RHS x.7891 issues and eratta FOR x.7892

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

In Dreemer's server there is a zip named 7.788 but files show a date stamp of 12-18-07...

Can someone verify that this is the latest version of the EOS mod?

No it is not. There are several sub versions of .788 and two of .789 - not counting one coming out today.

If you want it send an email to trevethans@aol.com.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

11th Air Force (XI Air Force at the time) is commanded by BGen William O Butler (added).

Alaskan Command moves to Cold Bay - very close to where Buckner was at the base of the Alaskan Penninsula - and he had an airfield at Cold Bay with another fort as well.

Not an expert in this field or in game mechanics, but, have you given any thought to the way the game uses HQs (benefits/support) and the effects of what you contemplate will have on it. Fine to hang the hat of HQs and/or leader in its historical location (Cold Bay, etc), but another thing to ruin, and/or mess with, game functions for its sake. This is especially in question when such units are static.

I repeat I am treading in an unknown area, but, want to make sure of your intentions and the consequences of them. No disrespect intended.

To quote Forrest Gump "And that is all that I have to say about that"

Buck,

What I did in my current AI game is before I started I went into the editor and removed the static squads from all the HQ's precisely due to the game engine considerations you point out. In a PBEM game I suppose you need to caucus with your opponent before doing so.

This is a very BAD idea.

For one thing, you often have then freed up a supply sink NOT to be where it needs to be.

For another thing, you then allow major HQ NOT to be where politics and strategic considerations require it to be.

For a third thing, HQ with static devices (we call them static facility squads) may be supporting immobile gigantic communications facilities - again they need to be where they are - including HFDF "rings" of antennas - etc.

There are very few static things in RHS - and those are static for some reason. IF a HQ is NOT static - THAT is ALSO for a reason - and IT is a mobile HQ you are free to move around.

[witpqs]

I don't know anything about editor X either - here's what you do. This is a procedure for moving the radars out of Allied slot #10 and for deleting the static devices out of HQ's (if you want to) so it covers two birds in one writing. It's easy.

Make sure you have version 6 of the WITP Scenario editor. Go to Matrix and download it if you need to - it is just one file. Load it (unzip or whatever) into the scenario folder.

Run the editor (double click). After it loads use the pull down menu to select Load. You will get a menu with the scenarios present in the folder. Skip down to the one you want.

Next the scenario will load. Them spend some time looking around just to see what things look like. LCU's are under Locations, BTW. You want to go to Aircraft. As you arrow key down the list on the left you will see the various aircraft stats on the right. Notice the weapons slots - #10 is the one of interest.

The Japanese planes have their engine in #10, leave it alone. When you find an Allied plane with something in #10, that plane won't produce! Put your cursor in the device field (first column) in #9 and type in the same device number you see in # 10. Next copy any other info in the other fields as well. When you have them all copied (should only be a couple of other fields that specify how many and which way they face), go to the device field in #10 and enter a 0 (zero). Then click back on the list at the left. You will see the device field in #10 fill with '000'. Don't worry about the other fields in #10, they will zero themselves out when the file is saved.

You might then want to click on the button over on the right side near the middle that says something like 'Update Groups', it will copy the changes you made to all the air groups (squadrons) already defined, so they will have the same aircraft specs as new production.

Then continue moving down the list at the left to get the rest of the aircraft with radar in weapons #10 slot.

For the HQ's, click on Locations. Arrow down the list on the left until you find all the HQ's. Nicely, Sid put all the Japanese HQ's together and all the Allied HQ's together, so you only have to find the two groups (as far as I know).

In the specs on the right, some HQ's will have a device call Static Squad (I forget the device number). When you find one you don't want there, just go to the device field (again first column), and enter '0', then click back to the list on the left. Go on and do the rest of them.

When you are all done (or anywhere along the way if you want to be safe), use the pull down menu to Save the scenario, and when ready, Exit.

That is all you should have to do.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Why do AOs need 104 merchant points? Is that intended?
When I consider that 1 merchant point is equal to 1 naval point, than every AO would cost as much as 2-3 CAs!!!

Actually - we are sort of stuck with this = that = something else in hard code. What was done was to make AOs have a lot of compartmentation - which of couse they do. It is notoriously hard to sink an oiler - and also they are expensive.
They not only have tanks - but pumps - but you must build all those tanks and pumps - so they are complex ships.
Anyway - it was a rather successful experiment - the ships DO burn out a lot faster than a CA.

