NON Critical RHS 7.942 micro update: uploaded

[el cid again]

I am preparing a Japanese turn for RHSRAO.

RAO is CVO with extra features important for the Allies, in particular compared to CAIO:

1) There are interior river systems. The most vital of these is the Ganges/Bhramaputra one and the Amur/Tsungari one - these matter to the economy and permit faster than land movement for land units - generally without regard for the enemy who is not anywhere that matters. Others matter a little too. You can even move things into or out of places by sea using rivers - if you are creative - and there were two important military campaigns mounted by the Allies in this theater on rivers: in Burma and Manchuria. [ The former saw the only time in US history US manned vessels were commissioned in the Royal Navy - and that by the US Army - not the US Navy ] Other possibilities exist besides those that were used historically - and in a game situation - it may be nice to have options.


2) The Russians are free to manage their defenses and economy - and possibly to help the Allies exporting resources - or be helped by them importing fuel, supplies, or even military units (which appear in Alaska mainly - but which cannot go to Russia in a passive scenario).

I propose to send this turn to you - and to use it as a way to "calibrate" ASW - and air ASW in particualar. We will both observe the rules above. And I will collect data for analysis. This means we can advise Matrix what the numbers are - or we might even use them to modify accuracy or effect or other data values - in a result oriented programming effort. I play many games for many purposes - and I don't play so much to do well as to learn - or in this case measure. Not playing as gamers with ego we don't have to "cheat" and set the patrol ranges too long, or use non ASW planes - etc.

In the CVO family you get the historical ASW planes - including the very unusual cases of the Army ASW carrier plane of the IJA - and the first specialist ASW aircraft ever in the Navy. Neither is very good - but they are in CVO for players like you who WANT historical planes instead of the best possible planes given 20-20 hindsight.

[Buck Beach]

Here is a couple of items I have found in 7.94 . 1) DMS Long (Dorsey) reflects the 8/43 ship configuration at start. First update after start scheduled for 8/43  This error predates 7.90; 2) Mahan class destroyers lose all DC weapons at the 4/42 refit.

Here is something I had never noticed before.  There is a field in the editor ship list for date sunk.  This field makes me very suspect of the random nature of attacks/sinking's only dependent on action results. This appears to be a predestined odds factor and if it is, I sure don't like it.

Hey, I am getting a little bit worn down by the game due in part to the current confusion, having to start over, and things happening in the real world's financial (getting my butt kicked royally) and energy crisis's. Think I will go to the sidelines for awhile. I'll be watching.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

Question for El Cid:

Do you have a similar algorithm for planes on naval search and do you treat bombers on naval search differently from patrol aircraft?

I routinely range limit my planes on ASW in the belief that searching a more limited area should increase my chance of spotting and attacking in critical areas near my bases and my fleets of capital ships. If the code is based on mathematical reality this should be true, but I am learning that this is often not the case. Do you know if this approach serves its purpose?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Here is a couple of items I have found in 7.94 . 1) DMS Long (Dorsey) reflects the 8/43 ship configuration at start. First update after start scheduled for 8/43  This error predates 7.90; 2) Mahan class destroyers lose all DC weapons at the 4/42 refit.

Here is something I had never noticed before.  There is a field in the editor ship list for date sunk.  This field makes me very suspect of the random nature of attacks/sinking's only dependent on action results. This appears to be a predestined odds factor and if it is, I sure don't like it.

Hey, I am getting a little bit worn down by the game due in part to the current confusion, having to start over, and things happening in the real world's financial (getting my butt kicked royally) and energy crisis's. Think I will go to the sidelines for awhile. I'll be watching.

I think the Long is an eratum. I think the Mahan is strictly correct. Mahan was never good at ASW and lacked the size for the anti-aircraft update - so they got rid of the anti-surface guns and ASW to save weight in favor of AA weapons - she becomes an AA destroyer. Or possibly Mahan NEVER had ASW weapons at all - and is wrongly shown with them to start with. She was built without - just a deck strong enough for racks - and it may be she fitted these in the phony war period - before the 42 update. Need to check - but the data was reviewed for the ASW update and should be right.

The ship sunk field is for scenarios that want not to need research. IF you write a mod for - say - game start 5/42 - all ships already lost historically will simply not appear. Since such mods are rare, the field is not much used.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

Question for El Cid:

Do you have a similar algorithm for planes on naval search and do you treat bombers on naval search differently from patrol aircraft?

