RHS findings

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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"..

True - but in the NAVY SP = single purpose. There are many ships with SP 75mm guns - which is why it exists as a device. In this case we need to check it out - unless it is an old CL it will have DP guns.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yep - these are ancient WWI vintage light cruisers.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: 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....

The original Dutch BC design is from a time with minor air threat (theoretically). In EBO, the Dutch haven't reacted to the experiences from the last two years, nore do they with the upgrade.
I know that it's most unlikely that a ship gets additional heavy AAA turrets, but it's not that difficult to bolt or welde additional AA-MGs or light AAA onto ships. Why don't you take an allied design of similar size and intended use that survived the war to give the Dutch BC additional AAA? I think one might look at how much light AAA the Alaska CBs recieved and give this armement (concerning the differences of both ships) to the Dutch BC?
It's not that important for me, but it seems most unlikely to me that the BCs, would they ever have been built, just carried such a weak AAA.


@planes
Is the art the only problem? Well, why not changing the scenario that the F4F is allowed to both sides and ask the 2-3 good artists here to help with the gfx? As the Art can be changed while a game runs, it's no problem if it gets available a little bit after the release of the art, no?

[el cid again]

RHS is integrated - I do not do files UNTIL the art is done - and this is a great example why: Cobra agreed to do this art - said it was "in the pipeline" many times - and never did do it. I don't want files out with wrong art - it is bad form.

Give me the art - I will do the files. This is a LOT of work FYI - it will take a LOT of time to change all the air units involved - and we will add more Allied plane types if we do it - because we will need fewer slots.

ONE part of this WAS done and IS in the system - Allied air transports have generic art - and are shared - in many cases - which freed up slots.
It was the first stage - and Cobra did do it - so I did the files to match.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Many USN observation (5 of 5 checked) units upgrade wrong - correcting

EDIT - only BBO family used all 5 units - EBO used 2 - the rest none of these. Corrected. No other scenaios had this issue.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS is integrated - I do not do files UNTIL the art is done - and this is a great example why: Cobra agreed to do this art - said it was "in the pipeline" many times - and never did do it. I don't want files out with wrong art - it is bad form.

Give me the art - I will do the files. This is a LOT of work FYI - it will take a LOT of time to change all the air units involved - and we will add more Allied plane types if we do it - because we will need fewer slots.

ONE part of this WAS done and IS in the system - Allied air transports have generic art - and are shared - in many cases - which freed up slots.
It was the first stage - and Cobra did do it - so I did the files to match.

Hmm..
I really don't understand what's the problem here. Where are the significant differences between the painting of a Marine and a USAAF plane that don't allow USAAF units to use the same plane? How should an art for both look like then?
How should an art for both UK and US look like then?

[el cid again]

Go to a composite air art case like the C-32.

It is all metal finish.

What Cobra proposed to do for combat aircraft was to come up with an Allied camo scheme - all Allied planes in PTO would use the same
scheme - and none would have national insignia per se. This is a bit like the "invasion stripes" that were used for D Day - ALL Allied planes had these stripes on both wings. It is also like all camo markings used today on C-130s. I think he did some or most of this - but it was lost when his drives went down.

You need art that does not show markings peculiar to a nation or service.

CVO and BBO will continue to use standard art - with national markings - for those who want them. EOS family will use the revised art.
IF it is ever done.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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.

1530 is right at source in all cases - you may have a corrupted our out of date file - and I don't remember fixing this - so corrupted is more likely.

1689 is like those other five units - and an isolated case not checked. It should upgrade to 161 Kingfisher.

Asheville was corrected a couple of releases back and is not an issue in current files.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: 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.

Yep - these are ancient WWI vintage light cruisers.

The bad news: They start the game with only 2 75mm SP guns.

[Two of the four units survived until WWII]

The good news: They upgrade to AA cruisers in 1943.

[Historiker]

I can't believe this might have something to do with RHS, but ALL my air groups don't fly ASW missions! If some don't... but I checked them, and as far as I've seen it, not a single pilot has one (additional) mission!

[el cid again]

Maybe they don't get recorded as missions?

I am seeing air detection of submarines - and hits on submarines - so they ARE flying

[Historiker]

Did you see air detections and hits on subs by MY planes in our game?

[el cid again]

I think so - I am playing four simultaneous games. I will watch for them.