In RHS the durability value of a ship is a function of size, structure and crew. The SAME ship as an auxiliary will have twice the durability - because of more DC parties and equipment for example. But a tanker has even more than a naval auxiliary does. As a graduate (with gold certificate) from a US Navy Damage Control School (a strange tale that - I was not going to stay in the Navy but still I was sent) - I have a bit of exposure to these matters. [A gold certificate is awarded to the best student. My class had two students with perfect scores - practical tests and written tests. But the other guy was a first class damage controlman - someone who COULD benefit from such a thing on his record - so military logic was he could NOT have it! Instead - it was given to me - because "it must be harder for a non-specialist to get a perfect score." They didn't usually have ANY students with 100% scores - so it was a new problem. Had I realized what they were going to do I would have answered one question wrong. Oh well.]

[el cid again]

Working on ROCAF I found the P-66 was wierdly worked. Originally I tried to give you all the production up front - but then I switched to producing it - leaving the pool in place. Players use the planes - which they should not be able to do - and then units appear for ROCAF that need them - but not enough planes. So I have got rid of the pool.

ROCAF has added some units and renamed others (a difficult process - like British services units change names and wander from group to group over time). Perhaps most interesting is I found a missing French Volunteer "squadron" (the 41st) - which isn't a squadron at all but a flight of 6. Similarly, there was a 12th Recon Squadron - of F-5 (P-38) type machines - also probably about 6 machines.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This is a very BAD idea.

For one thing, you often have then freed up a supply sink NOT to be where it needs to be.

Wrong - I am not moving supply sinks.

For another thing, you then allow major HQ NOT to be where politics and strategic considerations require it to be.

Wrong - Nimitz did not stay in Pearl Harbor through the entire war, nor did MacArthur stay in Australia. They took their headquarters with them (see next point down). Furthermore the game code requires you to move those headquarters to work properly with preparation points. Those major HQ's have a range of 21 - meaning 20 hexes away - so SWPac cannot use it's HQ prep even for Port Moresby if it is static.

For a third thing, HQ with static devices (we call them static facility squads) may be supporting immobile gigantic communications facilities - again they need to be where they are - including HFDF "rings" of antennas - etc.

Then those things can be represented by some other unit that is already static at the locations in question. The fact is that theater commanders did move their HQ's. I am equally sure that various facilities remained operating in place when the commanders moved. Those facilities are either not represented in the game or must be represented by something else, because the game engine means for player to move theater HQ's at times.

There are very few static things in RHS - and those are static for some reason. IF a HQ is NOT static - THAT is ALSO for a reason - and IT is a mobile HQ you are free to move around.

You are fighting the game engine code. The top level HQ's were made mobile for a reason - the game is designed to encourage the player to move them to the relevant areas to support operations.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again
This is a very BAD idea.

For one thing, you often have then freed up a supply sink NOT to be where it needs to be.

Wrong - I am not moving supply sinks.

REPLY: How do you know that? Supply sinks which are large are pure and easy to spot. Supply sinks which are small are very hard to recognize. In between, supply sinks can often be spotted if you see field hand squads, pioneers and motorized support squads such that the ratio pioneers = cube root of motorized support minus 3 times pioneers; field hands = 2 times pioneers is SMALLER than the totals for each.

For another thing, you then allow major HQ NOT to be where politics and strategic considerations require it to be.

Wrong - Nimitz did not stay in Pearl Harbor through the entire war, nor did MacArthur stay in Australia. They took their headquarters with them (see next point down). Furthermore the game code requires you to move those headquarters to work properly with preparation points. Those major HQ's have a range of 21 - meaning 20 hexes away - so SWPac cannot use it's HQ prep even for Port Moresby if it is static.

REPLY: While it is quite true that a commander may move - and a mobile staff may move with him - a command center should not move in many instances. [Note that Mac was NOT in Australia to begin with - but USAFFE did NOT move either. The proper solution is to move the commander - not the HQ - unless it is a mobile HQ. WITP stock actually had twin MacArthur's in two different places!] But moving ROCHQ out of Chunking or Russian HQ out of Vladivostok makes no political or strategic sense whatever. Modders should - and usually do - agonize over these things - and you upset the intent to mess with them.

For a third thing, HQ with static devices (we call them static facility squads) may be supporting immobile gigantic communications facilities - again they need to be where they are - including HFDF "rings" of antennas - etc.

Then those things can be represented by some other unit that is already static at the locations in question. The fact is that theater commanders did move their HQ's. I am equally sure that various facilities remained operating in place when the commanders moved. Those facilities are either not represented in the game or must be represented by something else, because the game engine means for player to move theater HQ's at times.

