm playing as Japan. I was just noticing more flak kills vs my Vals and Kates then I'm used to seeing. I think this might be because DBs & TBs run thru the flak twice (from what I can tell from the manual) and if the AAA has an increased effect against air units then this is probably what I'm seeing.

I have no kick against the AAA losses if this is the intent of the design - I was just surprised by it - [:'(].

I'm looking 4ward to playing with the Ju-88 as a DB to gauge it's effectivness in comparison to the Val and Sonia. I like the what-if scenarios, and a what-if-the-Japanese-Navy-and-Army-actually-played-2gether scenario sounds like fun to me.

Thanks again for all of the time/effort you've put into RHS and for taking the time to answer questions.

Allied AAA is no more effective in EOS family than it was in CVO or BBO families. But perhaps you are comparing it to stock?

I DID change ALL AAA in a few respects:

a) A number of "DP" gus were disguised SP guns because they had ceilings of zero!!! That means they NEVER shoot. Never shooting limits their value!

b) Many ships and land units nominally armed with AA guns had ZERO detection equipment. So UNLESS some OTHER unit (in the TF or hex) detected the target - or the target was being hit for other than the first time - the AAA usually didn't shoot - a serious limitation.

c) The "sound detector" in all forms of WITP except RHS has a 10% shot at working. This is stuff and nonsense - if the alternative is no detection whatever. I was cautious and conservative - and folded in a network of visual spotters - but even taking fog into consideration - I gave the RHS "audio-visual spotters" a 25% rating. Then I compounded that by giving important units 2 or even 3 such spotter devices. So the CHANCE of detection of a raid is much higher in RHS even compared to the cases where there was a "sound detector" in other WITP forms.

I did not know this - and did not mess with it either - but apparent firepower has no meaning for AAA in WITP. That is, it does not matter how big the "effect" value is - nor does the player screen rating the AAA of a unit have any useful meaning - except broadly "a bigger number means more AAA".

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"REPLY: Historical. Japan had only one true AR, and a few auxiliary ones, several AS and a few auxiliary ones (several were lost by conversion to CVL/CVS), and no AD. I cannot rationalize changing that - so I didn't."

While Sid was responding to a question concerning Japanese AD's, he made this comment.
Technically Sid is corrct in that only 1 (of 3) purpose built AR's was built prior to the war of the 3 ship Akashi class, a 9000 ton displacement ship 500ftx67.5 ft and draft of 18.5 ft, laid down in 1937. The Akashi was armed with 4x5" guns.

Akashi had no sister IRL. [There is one in CHS] A second one (never named) was proposed but not built. [In EOS family I use that building program, so we build her, and in honor of CHS, use the CHS name!] But there were never plans for 3 - and there never was more than the lead ship herself. I have some material on her.

The problem with an AR (or AD for that matter) is that it is a LOT more complex than it seems like: it takes a long time to get the trained people to run the ultra expensive machine tools. The time to do an AR/AD is something like 250-300% longer than the time to actually build the ship (from decision to build to commissioning ready for operations). Japan was more or less cut off from machine tools once WWII started in ETO - and most such plans were impractical to implement.

There were auxiliary ARs - at least two I can think of off the top of my head were large enough to merit that designation in USN - and several smaller vessels (which correspond to ARD type vessels in our nomenclature). Small ARs and salvage ships should not be confused with an AR. An AR can do almost anything required - only the greatest lifting tasks are beyond her capacity - and it is the same as sending a ship to a shipyard except it is not as fast getting the job done.
What makes a ship an AR is not her hull, it is her staff, her cranes and her specialized machine tools. Japan could not have many because the numbers of all of these were strictly limited. They preferred general ARs to specialized ADs - and it was the best choice.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: DonH58

Hi El Cid
Is there going to be another update of CVO 7 or just the pwhex. Want to start a new game with my boy but thought I would check first. Thanks and I really appreciate all the hard work you and the RHS team have done!!!

It is not my desire to update either.

If I do update either, the changes will be minor.

If we update pwhex - it backfits into existing games anyway. So it is more likely. Looks like we may change communications coding in a way that impacts supply movement mainly.

I have spotted one erattum in all Level 7 files (a tank company wants to grow into a regiment) - but it can be controlled by turning replacements off most of the time. However, I had an idea that might prevent certain locations from expanding factories automatically to rediculous values - and if it works, we might issue an update. Probably Christmas Day.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: DonH58

Hi El Cid
Is there going to be another update of CVO 7 or just the pwhex. Want to start a new game with my boy but thought I would check first. Thanks and I really appreciate all the hard work you and the RHS team have done!!!

I am still finding errata in the CVO family and who knows how much of the data is fouled. Latest is in CAIO. USN VCT-17 with TBFs is showing up after day one in San Fran. I think it is a delay issue but I don't know exactly how to read it in WITP EditorX. In other scenarios USN5- VSC 14 with 4 AC shows up as a base squadron. and the AV Pelican has the squadron with 1 A/C.
With all the scenarios there are (with more on the drawing board) its no wonder . I'm can't complain because I was a big pusher for the CAIO. My fear is that all the changes may be attributing to the file inconsistancies. I don't know what is OK and what is not.

Right now I have day one burn-out and may stand aside, hide and watch for a while.

[el cid again]

Well - pelecan is right - at least. It is a wierd vessel - and it has an "air group" of one aircraft!!! It is a former minesweeper - and most of her sisters are still minesweepers.

