RHS findings

[Mistmatz]

el cid I found another one of these static issues a while ago but posted in the support forum, not here.
Maybe you can also have a look at the unit "USN 11th Naval Dist". I dont have the LCU number at hand but I believe it started in San Diego. In the meantime this unit wandered on the RR along the west coast but havent moved for a few days. Probably it's trying to get into the desert which takes a bit longer...

[el cid again]

It was trying to get to China!!! I had got rid of many Allied ROC HQ units - the stock system has duplicated units and HQ - a "corps" HQ makes no sense when you ALSO have the entire corps as a unit - but while AKDreemer wanted to add the naval districts to help with maintenance - and while these are Allied HQ slots - they have hard code moving them to points in China. Most are now combined with CD units so they won't move - and it is questionable if they perform all HQ functions - but they clearly DO perform the support functions of the Naval Districts anyway (via their support suqads and some static AA and security elements). I don't know if 11th survived off the top of my head.

Pacific Fleet combined with 14th Naval District - so that combination DOES work in all senses.
Western Command combined with 12th Naval District - same same.

8th, 11th, 13th, 15th and 16th Naval Districts have not been removed or combined - so this issue does remain.
It almost certainly will get into trouble in an AI game - so IF AI were controlling the Allies I would 9999 them out. But AI cannot play
the Allies in any case - in any mod - so I don't worry about that.

Tell me about your game - who is playing the Allies? Human? Can you send the unit back to where it should go? [Probably not - but I want to know - a static unit should not let you send it anywhere] Did the command change?

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
...
Tell me about your game - who is playing the Allies? Human? Can you send the unit back to where it should go? [Probably not - but I want to know - a static unit should not let you send it anywhere] Did the command change?

This is a PBEM against Okami, I'm playing the allies. The unit is still under western command which I believe it started with. All order buttons are greyed out expect the defend options "defensive stance" and "set all to defend" - similar to other static units. Under load coast it says "static" and it still has two static facility squads in the units composition (two of those also in TOE). I havent seen that this unit had a march distance at some point in time but I also didn't check every day. It is now in the desert field of 141,44 were no roads are so chances are I would have seen this if it would be displayed.

From the list of units you mentioned (8th, 11th, 13th, 15th and 16th Naval Districts) only the 11th shows this problem, the others are still where they started. When the unit started its voyage it seemed to me there was a relation to another unit that I moved out of San Diego at the same time. I moved this unit from SD to SF for faster regroup (non restricted command) and I believe thats when the 11th started its march.

If you want to analyse a save file I can send this to you.

[Bliztk]

It`s a bug. Sometimes when you get a "march all" order, static units move.

I have it once

[el cid again]

That sounds right. I NEVER use "march all" command. OR if I used it - I would then hit "defend" on static units. Thanks.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have had a lot of trouble of this sort - not so much with supply sinks as with static CD units - in China and also in New Zealand. I have to change slots to fix it - it is hard code - undocumented hard code. [Did I ever say how much I hate hard code? Apparently much of this has been ripped out of AE]

Is Japan controlled by you ?
Yes
Can you get control of this unit?
No

Where is it trying to go (is there a destination)?
No idea it has no move order in the destination.
What is the command (AI loves to change command - and not just to the "legal" ones - but to others as well).
China
Can you order it to return to Yanku?
No.
It is not a slot that is used in stock - but that does not mean it is safe to use this slot for a static unit. Many slots refuese to stay in one place.

[Mistmatz]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

It`s a bug. Sometimes when you get a "march all" order, static units move.

I have it once

I dont use the march all at all. So I'm 99,9% sure it's not related to this bug. Besides, giving 'march all' command in my case would have started a couple more units to march (non static though) but they didn't. So I believe there is some other effect around.