REPLY: No they can not. There are not enough slots and we are forced to combine units and functions. This might theoretically change in AE or WITP II - but it has not changed for WITP I. Modding is an art of compromising - and the option often is "combine or don't do it." In WITP the primary component of HQ (outside RHS anyway) is support squads. These squads are MEANT to be where they are - not somewhere else. Moving the HQ means that the support is no longer at Pearl Harbor, etc. Consider the cases of USAFFE and Asiatic Fleet. Consider the cases of the HQ in the NEI or Malaya.
It was neither practical nor politic to move them - and they didn't move - they stayed until forced to surrender.

Now this mechanism in the game is pretty crude - and I would prefer a much more sophisticated system. But in practice you can transfer Nimitz to South Pacific and he can go where you need him. This is no different than transferring Mac to SW Pacific Area (if you want him there - IMHO a big if). I wish we had more slots to play with - and if we did - we could then put the static facilities at Naval Dist HQ. But I have been forced to get rid of most of those - maybe we will lose them all - and they now "exist" only when COMBINED with a different HQ in most cases now. I also wish we had more useful HQ - and that they would work better in several respects. But I must work with what we have now.

There are very few static things in RHS - and those are static for some reason. IF a HQ is NOT static - THAT is ALSO for a reason - and IT is a mobile HQ you are free to move around.

You are fighting the game engine code. The top level HQ's were made mobile for a reason - the game is designed to encourage the player to move them to the relevant areas to support operations.

Surely I am fighting code - which should have been made soft. But the code created the possibility of static devices for ANY AND ALL units - that is the meaning of 9999 in load cost - so in that sense provision existed to make things static.
I don't like it - because it messes up reports (which equate "men" with load cost) and it prevents actual load costs from being used. If all HQ were truly mobile by design intent, we would see lots of nonsensical moves by players - NZHQ might become some sort of mobile offensive unit - and so on. Moving a major HQ ought to be a very difficult and time consuming process - and not "load on this ship now and sail in 12 hours" sort of thing.

[el cid again]

Most US AA Regiments had Bofors AA guns instead of US M4s derived from a WWI design.

Buckner had most of his ground power with him - so 2 regiments of infantry and an AA unit are with his HQ at the base of the Alaska Penninsula. I guess his intent was to flank anyone trying to sneak past him - and fear of that would force them to engage him first - thus protecting the areas farther East.

[witpqs]

Sid,

Nimitz did move much of his HQ to Guam, that is a matter of record. Although I lack the itinerary, I am equally sure that MacArthur did not keep SWPac HQ static in Brisbane until VJ Day.

Theater HQ's could and did move. Whatever static installations there were can be squads added to CD units that are already static and located in the same base (PH, Brisbane, etc.). The same goes with any supply sink assets you added to the theater HQ's.

The fact is to the best of my knowledge the game does not (yet, at least) show things like communications infrastructure with on map units of any kind.

You are mixing the reality of how the game code operates with the political status of what might have been considered 'home base' for the theater HQ's - locations that, BTW, surely would have changed had the Japanese attacked them.

Yes, USAFFE did stay until surrender but not because all theater HQ's had to, because USAFFE had to. If Hawaii had been conquered then Pacific Fleet HQ would have lived elsewhere, perhaps until it moved back after reconquest.

I am taking no issue with where you have chosen to put things, it is simply a matter that the game code has designed that they be moved to be near to the action to provide that HQ support via the HQ preparation points.

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,

Theater HQ's could and did move. Whatever static installations there were can be squads added to CD units that are already static and located in the same base (PH, Brisbane, etc.). The same goes with any supply sink assets you added to the theater HQ's.

[quote]

There are many locations which need supply sinks which do not have CD units. And certainly any HQ with major static assets which is inland won't have any CD units. Not that there are a lot of the latter - but it isn't always so. The supply sinks as such will go away in AE of course.

In spite of which - I have reviewed HQ to make as many as reasonably can be mobile - because I think players should be in control whenever possible. If I make a unit static - I don't think it should be up to the player. In that I think I followed CHS - and I don't think we have as many any more.

But I don't think you are dealing with the problem that you simply cannot make any atol or barren strech of narrow beach (almost all the Aleutian islands are more or less mountains in the sea) a major HQ. Since we don't have a way to survey the land - mobile units can go literally anywhere. If you put a HQ in an unsuitable location, you both deprive the former location of support assets (e.g. Pearl Harbor) AND you give the new location support it really would not have due to inefficiencies in the site. Hawaii should be very hard to take- and the big CD unit helps - so do the mountains. But so also does the immobile support elements - elements that pretty much have to be there. A major HQ at a major port is where you repair major ship damage - and doing that at Addu Atol is not really reasonable. Of course - players might impose rules about where major HQ can go - an air HQ might require a certain level field - a naval one a certain level port - etc. And a theater should require both. But in game terms, mobile means "it can go anywhere and be totally functional" - and I don't think that is true. It takes over ten years to build a major naval operating base.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,


The fact is to the best of my knowledge the game does not (yet, at least) show things like communications infrastructure with on map units of any kind.

