RHS solo play

[Buck Beach]

Is there anyone out there besides myself playing any of the RHS AI games? That would be CAIO, AIO, or MAIO. If there are, I would be interest in knowing what problems you are running into. I'm into the 4th month of the war and I am finding serveral areas of issues.

[el cid again]

Although RHS attempted to address the interests of solo players several times:

1) By developing a Japan Enhansed Scenario concept (on the theory that playing vs AI meant the computer needed a stronger hand to play);

2) By developing the AIO scenario concept (on the theory that some standard RHS features don't get along with AI very well - e.g. interior river systems confusing routing routines; active Russians, etc)

3) By then developing a specific scenario that modified the standard enhansed scenario policy (offensive into the Central Pacific) into an offensive into the SW Pacific Area

We have concluded that the ONLY application for this game vs AI is training. To that end we developed a CVO AI scenario (CAIO) for players interested in the historical scenarios (No longer is AI helped out by a strong hand to play in this one)

Joe Wilkerson - 3 or 4 years ago - informed me there was zero chance AI could handle the Allies - so RHS only attempted to modify scenario for Japan.

I ran some long term tests - and learned that late in 1944 AI totally collapses - in the form of the kamakaze rule - which is worse than it sounds like. Japan loses the ability to do any form of search, recon, ASW, fighter cover, escort, ground attack, or even air transport. All planes become naval attack only - and all die wether or not they succeed. The game becomes unplayable sometime between Aug and Nov 1944 (depending on how much you can tolerate losing Japanese air power): by Nov the only air units that survive are those which have newly arrived or those which have no targets to fly against. Even before then, testing indicates Japan wastes 85% of its assets by total neglect or stupid allocation.

With the help of one team member - I did come up with a proposal: we might create a utility to "wash" turns through each day - which would reset units commands that are useless or worse. To do that we needed a vast data set of turns - so we set up the AI Assisted program - but only two players ever used it - neither for more than one turn. It would take hundreds of turns to give us the data to right a proper utility. This program involved sending off turns - which would be culled for issues - and selected things changed - resulting in documenting the things we needed to look for when reviewing a turn. It is quick and dirty - no elegant or greatly planned moves - just "is this order sensible? if not - what makes sense?" Since it would take 2-3 years of data collection and 1-2 years of writing testing a utility - this project - if it ever is germane - will wait for AE. And lacking participants - it won't ever be done.

[Oliver Heindorf]

I play RHS - solo, the EOS AI Scenario. Quite fun but I am only in 2/42 yet. The allied supply situation is not better than it was on 12/41. Besides that, its far more challenging that stock imho - or I lost all my skills....

I like alot of stuff from RHS compared to stock but there are a few points which need more attention to the player then before : supply. did I mentioned supply ? its supply. no more endless supply aviable where you want it. You dont have them anymore. It takes alot of time to manage that. I think I have done good - shipped 250k oil to OZ so far - supply situation there didnt got better. You need to feed New Orleans - takes 25 days for a merchi to go there and the same time to go back to the WC where you need it.Far more Micromanagemet. I got so many units on WC which I cant use in the PAC area - lack of supply on the bases everywhere because there is no extra supply to distribute to other places. there is no usage of a unit out of supply out there in the pacific...well, I will play through to see what comes. maybe I can stabilize the supply situation later in the war.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

I play RHS - solo, the EOS AI Scenario. Quite fun but I am only in 2/42 yet. The allied supply situation is not better than it was on 12/41. Besides that, its far more challenging that stock imho - or I lost all my skills....

I like alot of stuff from RHS compared to stock but there are a few points which need more attention to the player then before : supply. did I mentioned supply ? its supply. no more endless supply aviable where you want it. You dont have them anymore. It takes alot of time to manage that. I think I have done good - shipped 250k oil to OZ so far - supply situation there didnt got better. You need to feed New Orleans - takes 25 days for a merchi to go there and the same time to go back to the WC where you need it.Far more Micromanagemet. I got so many units on WC which I cant use in the PAC area - lack of supply on the bases everywhere because there is no extra supply to distribute to other places. there is no usage of a unit out of supply out there in the pacific...well, I will play through to see what comes. maybe I can stabilize the supply situation later in the war.