I found another potential minor flaw. On Jan/30/42 three US DDs appear in Balboa/Panama City. Among them DD Renshaw and DD Philip, both Fletcher class DDs.
While the Philip appears in it's 10/42 configuration, the Renshaw enters the map in the 4/43 configuration. Not sure if this is just an early prototype or an oversight in the database.
On top of that in the 4/43 configuration the facing of the 2nd device slot (5in/38 Mk12 DP Gun) changes from 'C' to 'A' compared to the 10/42 configuration. Just some more chrome to polish. [;)]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have had a lot of trouble of this sort - not so much with supply sinks as with static CD units - in China and also in New Zealand. I have to change slots to fix it - it is hard code - undocumented hard code. [Did I ever say how much I hate hard code? Apparently much of this has been ripped out of AE]

Is Japan controlled by you ?
Yes
Can you get control of this unit?
No

Where is it trying to go (is there a destination)?
No idea it has no move order in the destination.
What is the command (AI loves to change command - and not just to the "legal" ones - but to others as well).
China
Can you order it to return to Yanku?
No.
It is not a slot that is used in stock - but that does not mean it is safe to use this slot for a static unit. Many slots refuese to stay in one place.

This is not good. In general, assigning a unit as a CD unit makes it static - far more than giving it a static device does. [The device can go away - and will if there is a lot of combat damage or a supply shortage. The CD status never changes and is coded to be static.] However, if the slot is coded to move - it will move. I must change the slot. Ugly.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

It`s a bug. Sometimes when you get a "march all" order, static units move.

I have it once

I dont use the march all at all. So I'm 99,9% sure it's not related to this bug. Besides, giving 'march all' command in my case would have started a couple more units to march (non static though) but they didn't. So I believe there is some other effect around.

I found another potential minor flaw. On Jan/30/42 three US DDs appear in Balboa/Panama City. Among them DD Renshaw and DD Philip, both Fletcher class DDs.
While the Philip appears in it's 10/42 configuration, the Renshaw enters the map in the 4/43 configuration. Not sure if this is just an early prototype or an oversight in the database.
On top of that in the 4/43 configuration the facing of the 2nd device slot (5in/38 Mk12 DP Gun) changes from 'C' to 'A' compared to the 10/42 configuration. Just some more chrome to polish. [;)]

Since NO Fletcher class DD should appear before 10/43, these must be errors in the year (at least). DD date of arrival was never checked for RHS - so this is old CHS 1.55 data. I can fun it down.

Looks like Philip is a 1 shift from 43 to 42 - a classic editor error that may have occurred after I got the data. It also should appear at Colon, Panama in Levels 5 and 6, and at New Orleans 5 days sooner in Level 7.

Renshaw did not commission until 5 Dec 42 - needed at least a month to train up (in RHS) - and 5 days to get to Colon (minimum) - so it should appear on Jan 10 43 in Levels 5 and 6, and at New Orleans on Jan 5 in Level 7 - no sooner - but possibly later for lots of reasons. She should be in the class 1304 configuration instead of 1305.

The guns should be C in 1305 and 1306, but are A in all cases - and that is also likely either inherited or editor induced. This is a lot of work to change - but it will be done.

[Historiker]

In our game, a RTAF unit appeared in SF on day 2:
2407 - RTAF B2/North Cmd/1
5 planes, RTAF B-10 Bomber

[el cid again]

That is wierd - the RTAF ALSO appeared at Bangkok with the B-10 on day 1.

The unit appeared understrength - with 6 planes - and it is permitted to expand - because IRL it took over NEIAF B-10s. These are in the pool and I thought they never worked. Now I see they DO appear - but because I used an Allied slot - they appear on the wrong side. This is too bad. I just had to kill ROC use of RTAF planes (the right plane) because it was appearing on the Japanese side in other games (won't happen in future games, but they use Lysanders instead of O2Us as a substitute product until upgraded).

Due to slot limits the RTAF B-10 is in an Allied slot - and this appears to cause problems. It always upgrades to Ki-48 or Ki-21 (Ki-21 is historical) - so it does not present much of a problem.

Other things might be happening: I once had a flight of B-25s appear on a Japanese carrier in UV - and as far as I know Matrix never did figure out why (they did try). Rarely units appear with nonsense planes too - and in a few cases I have been able to fix them.