WITP does not.

RHS does.

Further - strategic communications assets are tied to major HQ.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,


Yes, USAFFE did stay until surrender but not because all theater HQ's had to, because USAFFE had to. If Hawaii had been conquered then Pacific Fleet HQ would have lived elsewhere, perhaps until it moved back after reconquest.

I am taking no issue with where you have chosen to put things, it is simply a matter that the game code has designed that they be moved to be near to the action to provide that HQ support via the HQ preparation points.

I don't think PACFLT would be able to move if Hawaii were conquered. It might be possible to evacuate the commander (by submarine) - and a player can do that abstractly - by changing him. But a serious attack would have to be as we are told it was by Capt Fujida: take Johnston, Midway and the inner islands first - establish air control - and tighten the noose - reducing the coast defenses and air units. If the enemy controls the air and sea - how do you relocate?

Instead of moving - and this IS in the game - the HQ will reform - at San Francisco - some months later.

I don't dispute how the code works. I don't think the ranges of HQ are great enough either. Indeed, I have tried to maximize the range of influence within the limits of code. But I think you are supposed to use FORWARD HQ in forward areas - not theater HQ. True theater HQ are very rare and very tied to their location by both physical and political considerations - neither of which is well structured in the game. Making them static is a fine device to achieve this lack of flexability. In my view we don't even have the right HQ - and in an ideal game world - if you somehow could rationalize players being politicians - we might want to have a TRUE theater HQ for the US (none of this Mac and Nimitz stuff - or in the Philippines Mac and Hart - or up in Alaska - Theobold and Buckner - not getting along and neither being boss of the other either). But that isn't history, it probably isn't what players should be able to impose on history - UNLESS we want to test what impact it might have had. Anyway - I do hope additional slots - more soft coding - and more attention to HQ functions - will give us more options in future.

I don't think it is really "wrong" to "tamper" with a mod. I think it is my obligation to explain the choices made - and then you do what you wish.

[el cid again]

I have come to the conclusion that Fort Morrow at Port Hayden cannot be absent from the game - never mind we have no slots. I consumed a tiny atol in favor of a base on the Alaska penninsula where the theater HQ began the war! It is vital because it is a more than minor port with a more than minor airfield farther out than any other such location in the area.
It was only developed after the war - if that is the word - and its present population is only 79 - so it was never a significant economic area. It has no production, just a capacity for a medium sized port co located with a fairly large (but not giant) airfield complex. Aside from its utility offensively against enemy forces in the area, it is important to deny it to the enemy - being more exposed than any other location which can develop to the point of basing fairly signficant air on it.

[witpqs]

Much of what you wrote is true, it's just the game engine really demands that you move some of those HQ's you made static, and penalizes you if you don't. Certainly some of the places you might put a theater HQ would be less than desirable IRL, but they give you 20 hexes of range to work with, so small atolls should be unnecessary.

Frankly, I feel the range limitation on a theater HQ should be removed as that would be the proper way to deal with it because then they could stay put. But AE is pretty darn chock full so I'm not going to ask.

BTW, a couple of points of minor disagreement - a lot more than just the commander could be evacuated, even in a hurry. Staff matters.

Second, regarding a more orderly move - if an HQ can be built, it can be moved. Of course it has to be a heck of a job and certainly costs something.

[m10bob]

With the exception of representing encased guns for defense, I have always had problems with units having "static" squads preventing manual relocation.
Certainly the Korean War was fluid as an example, at every level, as was the African campaign of WW2, the Russian front, etc..

[el cid again]

But PTO is a naval war. It is difficult to explain this to those who don't do much with buying ships (nothing in the army or air force costs like a ship does - and there are political and economic consequences of their immense cost - as well as the cost to train their crews) or with maintaining/communicating with them. Ships essentially require dry docks or something that can do the job - and distant ships require massive communications support infrastructures. These are large, expensive, and not best located just anywhere you please. [You want a wide angle of intercept for a Wollenwebber array - so you get a good position on the intercepted signal. You need a place not messed up by mountains, iron deposits in the soil or nearby waters - and so on. You need the sheer space for these facilities - comm stations are generally quite large - too large for most atols or a place where the mountains drop into the sea - never mind you don't want the mountains in the first place - you also need room.]