I am playing the CVO AI version (CAIO) and am presently at 3/14/1942. I personally like the supply micromanagement and I also think I am doing a pretty good job. I tweaked the various industries in order to maintain a fairly (almost) balanced WC bases (2:1 supply over daily needs) and still be able to supply Alaska (and build historical bases there) and PAC areas down to Pago Pago and Suva from the West Coast. I am supplying New Zealand, New Caledonia and part of Oz from New Orleans except for fuel convoys out of San Diego. I am also swapping Resources for Supplies from the Sea Lane bases with New Orleans.

I also am using Aman and Muscat to send TFs to the West Coast of Oz and Melbourne. I have been escorting most of the TFs in all areas with anything I have available.

I have not reinforced the Philippines, or other South East Asia and Dutch areas except with local aircraft and battle fleets and aside from evacuation of the Air Support Eng and Hdqrs of Malaysia have not retreated any ground troops to defensive positions. My game plan is to not try and exploit the Japanese AI in non-historical situations and let them have their way with me: however, I have contested the invasions using the subs, battle fleets and aircraft.

I have found only one real issue of the RHS game that would not otherwise be corrected in a PBEM game. The subs on both sides seem to be too durable. I know their durability was increased to correct them being too vulnerable but with the toning down the ASW devices/capabilities, it may have been tweaked to much. West Coast OZ is awash with AKs and Tankers and it has been nigh on impossible to support Port Moresby area much less reinforce it with Eng Air support base units. I have not yet sunk one Japanese sub although I have scored numerious hits on the swarm of subs in the area.

I am enjoying playing this game while awaiting the AE upgrade.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

I play RHS - solo, the EOS AI Scenario. Quite fun but I am only in 2/42 yet. The allied supply situation is not better than it was on 12/41. Besides that, its far more challenging that stock imho - or I lost all my skills....

I like alot of stuff from RHS compared to stock but there are a few points which need more attention to the player then before : supply. did I mentioned supply ? its supply. no more endless supply aviable where you want it. You dont have them anymore. It takes alot of time to manage that. I think I have done good - shipped 250k oil to OZ so far - supply situation there didnt got better. You need to feed New Orleans - takes 25 days for a merchi to go there and the same time to go back to the WC where you need it.Far more Micromanagemet. I got so many units on WC which I cant use in the PAC area - lack of supply on the bases everywhere because there is no extra supply to distribute to other places. there is no usage of a unit out of supply out there in the pacific...well, I will play through to see what comes. maybe I can stabilize the supply situation later in the war.

The supply situation is deliberate - and correct (well - not quite as tight as it should be - but close).
It does not take long to get things working IF you MOVE supplies. I find by the end of December even the most distant points are getting supplies (or oil or resources or fuel).

Technically New Orleans is supposed to get resources from Australia, New Caledonia, etc - and do that if you want history to be represented. It is the place you import vital things not available on the USWC. But in game terms - resources are resources. NO makes things (a) until its stocks are exhausted and (b) intermittantly after that IF you run it dry. It gets resources locally - just not enough. You get max production only if you ship em in.

Over time the Allied ability to move supplies becomes overwhelming. But you must use your ships to do that - or it matters not. There are lost of variations - and some things are more efficient than others.

Note that if you give a place what it needs - it does better. Australia needs oil - not resources. Same for India. If you want units to be effective - build up supplies and fuel for them.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf
I have found only one real issue of the RHS game that would not otherwise be corrected in a PBEM game. The subs on both sides seem to be too durable. I know their durability was increased to correct them being too vulnerable but with the toning down the ASW devices/capabilities, it may have been tweaked to much. West Coast OZ is awash with AKs and Tankers and it has been nigh on impossible to support Port Moresby area much less reinforce it with Eng Air support base units. I have not yet sunk one Japanese sub although I have scored numerious hits on the swarm of subs in the area.

I am enjoying playing this game while awaiting the AE upgrade.

I play (PBEM) both sides in various scenarios - so I can look at things like how subs work. I do not think they are too durable. A sub running to a point where the enemy can attack it will last undamaged only 1-3 days on station before it must withdraw. I have seen only one sub sunk as such by air patrols. Subs more often take damage - my intent - than sink. Even large ASW TFs often fail to score - otherwise they score 1-4 times - and the sub almost always survives. This is exactly what I was after.

Later in the war a USN DE with Hedgehogs and massive DC patterns - and good experience - will have a shot at single attack sinkings - but it won't happen every time (I hope). Right now - that is only possible if lightning strikes.