I routinely range limit my planes on ASW in the belief that searching a more limited area should increase my chance of spotting and attacking in critical areas near my bases and my fleets of capital ships. If the code is based on mathematical reality this should be true, but I am learning that this is often not the case. Do you know if this approach serves its purpose?

The simple answer is use the same algorithm. But ANY bomber can do naval search. I am tempted to exempt the USAAF - but that is too harsh - and they could be penalized by altitude possibly - before skip bombing is invented non torpedo bombers cannot be set to make runs below 3000 feet (mid 1943).

Your method is not really effective. ASW limits range to half but I don't think it makes the planes more effective vs surface TFs. Subs are de facto surface TFs to begin with. Altitude probably is treated differently vs subs and surface TFs - while range is simpy cut in half (I don't know if fractions are dropped but I assume so). Your method results in too many sub hits. And it pits non ASW trained crews vs the subs to get them.
Since the game assumes an ASW mission has ASW weapons (probably abstract ones since unarmed planes - see Anson - will score hits) - I don't think this is ideal practice - if you want historical play like Buck does.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

.
Hey, I am getting a little bit worn down by the game due in part to the current confusion, having to start over, and things happening in the real world's financial (getting my butt kicked royally) and energy crisis's. Think I will go to the sidelines for awhile. I'll be watching.

Ironically I expected this energy crisis to happen in 2004 - it is strangely delayed. The basic foundation for it existed - rapid economic growth in China and India - and the WOT which limited supply from Iraq and Iran and other places. I also expected demonizing of the enemy - and lumping all Islamic people together - and I was almost shocked the administration was too wise to go that way. I didn't expect Lybia to come in from the cold re all forms of wmd - or that we would get inside Pakistan's and even North Korea's nuclear history - or that a paper I wrote in 1999 would show we had understood all the "axis of evil" wmd programs verly nearly perfectly. History is going to be far kinder to this administration than the critics and pundits make it appear now - and in economic terms specifically. The grave problem is a failure to use the bully pulpit to create a national and international alliance (similar to 1991 vs Iraq) - there is no sense we are at war - and none of the "united we stand" of 2003 anywhere. This means things will get worst rather than better - because we are at war - and by not managing the economy as if we were - we are going to have Viet Nam type inflation - which you are starting to see. Guns and butter is a very bad idea. And - note - we are not buying Navy ships - year after year: we are not buying enough guns - just fuel and bullets. This is a less than ideal strategic situation - and that leads to market nervousness. I regret to say it will get worse - unless China collapses (possible) and stops demanding energy.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

Yes, in our recent game I threw everything I had at your subs, especially since surface ships were ineffective and your subs were killing me. However, I am interested in learning to play more historically.

I think my question was unclear so I will be more specific. IIRC, the PBY has a range of 24 thus a default ASW range of 12. If I range limit the unit to, say 6, will they be more likely to find subs near their base since they are searching a smaller geographic area?

[el cid again]

I doubt it - but that is how it should work. Looks like ASW and search are equally effective regardless of range. The big problem - it takes numbers for a long range search - is absent. Thus - if you set 24 hexes you search 4 times the area as if you search 12 hexes - but with equal effect. To search 12 hexes should require 24 planes for naval search - and for ASW the code will cut that to a de facto 6 hexes. Our rule follows this principle - If you have an 8 plane Mavis group - it can set for 4 hexes (if unaided by anything) - and only hunts subs for 2 hexes. This is realistic - but gamers I am sure hate it. It means that you can run RECON to 20 hexes - but not search (unless you run 40 planes) - and even then ASW is limited to 10.

[el cid again]

DMS Long is properly shown starting the game - she was stationed at PH at the start of the war - so she should be in her 1941 configuration.
That is, ship slot 4420 in all forms of RHS should be set to class 312.

[el cid again]

Mahan class is much more difficult to understand.

One thing I learned - only one ship got the 1945 anti-kamakazi update - she was grossly overweight and dangerous - so they landed the number 3 five inch mounting. For that reason the 1945 update needs to lose a big gun.

ASW suite is almost never mentioned - and there are three different datums listed in various places - 2 DCR (certainly true) - 2 DCT (probably confusion for DCR or possibly generic and inclusive of them) - 4 DCT (one listing - might apply to some ship or be an assumption). However, I can show the lead ship herself conducted ASW patrols in 1944 - so she must have retained a minimal ASW suite including the 2 racks. So much radar and AA were added I doubt it was possible to fit more AS weapons - and where would the DC have been carried?