In principle a HQ can be afloat. But in practice, in the modern era, it is foolish to command from the sea. Yamamoto was unable to give orders at Midway - because doing so would betray his position - and when he did give orders (after the approach was over) it did betray his position. And while Yamato had fine communications facilities - she intercepted TACTICAL signals from Hawaii during the Pearl Harbor attack directly - something that should not have happened - she could not rival a land based shore comm station for VLF and HF work.] Further, command ashore permits use of land line to the nearby airfield - modern commanders need to be air minded and co located with a strong long range land based air element - and those calls are immune to radio interception by the enemy. And a game HQ is not just an admiral and his staff - it is thousands of support people - which is what all those support squads are about. They need space - and IRL they need specialized equipment too - some of it quite difficult to move.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,


The fact is to the best of my knowledge the game does not (yet, at least) show things like communications infrastructure with on map units of any kind.

WITP does not.

RHS does.

Further - strategic communications assets are tied to major HQ.

Can/will you explain the GAME benefits and specific examples of this application in RHS? Maybe this would help us understand your RL concept as applied here in WITP. Also just for informational purposes, when did you start with this concept?

[el cid again]

More or less in the beginning.

Technically RHS began when revisions to CHS were not possible fast enough to address numerous matters - and Andrew suggested branching as a solution. And technically there was a brief while RHS was wholly inside the stock/CHS logistical mold. But not long. The first problem was "almost nuclear powered ships" - ships had too much range at too great a cruising speed - but needed less fuel than IRL to achieve even their actual range at actual cruising speeds. That led to examination of logistics - and from that moment - RHS became logistically oriented.

For me - whose initial exposure to naval thought was professional - nothing makes any strategic sense outside the context of logistics. Logistics itself only makes sense inside the drivers of economics. And - since birth - WITP had not taken logistics seriouly enough. Even the basic concept at the heart of the design: you use oil and resources to make HI points, supply points and fuel points - was pretty much moot: you could get "free supplies" so many places in such quantities you did not have to import oil and resources to make supplies and fuel - although you still needed HI points.
Nor did you have to export fuel and supplies on anything like the scale really required. But you still had most of the transport fleet - so you had what Joe Wilkerson nicknamed "transports to burn." RHS set out to change that.

You know about supply sinks: eat those supplies from resource centers right where they are generated - whenever there are way too many. You know that we dried up "free supplies" at most locations - so you had to haul supplies to many places - and you had to haul resources and oil to generate the supplies and the fuel to move them too. But there was more to it than that: just as a ship should not be able to move too far too fast with too little fuel, so other things needed to cost more in logistical terms. A change made not long ago was to make pack type units harder to lift and feed - all the horses and mules and porters need lift and food/fodder - but pack units have lighter weapons - so you end up with a unit that is more expensive to move and feed but does not have as much firepower - just as you should. Well - along the way - every time we look at anything - we evaluate if it should be static or not - and there are several radically different categories of things we do make static. For example, some aviation support squads are CIVILIAN - they ONLY work at their hub in their country - they do NOT move about like military aviation engineer units do. So these squads are part of supply sinks - which are either separate static units (called "forts" for technical reasons) or they are inside other static units. Thus - Empire Flying Boats, Boeing 314 Clippers, and the Japanese airline (DNKKK) Mavis flying boats have civilian support elements - but they won't move. Similarly, there is a China Airlines and a PAN AM airline unit which have civil support - not all is flying boats. [The flying boats are more useful - and will even fly search missions - and did IRL]
HQ are just a part of the picture - but major naval HQ in particular often are associated with immobile infrastructures.

[herwin]

Major naval HQs have been immobile for a long time. Zakros in Crete turned out to be a naval HQ when I walked it. It wasn't the main fleet base (which was up at Paleokastro), but it was a nice location for a light squadron to monitor shipping. It must have been a plum command--until the Achaean Greeks rolled up the eastern end of Crete.

[Buck Beach]

Maybe I wasn't specific enough. Here is the post again.

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid,


The fact is to the best of my knowledge the game does not (yet, at least) show things like communications infrastructure with on map units of any kind.



WITP does not.

RHS does.

Further - strategic communications assets are tied to major HQ.


Can/will you explain the GAME benefits and specific examples of this application in RHS? Maybe this would help us understand your RL concept as applied here in WITP. Also just for informational purposes, when did you start with this concept?

The question relates to the concept and application of strategic communications you say is in RHS. Again, how does it show, how is it applied, what is effected in the game and how long has it been included in the scenarios?
Sorry my previous post was not clear enough