The only ASW issue I have is that - bad as they are rated - the Japanese ASW mortars seem too effective. I am not sure it is possible - but I might try to reduce the rating of this device. [Below a certain value - ratings cause weapons to be ineffective - due to software tests] It isn't that this weapon is effective - but it hits far more often than I think is right - possibly one time in 5 or 6 (instead of several times that).

Early subs have LESS durability than later ones. If you don't stop using these subs - you will lose them.
I use subs aggressively - sail right into enemy ports. This turns out to be unwise if the port has vast minefields -
as at Manila. But it IS possible to fight it: use lots of bombers and seaplanes set to sub hunting: back em up with
ASW TFs. Don't let an important place have no ASW units. I can get any sub in 1-3 days using this technique.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The supply situation is deliberate - and correct (well - not quite as tight as it should be - but close).
It does not take long to get things working IF you MOVE supplies. I find by the end of December even the most distant points are getting supplies (or oil or resources or fuel).

Unless your opponent has neutralized Pearl Harbor. Then shipping takes a lot longer and the amount of fuel required to keep the pipeline running is enormous.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf
I have found only one real issue of the RHS game that would not otherwise be corrected in a PBEM game. The subs on both sides seem to be too durable. I know their durability was increased to correct them being too vulnerable but with the toning down the ASW devices/capabilities, it may have been tweaked to much. West Coast OZ is awash with AKs and Tankers and it has been nigh on impossible to support Port Morsby area much less reinforce it with Eng Air support base units. I have not yet sunk one Japanese sub although I have scored numerous hits on the swarm of subs in the area.

I am enjoying playing this game while awaiting the AE upgrade.

I play (PBEM) both sides in various scenarios - so I can look at things like how subs work. I do not think they are too durable. A sub running to a point where the enemy can attack it will last undamaged only 1-3 days on station before it must withdraw. I have seen only one sub sunk as such by air patrols. Subs more often take damage - my intent - than sink. Even large ASW TFs often fail to score - otherwise they score 1-4 times - and the sub almost always survives. This is exactly what I was after.

Later in the war a USN DE with Hedgehogs and massive DC patterns - and good experience - will have a shot at single attack sinkings - but it won't happen every time (I hope). Right now - that is only possible if lightning strikes.

The only ASW issue I have is that - bad as they are rated - the Japanese ASW mortars seem too effective. I am not sure it is possible - but I might try to reduce the rating of this device. [Below a certain value - ratings cause weapons to be ineffective - due to software tests] It isn't that this weapon is effective - but it hits far more often than I think is right - possibly one time in 5 or 6 (instead of several times that).

Early subs have LESS durability than later ones. If you don't stop using these subs - you will lose them.
I use subs aggressively - sail right into enemy ports. This turns out to be unwise if the port has vast minefields -
as at Manila. But it IS possible to fight it: use lots of bombers and seaplanes set to sub hunting: back em up with
ASW TFs. Don't let an important place have no ASW units. I can get any sub in 1-3 days using this technique.

I have aggressively use your techniques of sub hunting described above. It is 3/29/1942 game time and to date I have lost 9 AKs, 1 TK, 6 DMS, 3 DDs and 2 PCs to subs off the Australian coast. 100% of the warships were on ASW activities and lost in the waters off and between Mac Kay and Townsville. This in exchange for one Japanese sub taken with a 500 lb off Port Morsbey. The activity occurred in about 2 1/2 months game time from mid-January with the Japanese subs started arriving in the area.

It may seem right to you but it feels lopsided to me.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The supply situation is deliberate - and correct (well - not quite as tight as it should be - but close).
It does not take long to get things working IF you MOVE supplies. I find by the end of December even the most distant points are getting supplies (or oil or resources or fuel).

Unless your opponent has neutralized Pearl Harbor. Then shipping takes a lot longer and the amount of fuel required to keep the pipeline running is enormous.

Well - that is the point - one may force the Allies to pay double or triple the shipping cost for any given thruput - depending on routing. Even so - one can cross the vast distances from Aden to Australia or the US West Coast or Panama to Australia in 2 or 3 weeks for most ships - although a ship moving at speed one may take over a month. The trick is to set up routings and feed them regularly.