When this happens I send the unit somewhere harmless and set it to doing nothing - or I kill it if it is possible (only if another unit has the same planes). BUT in OUR game go ahead an use it - RTAF served on both sides IRL - and I need to think about this - maybe we WANT some Allied RTAF?? [It would be air transports]

Here the fix probably is to kill the RTAF B-10 - it is only chrome after all and there are only six of them - but MAYBE if I set the unit to max at six it will be fine.

[m10bob]

Apologies if this has already been reported..In RHSCVO V.7, a Brit CL class has a very low AA rating..I checked and some of the AA guns are listed as 75mm SP guns!..(I believe it is Celedon class??)..

[Historiker]

I know you don't want to create your own ship designs, but the Dutch BC in EBO has already at the beginning a lower AA rate than most CLs. The upgrade later will only give the ship radar - but no additional AAA.
Isn't that most unlikely?


One more thing:
I haven't find a way to upgrade Army planes to Marine types - even in the "E-Series" EBO, EEO and EOS. Shouldn't the Army be able to use Marine planes as well in this scenarios? I always hate being short on P-40 while I have 500 F-4F in the pool...

USAAF 59th FIghter arrives 760 days after scenario start... - with P-40B

[chuckwalla]

HMS Caledon was a WWI CL that should have a low AA rating. In late 1942 it returned to the UK for refitting as a CLAA but stayed in the European theatre.
One issue I have noticed in EBO and EEO (and may exist in other scenarios) is that the weapon load-out of the Minekaze class DE's does not match their class description resulting in red ammo ratings for slots with no weapons. On replenishing they get ammo but still no weapon. I suspect that the class-description is correct for these scenarios but ships didn't get weapons in the correct slots.

[m10bob]

The CL should not be armed with 75mm self-propelled,(tracked) vehicles.....[;)].Currently, the AA rating is less than that of a DD..

[chuckwalla]

My fault. I didn't check what was in game because I was at work. I just checked on the Caledon and saw that it should have a low AA rating. I'm not sure how AA is arrived at for ships that really didn't have any true AA weapons. I doubt that 1916 vintage naval guns were much threat to aircraft.

[Historiker]

2033, 2032 upgrade to P-40B
1689 upgradest du PV-1 Ventura NF (as well as two other PF units on cruisers I've forgotten to notice)
1530 is the flight of the Adelaide - but it has NO capacity. So either it must get capacity 1 or the flight must be removed.

Asheville class PGs have a 180mm Gun.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
The CL should not be armed with 75mm self-propelled,(tracked) vehicles.....[;)].

But could she be armed with 75mm Single Purpose gun?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

ORIGINAL: m10bob
The CL should not be armed with 75mm self-propelled,(tracked) vehicles.....[;)].

But could she be armed with 75mm Single Purpose gun?

In my army, "SP" is nomenclature for "self-propelled"..

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I know you don't want to create your own ship designs, but the Dutch BC in EBO has already at the beginning a lower AA rate than most CLs. The upgrade later will only give the ship radar - but no additional AAA.
Isn't that most unlikely?


One more thing:
I haven't find a way to upgrade Army planes to Marine types - even in the "E-Series" EBO, EEO and EOS. Shouldn't the Army be able to use Marine planes as well in this scenarios? I always hate being short on P-40 while I have 500 F-4F in the pool...

USAAF 59th FIghter arrives 760 days after scenario start... - with P-40B

The peculiar Dutch BC design in RHS is the first one - with only two twin DP mountings per side. It starts with good 40 mm Bofors - so that cannot upgrade to anything better - there not being anything better to upgrade to. All they can do is upgrade the .50s to 20mm. It may not seem like much - but it is all relative: it starts unusually good in the medium area, gets slightly better in the light area - and cannot get any better in the heavy area - unless we postulated a complete rebuilt with different mounts (difficult in this case - the magazines are structural).

I did propose for these scenarios that Allied planes use a common art scheme - and this would permit interchanging of types between services (or nations) - Cobra agreed - but never completed the art for this. "Nations" (USN, US Army and USMC are all "nations") do not generally share aircraft types. Right now the art works (mostly) - but only if we denationalized the art would it work if I set things to share more generally. Now if you want to redo the EOS plane art set for the Allies....