I can not imagine any way for this not to happen. In both AI vs AI testing and solitare testing I have found air ASW to be effective on both sides - too effective in fact. There are threads on this subject and I just introduced a modification designed to make both air and surface ASW less effective. In technical terms there are really NO subs at all - just surface ships that submerge sometimes. Subs are not really treated different from ships until after they are detected - at which point IF the sub detects the aircraft THEN it submerges. When submerged it is harder to hit than when surfaced.

Andrew Brown invented a pseudo "snorkel" device which we use in RHS - and WITP always had radar which CHS and RHS added to submarines - and it may be your hit rates are lower when you encounter them (both cause the sub to submerge more often). But snorkels do not exist in 1941 (our game) and neither does radar on submarines (our game) - so neither of these is even reducing the hit rate.

[Mistmatz]

Air squadron 1077 ("ROC 1/1 Bomb Sqdn") operates the IL-4C/DB-3F level bomber. The weapon loadout of this group is a 18in MkXII torpedo. This seems a bit weird for a chinese air group. In case the loadout is correct maybe a "(T)" should be added to the squads name to keep it consistent with other special loadout groups.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I think so - I am playing four simultaneous games. I will watch for them.

I can not imagine any way for this not to happen. In both AI vs AI testing and solitare testing I have found air ASW to be effective on both sides - too effective in fact. There are threads on this subject and I just introduced a modification designed to make both air and surface ASW less effective. In technical terms there are really NO subs at all - just surface ships that submerge sometimes. Subs are not really treated different from ships until after they are detected - at which point IF the sub detects the aircraft THEN it submerges. When submerged it is harder to hit than when surfaced.

Andrew Brown invented a pseudo "snorkel" device which we use in RHS - and WITP always had radar which CHS and RHS added to submarines - and it may be your hit rates are lower when you encounter them (both cause the sub to submerge more often). But snorkels do not exist in 1941 (our game) and neither does radar on submarines (our game) - so neither of these is even reducing the hit rate.

Well, in our game, my bombers on ASW duty simply seem to stay on ground. I've not noticed a single incident when one of your subs was even just spotted by one of my ASW-bombers.
Well, I'll watch this...

[Mistmatz]

Historiker, which kind of planes are you talking about? To me it seems that level bombers for instance the Anson is not very likely to find subs. They also have relatively low experience at game start and may also suffer from the 5000ft penalty. Usually my ASW flies at 2000ft, but for LB's I'm not sure, so I mostly operate them at 5000ft which might be too high to detect anything.

[Historiker]

Every kind.
Anson, B-10, B-18, B-17, Blenheim...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Air squadron 1077 ("ROC 1/1 Bomb Sqdn") operates the IL-4C/DB-3F level bomber. The weapon loadout of this group is a 18in MkXII torpedo. This seems a bit weird for a chinese air group. In case the loadout is correct maybe a "(T)" should be added to the squads name to keep it consistent with other special loadout groups.

Actually it isn't. The loadout is 4 x 100 kg bombs. For some reason most games show the default loadout for the aircraft itself - which in RHS need not be the same as all air units using the plane. But in MY games - using the latest Matrix patch - the UNIT loadouts are shown. I put in the loadout indicator in the unit name because this didn't happen - and I cannot explain why now I see the unit loadout? But in the editor you can see it - and I checked.

Just to be safe - what scenario? I didn't check them all - and they all should be the same.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Historiker, which kind of planes are you talking about? To me it seems that level bombers for instance the Anson is not very likely to find subs. They also have relatively low experience at game start and may also suffer from the 5000ft penalty. Usually my ASW flies at 2000ft, but for LB's I'm not sure, so I mostly operate them at 5000ft which might be too high to detect anything.

The altitude is critical. Only 1000 feet works well. 2000 feet works poorly. 3000 feet more poorly still. By the time you get to 5000 feet it is nearly hopeless. 100 feet is also a bad idea - it kills the fatigue and morale of the unit. IRL the ideal altitude is about 500 feet - but 1000 is pretty good. If you do NOT fly at 1000 feet you will not spot.

Seaplanes and patrol planes are better. You start with ANT-3 rated as patrol planes - they are not - partly for that reason. PBY and Dorniers should do this duty in particuler.

[el cid again]

I checked with Joe Wilkerson - and he says Allied air ASW works.