I have redone the class so all version retain the original 2 DCT - and the 1945 update loses one after big gun.

I will update the files as 7.941 microupdate - class and ship only - in an hour - if no other ship stuff occurs - and this data will be in my new RHSRAO and RHSEBO test games.

[el cid again]

Microupdate 7.941 includes ship class and ship files. These updates will be used in test series 11.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

DMS Long is properly shown starting the game - she was stationed at PH at the start of the war - so she should be in her 1941 configuration.
That is, ship slot 4420 in all forms of RHS should be set to class 312.

Are you suggesting once again that I am wrong in my observation. I see it is incorrectly configured under CAIO 7.94. Do you want a saved game to once again prove myself when it is so easy for you to check it out yourself. Start a new head to head game using non-historical and varied set up. Select the CAIO 078 and start. The Japanese side is reflected. End phase so the Allied side is reflected. Go to Johnston Is. and look open up TF 1159 compare the DMS Long with the other DMS's in the same TF. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU SEE?

I re-read your post and maybe you were seeing it was wrong. If so, disregard my above rant. If this is the case, why can't you just say "Hey your right, I'll correct it."

BTW, did anybody else notice the other DMS's ASW weapon configuration at the start of the war, Pattern 4 Large DC. That makes them the 800 lb gorilla compared to all other ships having ASW capabilities.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Here is a couple of items I have found in 7.94 . 1) DMS Long (Dorsey) reflects the 8/43 ship configuration at start. First update after start scheduled for 8/43  This error predates 7.90; 2) Mahan class destroyers lose all DC weapons at the 4/42 refit.

Here is something I had never noticed before.  There is a field in the editor ship list for date sunk.  This field makes me very suspect of the random nature of attacks/sinking's only dependent on action results. This appears to be a predestined odds factor and if it is, I sure don't like it.

Hey, I am getting a little bit worn down by the game due in part to the current confusion, having to start over, and things happening in the real world's financial (getting my butt kicked royally) and energy crisis's. Think I will go to the sidelines for awhile. I'll be watching.

I think the Mahan is strictly correct. Mahan was never good at ASW and lacked the size for the anti-aircraft update - so they got rid of the anti-surface guns and ASW to save weight in favor of AA weapons - she becomes an AA destroyer. Or possibly Mahan NEVER had ASW weapons at all - and is wrongly shown with them to start with. She was built without - just a deck strong enough for racks - and it may be she fitted these in the phony war period - before the 42 update. Need to check - but the data was reviewed for the ASW update and should be right.

Hmmm good reasoning (???), guess you made those changes on purpose and you decided to make them while doing the update. What about the Benson Class DDs , when they show up on March 12, 1942? They show they update to a 12/41 configuration instead of the correct 4/42. Prior to 7.90 both the Mahan and the Bensons were correctly shown.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

DMS Long is properly shown starting the game - she was stationed at PH at the start of the war - so she should be in her 1941 configuration.
That is, ship slot 4420 in all forms of RHS should be set to class 312.

Are you suggesting once again that I am wrong in my observation. .

au contrair mon ami

I am suggesting you were right - so I did what you asked for - which should be clear when I said in the update notice she went to her 1941 configuration

If I cannot even agree with you without being misread - we must seem perpetually to be in disagreement

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Here is a couple of items I have found in 7.94 . 1) DMS Long (Dorsey) reflects the 8/43 ship configuration at start. First update after start scheduled for 8/43  This error predates 7.90; 2) Mahan class destroyers lose all DC weapons at the 4/42 refit.

Here is something I had never noticed before.  There is a field in the editor ship list for date sunk.  This field makes me very suspect of the random nature of attacks/sinking's only dependent on action results. This appears to be a predestined odds factor and if it is, I sure don't like it.

Hey, I am getting a little bit worn down by the game due in part to the current confusion, having to start over, and things happening in the real world's financial (getting my butt kicked royally) and energy crisis's. Think I will go to the sidelines for awhile. I'll be watching.