But there is a trick I forgot to mention: to get things going fast - before the vast numbers arrive for the Allies - I send all long range ships TO appropriate points - no matter where they are. A ship with 20 000 or 25 000 miles range should NEVER be used on the map - only between vital supply centers and hub ports near the useful map area. As range declines you might make some exceptions - but most ships from 10,000 to 19,000 miles range should also end up on this duty. The combination of long range and high capacity and high speed should force a ship into logistic service. IF you send 100% of the very long range ships and 95% of the long range ships to the map edges on turn one - you will find you have "reinforcements" to send out fairly soon. In particular Aden and Muscat can operate nearly at capacity even in the first month of the war. As the first ships FROM Aden, Panama, USWC, or points on the ship tracks reach Australia - OTHER ships should be arriving at these points to take turn loading for return trips.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I have aggressively use your techniques of sub hunting described above. It is 3/29/1942 game time and to date I have lost 9 AKs, 1 TK, 6 DMS, 3 DDs and 2 PCs to subs off the Australian coast. 100% of the warships were on ASW activities and lost in the waters off and between Mac Kay and Townsville. This in exchange for one Japanese sub taken with a 500 lb off Port Morsbey. The activity occurred in about 2 1/2 months game time from mid-January with the Japanese subs started arriving in the area.

It may seem right to you but it feels lopsided to me.
[/quote]


One area in one game for a brief period is not statistically significant - not the basis for calibrating a value in itself: it does count - but it is not the same thing as saying the values are wrong.

This is unusual because it probably means more subs are entering the area than is common. It is smart play - the area is very weak in ASW assets - and you cannot sail them there fast (although you can transfer long range bombers and patrol planes in fast). I myself always send B-17s and PBYs to the area right away - for either recon or ASW duty - and to build up experience and morale. But it is actually good modeling for a few subs almost unopposed to score well. IF you were able to generate three figure ASW sortees per day over each sub (it is ideal if enemy subs are so close the same ASW patrols can hit them all) - AND IF you could assemble a truly significant ASW TF (6-12 units) to hit each sub - and two per sub is better - they you would be damaging them so bad they would leave IF they survive. Note that at this distance from base - many will be lost trying to get back - and you may not know about it for a long time, if ever.

The orignal ASW model was far too powerful for the hunters - and the changes were made in a quick and dirty sense. Only collection of hundreds or better thousands of patrols will yield a clear indication of (what I call calibration of) the numbers used. It is anything but clear ASW is not still too effective: my subjective impression is that it is at least twice as effective as it should be. Nevertheless - statistical studies completed so far do indicate the results are in the right range.
This in spite of the fact gamers are too aggressive with subs. Real subs would rarely enter an enemy port for example. The port model is a bit difficult here - and we actually NEVER actually enter the port - but we DO enter the port hex - subjecting us to potentially intensive patrols - which in general submarines would seek to avoid.

One aspect we cannot measure early or soon is the impact of technical changes - subs that have more durability (that is, dive deeper), subs with snorkels or radar, subs that have special weapons. These vessels appear later. So do true ASW vessels - the better armed ships - and the better weapons - are not even in play to measure yet. Preliminary canned tests indicate they should work within an acceptable range - but tweeking numbers might be indicated if we get enough data to understand which way to adjust. Right now I have no sense of that: is ASW too effective or not effective enough? the same question for each weapon and platform? It might be either way - but we ARE within a reasonable range. So far my impression is - subs are not effective enough - and ASW in its early form is probably too effective. But not by a great deal in either case. Over time I will review this as data assembles and analysis makes the answers more clear.

One big problem is we don't know how ASW works in code terms. It is likely that many ASW weapons don't work as they should do - in particular ASW weapons used in ways not present in stock (e.g. from aircraft). Some aspects of the ASW model may have to be corrected - the most likely of these would be in the cases of weapons found to NEVER work at all.

[Bogo Mil]

I aborted my game against AI (MAIO) in August 42. Japan still has oil and ressources, but the economy is broken nethertheless. All engine pools are empty, HI pool is empty, many important aircraft pools are empty (Zero, Betty, ...). There is a huge pool of naval shipyard points.

Some ideas for a truely AI oriented scenario:

* The aircraft production should be simplified. The AI will never understand the need to expand or even convert engine factories. Idea: Use the same engine type for all aircraft. Give them enough engine production to cover the needs until at least 1943.

* The AI seems not to use transport aircraft and night fighters at all. So you should cut these productions to zero to save engines and HI.