WITP was horribly dirty. Much of the dirt carried over into CHS and RHS. And no doubt we added erratta as well. Information theory says there must be - MUST BE - errors - in files of this size. We will NEVER get it perfect - ever. But it is very clean - relatively speaking. Yet if I go looking I can find an eratta in some sense every few minutes - if you include things I would do differently. Many fields I have NEVER seen - there are - what - I forget - 230 000 fields? Bunches and bunches.

VCT 17 is 9999ed out in CVO - so if you have it - you do not have current files. It is part of the air group of USS Reprisal - CVL - 58 - in EOS family only - and it is fictional. [The ship is a CL in CVO and BBO families]

Hmmm - USN 5 VCS-14 IS the USS Pelecan air group - and it has only one plane - as it should. I am confused about why you are confused?
There is no instance in which it appears as a base air group - or with 4 aircraft - although that would be a legitimate option. All scenarios have it as a 1 aircraft group for Pelican. If this isn't what you see - down load current files again.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Well - pelecan is right - at least. It is a wierd vessel - and it has an "air group" of one aircraft!!! It is a former minesweeper - and most of her sisters are still minesweepers.

WITP was horribly dirty. Much of the dirt carried over into CHS and RHS. And no doubt we added erratta as well. Information theory says there must be - MUST BE - errors - in files of this size. We will NEVER get it perfect - ever. But it is very clean - relatively speaking. Yet if I go looking I can find an eratta in some sense every few minutes - if you include things I would do differently. Many fields I have NEVER seen - there are - what - I forget - 230 000 fields? Bunches and bunches.

VCT 17 is 9999ed out in CVO - so if you have it - you do not have current files. It is part of the air group of USS Reprisal - CVL - 58 - in EOS family only - and it is fictional. [The ship is a CL in CVO and BBO families]

Yes the CVO VCT-17 is 9999ed out but it is not CAIO 7.7881. It shows as "0" which I have now corrected.

Hmmm - USN 5 VCS-14 IS the USS Pelecan air group - and it has only one plane - as it should. I am confused about why you are confused?
There is no instance in which it appears as a base air group - or with 4 aircraft - although that would be a legitimate option. All scenarios have it as a 1 aircraft group for Pelican. If this isn't what you see - down load current files again.

Yes I do see the USN 5 VCS-14. I am saying that in AIO & BBO (but not in CVO) there is a "USN 4" VCS-14 at the San Francisco base, with 4 A/C.

I have re-examined my downloads and they appear correct, albeit, the files on the RHS site do not reflect the 7.7881 and they may not be the same files as the 7.788 showing and with an one day earlier file date.

Note: It appears that the AIO or EOS file was updated to create the CAIO OOB as, both of these have the VCT-17 with a zero delay and being loaded on the CVL-58 to show up later. The same as the CAIO 7.7881 I used. Please confirm for me that the wpa, wbc, wpd, wph, wpp files in CVO OOB are to be consistant througout the CVO family.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Yes I do see the USN 5 VCS-14. I am saying that in AIO & BBO (but not in CVO) there is a "USN 4" VCS-14 at the San Francisco base, with 4 A/C.

This is correct. BBO, RPO and PPO SHOULD appear at San Francisco - instead of USS Vicksburgh - in other scenarios. There were numerous shore detachments - many not in the game - so this isn't a problem.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Note: It appears that the AIO or EOS file was updated to create the CAIO OOB as, both of these have the VCT-17 with a zero delay and being loaded on the CVL-58 to show up later. The same as the CAIO 7.7881 I used. Please confirm for me that the wpa, wbc, wpd, wph, wpp files in CVO OOB are to be consistant througout the CVO family.

CAIO is almost entirely the same as CVO - very little different.

[Mac Linehan]

Deleted as redundant.

[Mac Linehan]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: DonH58

Hi El Cid
Is there going to be another update of CVO 7 or just the pwhex. Want to start a new game with my boy but thought I would check first. Thanks and I really appreciate all the hard work you and the RHS team have done!!!

It is not my desire to update either.

If I do update either, the changes will be minor.

If we update pwhex - it backfits into existing games anyway. So it is more likely. Looks like we may change communications coding in a way that impacts supply movement mainly.

I have spotted one erattum in all Level 7 files (a tank company wants to grow into a regiment) - but it can be controlled by turning replacements off most of the time. However, I had an idea that might prevent certain locations from expanding factories automatically to rediculous values - and if it works, we might issue an update. Probably Christmas Day.

Hi, Sid -

I had the same question, was prepping to start a new game EOS 75, will be glad to wait. Many thanks to the RHS team; there is always a feeling of aniticipation when visiting the RHS site - one never knows what good stuff awaits!

Mac

[el cid again]

OK - I will start a thread on this matter. But I issued a Level 7 pwhex set yesterday - and that will backfit to existing games as well as new ones. It seems to have fixed two cities with sometime supply problems - Singapore and Osaka. I took the opportunity to make RR art line up with pwhex for a spur line in Australia.

But I now have tests showing I can fix two other cities - Guma and Nagoya - but these are changed in the location file.
Meanwhile I learned that a German oiler (Ukermark) and two raiders (Michael and Thor) operated in PTO - as far as Tokyo - so they are added (to Level 7). And I got some minor location eratta as well. The whole package will issue tomorrow as a comprehensive update.

[okami]

A while back I asked on the general forum some questions about AGC's as the Japanese have one in CVO at Palau. I was informed that inorder for said AGC to work as intended you have to load an HQ on the AGC move this TF to an invasion hex and not unload it. This will give the invading forces bonuses to the effect of less disruption. Observation: I can not load the 16th Amphibious HQ on the Shinsh Maru# AGC. She will not load even though she will fit. Help?

[el cid again]

I can move it. What is your version number?