I think the Mahan is strictly correct. Mahan was never good at ASW and lacked the size for the anti-aircraft update - so they got rid of the anti-surface guns and ASW to save weight in favor of AA weapons - she becomes an AA destroyer. Or possibly Mahan NEVER had ASW weapons at all - and is wrongly shown with them to start with. She was built without - just a deck strong enough for racks - and it may be she fitted these in the phony war period - before the 42 update. Need to check - but the data was reviewed for the ASW update and should be right.

Hmmm good reasoning (???), guess you made those changes on purpose and you decided to make them while doing the update. What about the Benson Class DDs , when they show up on March 12, 1942? They show they update to a 12/41 configuration instead of the correct 4/42. Prior to 7.90 both the Mahan and the Bensons were correctly shown.

Note a later post I ended up agreeing with your observation. I had a difficult time to run this down - and eventually based my view on a 1944 mission of Mahan herself: she is not likely to have been assigned to an AS patrol if she had not any DC at all. I also learned I missed an item in 1945 - that while the PLAN was for all the big guns (left - 4 by then) - it was too topheavy - and so they removed No 3 mount - and this too got folded in.

[el cid again]

Thinking about how to reduce air ASW effects - I wondered if we could modify the bomb accuracy. Looking at that I found grossly inconsistent data - it varies by 22500 per cent! So I have decided to make all bombs the same accuracy - and this will reduce the Japanese air ASW bomb significantly.

So I am doing an update including the ships of 7.941 as well as this device change: bomb accuracy always = 4 for a normal bomb (it is somewhat higher for a cluster bomb). THIS is the file set we will use for Test Series 11.

A cluster has 3 bombs each with a 4 per cent chance = 12 per cent chance you get a hit. The effect is pro rated as well - such that you get a lot more effect per unit of hang weight than for a single bomb. I assume a cluster is 3 bombs of 1/3 the hang weight - and the effects of these are used. Because of a square root function - this means you are better off for soft effect targets.

I also gave the 60 kg bomb or DC a "range" (= depth) rating - and I think I will classify it as a DC. IF code works for ASW weapons - a depth greater than zero is needed (and even if not now - it will if ever modified). Also - code treats DC as bombs with respect to non sub targets - so it will still work as a bomb. Note this weapon is used on both sides - see Anson as well as Mavis (etc).

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again




I think the Mahan is strictly correct. Mahan was never good at ASW and lacked the size for the anti-aircraft update - so they got rid of the anti-surface guns and ASW to save weight in favor of AA weapons - she becomes an AA destroyer. Or possibly Mahan NEVER had ASW weapons at all - and is wrongly shown with them to start with. She was built without - just a deck strong enough for racks - and it may be she fitted these in the phony war period - before the 42 update. Need to check - but the data was reviewed for the ASW update and should be right.

Hmmm good reasoning (???), guess you made those changes on purpose and you decided to make them while doing the update. What about the Benson Class DDs , when they show up on March 12, 1942? They show they update to a 12/41 configuration instead of the correct 4/42. Prior to 7.90 both the Mahan and the Bensons were correctly shown.

Note a later post I ended up agreeing with your observation. I had a difficult time to run this down - and eventually based my view on a 1944 mission of Mahan herself: she is not likely to have been assigned to an AS patrol if she had not any DC at all. I also learned I missed an item in 1945 - that while the PLAN was for all the big guns (left - 4 by then) - it was too topheavy - and so they removed No 3 mount - and this too got folded in.

And the Benson Class??

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: el cid again




I think the Mahan is strictly correct. Mahan was never good at ASW and lacked the size for the anti-aircraft update - so they got rid of the anti-surface guns and ASW to save weight in favor of AA weapons - she becomes an AA destroyer. Or possibly Mahan NEVER had ASW weapons at all - and is wrongly shown with them to start with. She was built without - just a deck strong enough for racks - and it may be she fitted these in the phony war period - before the 42 update. Need to check - but the data was reviewed for the ASW update and should be right.

Hmmm good reasoning (???), guess you made those changes on purpose and you decided to make them while doing the update. What about the Benson Class DDs , when they show up on March 12, 1942? They show they update to a 12/41 configuration instead of the correct 4/42. Prior to 7.90 both the Mahan and the Bensons were correctly shown.

Note a later post I ended up agreeing with your observation. I had a difficult time to run this down - and eventually based my view on a 1944 mission of Mahan herself: she is not likely to have been assigned to an AS patrol if she had not any DC at all. I also learned I missed an item in 1945 - that while the PLAN was for all the big guns (left - 4 by then) - it was too topheavy - and so they removed No 3 mount - and this too got folded in.

