RHSEOS and EEO erattum: corrected in 7.7894

[el cid again]

Location 367 - Harbin - should be a port. It should have a Level 10 repair shipyard. This not fatal - there is a shipyard up at Tsitsihar - but I don't like it. I will however continue my total review of everything everywhere reather than start over. I will not issue an update for this alone - but it will be in whatever update eventually is issued.

[witpqs]

I am not sure if this is still an error in the current version (yet to download it) but one of the CD units at Pearl Harbor has Oahu misspelled in its name (Ohau).

There are various Allied units that have names so long that they scroll out of the field when you open up the LCU to look at it - thereby losing the percentage info (%%/%%) that tells you percentage ready/present. In the case of many British/CW base forces part of the name could be abbreviated to 'EAB' which would probably fix the situation.

These are pretty minor which is why I haven't made a list - since you are posting erratum I thought I would let you know about them.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am not sure if this is still an error in the current version (yet to download it) but one of the CD units at Pearl Harbor has Oahu misspelled in its name (Ohau).


REPLY: A classic typo, it has not been reported - so it still exists. Thanks. It too will be folded into future releases - but not cause an update at this time.

There are various Allied units that have names so long that they scroll out of the field when you open up the LCU to look at it - thereby losing the percentage info (%%/%%) that tells you percentage ready/present. In the case of many British/CW base forces part of the name could be abbreviated to 'EAB' which would probably fix the situation.

REPLY: The length of names also affects the message screen - and at one time I tried to make all as short as possible. Testing established the messages need to wrap around - because some combinations ALWAYS are too long - and this will be fixed in a patch or update - I am told. EAB is code generated - and if it is not present - it is because the unit is NOT an EAB as such (even if it is functionally). Again, this is not always an issue - and in the case of reports - these are hard coded to certain field lengths - which are undefined - and so users of the editor don't know what is the right length in the first place? There are - I don't know - gigantic numbers of fields to review - and in many scenarios in the case of RHS - so correcting this is not time effecient - even if there is a way to do it. [At one time I estimated we manage 610,000 fields - now it is surely approaching a million] I cannot even comment intelligently without a specific example. But this is at least sometimes a problem in RHS - because we try to give players information in the unit name - and that takes space.

These are pretty minor which is why I haven't made a list - since you are posting erratum I thought I would let you know about them.

[el cid again]

There are two Ningpo Junk Groups. OTH there is no Canton Junk Group. One will be renamed. Meanwhile - no major problem - just a minor erattum.

[el cid again]

Whenever we get around to 7.7894 update - hopefully after I complete the comprehensive review (and first turn preparation)

you may except two minor RTAF support elements to be added (with leaders = Pilot Officer)

these are 3rd and 4th - and they are smaller than the 1st, 2nd and 5th - which were vital because they had planes.

these two units had no combat aircraft at the time the war started - but gave RTAF slightly more deployment flexability

[el cid again]

Somehow files uploaded for 7.7893 were not all correct - so I must upload again - so I will upload in the current form with all additional eratta incorporated - and some minor additions

[witpqs]

Hi Sid,

This is something rather curious, not necessarily a problem. You know how you give various units a bunch of supplies either at game start or when they arrive, and they dump the supplies into the pool at the base their in within about a turn? I've noticed one LCU that is keeping it's extra supplies - into July '42 so far. The "USN Oahu Base Fort" CD unit, in July '42, still has more than 55,500 supplies to itself. I peeked in the editor and the unit starts with 60,000, so it appears to have been feeding itself all those months.

I thought I would mention it just in case it is not deliberate.

[el cid again]

If we could understand WHY this happens, we might be able to cause CD forts to do this - and then a big problem might be mitigated. Right now, Fort Drum (for example) loses its 14 inch guns first - when in fact they needed to be destroyed to aviod capture - entirely due to loss of supply. In the case of the Oahu CD fort - being naval it isn't the one we really need to do this - it is the Hawaii Deparate Coast Artillery Brigade - but if we swap slots - maybe we will make it very hard to lose the big guns!

[el cid again]

Slot 2125 is the Oahu Base Force in stock - so it likely has special hard code re supplies. This can indeed be exploited so the Hawaii Separate Coast Artillery Brigade tends to keep its supplies - and not attrit away its heavy guns. Simpy swap slots 2672 and 2125.


Tsushima, Iki and Fort Stevens heavy forts tend to move to the positions their slot was in in stock. Slot 2123 needs to be in Slot 2717 and slot 1004 needs to be in slot 1001 - probably - so they will never move.