I want to make a point here. I do and have always respected and appreciated your technical knowledge, experience and analytical ability. My analytical skills on the other hand are not scinetific and are only fired off when "something doesn't past the smell test" and through observation. I do also have the ability to listen, consider and then change my mind when appropriate.

I am a great fan of RHS especially over the original game and even CHS which also was a giant step better than stock.

To the Mahan issue. I truly thought this error was data entry sloppiness. This was/is further supported by the Benson issue and who knows what else is hiding in the swamp. You had not previously discussed the issue and, quite honestly, I have always been suspect of your accuracy because of your rush to implement new concepts and just because of the enormous job of trying to handle all of the balls in the air of the different scenarios.
If again I am wrong I apologize.

Now, again it is your sandbox, you changed the Mahan in the CVO family which is suppose to represent the RL OOB. Building and configuring Starships and Jedi fighters in the EOS seems perfectly OK as it is hypothetical and as it is "just a game" not a simulation.
IMHO (and I do mean humble) the OOB in the CVO should remain true to historical equipment, INCLUDING DEVICES AND WEAPON PLATFORMS. If you can achieve desired results by means of tweaking associate fields or formulas that's great but to take away from some of the game's diversity by inventing or changes the items to me is not cool, and again in what should be the pristine CVO family OOB.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Here is a couple of items I have found in 7.94 . 1) DMS Long (Dorsey) reflects the 8/43 ship configuration at start. First update after start scheduled for 8/43  This error predates 7.90; 2) Mahan class destroyers lose all DC weapons at the 4/42 refit.

Hmmm good reasoning (???), guess you made those changes on purpose and you decided to make them while doing the update. What about the Benson Class DDs , when they show up on March 12, 1942? They show they update to a 12/41 configuration instead of the correct 4/42. Prior to 7.90 both the Mahan and the Bensons were correctly shown.

[/quote]

Note a later post I ended up agreeing with your observation. I had a difficult time to run this down - and eventually based my view on a 1944 mission of Mahan herself: she is not likely to have been assigned to an AS patrol if she had not any DC at all. I also learned I missed an item in 1945 - that while the PLAN was for all the big guns (left - 4 by then) - it was too topheavy - and so they removed No 3 mount - and this too got folded in.

And the Benson Class??
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]

While the update is possible after a certain date, not all ships were actually magically converted on the same date. It depends on the ship (and generally on where it served) how it shows up when it appears in the game.

Note that our sub classes are approximations - each ship often had a unique set of changes and always these occurred on specific dates - not the same date for every class member. Part of the modder's art is to come up with a typical configuration and deciding when to apply that? I use the date the first such vessel converts. A Benson could convert to the 42 configureation already designed and used in the ASW oriented ATLANTIC theater - so I permit a player to so convert it if the player wants to - but the vessel shows up in its PTO configuration - and if a player is in a hurry - they don't have to wait for it to upgrade. Upgrades happen too fast and cheap (for the Allies more or less for free) IMHO- if I did this it would take longer - so the decision would be more agonizing.

[el cid again]

I was wrong Buck: I CAN partly fix the air ASW problem. By uniformly rating bombs at the same accuracy = the lowest accuracy already in the system - for any aircraft NOT using that bombs of that accuracy (30 kg and 50 kg) - we reduce the chance of a hit - often dramatically.
Kates or Bettys or Nells using 250 kg bombs in ASW patrols will have accuracy divided by 13. Allied heavy bombers using 500, 1000 or larger bombs will tend to divide accuracy by a factor of 20 or more. Even the case of Mavis and Emily - using 100 kg bombs - will reduce by almost half. The amount of change depends on the device - but these ratings varied by a monsterous 22,500 per cent - which is outrageous and more than unreasonable - so a reform to a standard must have various impacts depending on how big the device rating was before. Using a value that we know works means we have not gone too far either. We might reduce it still farther bye and bye - if we find hit rates are too high. But it is a good point to start with.

This is your fault (meaning to your credit) - I was thinking about your idea - can we make it better? And so I looked at the data - and found this incredible variation - which must be wrong. Instead of proceeding at once, I posted a thread, asked Matrix, asked USAF, and looked up more detail design air model games. It is now certain: this data was based on ignorance of ballistics. Many things affect accuracy, but bomb weight isn't one of them.