* The AI does not halt production of obsolete aircraft (e.g. Claudes) until the factories upgrade. Idea: Shift the availability date of the obsolete planes back to the upgrade. Example: Claude production will upgrade to A6M3, IIRC this will happen in 8/42. If Claudes are available in 8/42, too, the Claude factories will do "rd" and not waste HI and engines for useless airframes. Another option would be to change these factories to the upgraded type right from the beginning - but this may let them arrive a month earlier.

* Cut naval shipyards down to the needed size (some 500 surplus now). The AI will never accelerate ships or stop yards, even if the pools are huge. This will save precious HI.

* AI doesn't understand that some air units or aircraft types are for ASW use - unless these are floatplanes or patrols. Kates with DCs are used for ground attacks... You should replace these Kates by Jakes, imho (you can give them the same armament like the Kates), The Q1W should be a patrol plane, not a dive bomber.

* Japanese recon planes are used stupidly. E.g. in Burma, the front was at Mulmein. The Japanese sent recon planes to Magwe, Cord's Basar etc., but not to the front. I think it would be better for the AI to give shorter ranges to these recon planes. This increases the probability to recon something useful.

* In MAIO, they have recon planes on the CVs. Very bad idea for the AI: These planes don't do useful recon, but they constantly broadcast the exact position of the KB. You should remove these planes or replace them with Kates.

* The extra bases captured in MAIO (Fiji, Samoa, ...) are not used well by the AI. The garrision of Samoa was even withdrawn almost completely (only a small eng unit left at Pago Pago). I think the "conventional" start is better for the AI. Send these extra troops to the DEI, they are needed there.

* AI does not garrision some bases in China. You can capture them with a guerilla batallion, they will never take them back. I think you should make one unit (division or brigade) static in each Japanese base in China.

[Oliver Heindorf]

another question please : why the allies have merchant naval yard ? is there any need for me to make use of this (ie expand them ) ? 

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

another question please : why the allies have merchant naval yard ? is there any need for me to make use of this (ie expand them ) ? 

I can't speak for Sid, but I thought that the merchant naval yards specifically build points for merchant ships and as such I have worked to repair them as I do the Naval Shipyards.

I do want to voice again the criticisms I have for the RHS games. Here is a copy of a post I place in another thread.

I would strongly suggest that you readdress the durability of the Japanese subs. I have now stopped my CAIO game due to an unrelated fatal (IMO) data base error at May 30, 1942. Recap of Japanese sub losses remains a only one by a 500lb bomb, versus a loss of 13 Allied ASW warships off the east coast of OZ. The subs limp off to Truk or Rebaul for repair only to show up again to cause havoc again. Fight it or ignore it as you choose Sid.

BTW, my fatal data base error was the B-24D/G etc is set to begin production at 34 1942 in both CVO and CAIO.

The 34 1942 is not a typo and you get no B-24s during the game, at least not through the date I stopped playing. I think these aircraft should have begin appearing in April or May 1942 according to history. Since you can't correct any database errors for ongoing games I was stopped in my tracks without the energy to restart a new game. I have had ongoing problems with data errors that I assume occured as a result of changes to the number of different scenarios. Sid always corrects the errors (well almost) but again it requires restarts.

Too close to AE to start again, but, I will miss much of what Sid has brought to the game that makes it a rich experience.

[51st Highland Div]

Been playing the RHSRPO scenario as Allies getting up to end of November '42 but unplayable now as the game just crashes at the end of last playable turn...just as P38s are arriving in theatre...so unsure of whether to start a different RHS scenario or try CHS and see where that goes...[&:]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

another question please : why the allies have merchant naval yard ? is there any need for me to make use of this (ie expand them ) ? 

I can't speak for Sid, but I thought that the merchant naval yards specifically build points for merchant ships and as such I have worked to repair them as I do the Naval Shipyards.

I do want to voice again the criticisms I have for the RHS games. Here is a copy of a post I place in another thread.

I would strongly suggest that you readdress the durability of the Japanese subs. I have now stopped my CAIO game due to an unrelated fatal (IMO) data base error at May 30, 1942. Recap of Japanese sub losses remains a only one by a 500lb bomb, versus a loss of 13 Allied ASW warships off the east coast of OZ. The subs limp off to Truk or Rebaul for repair only to show up again to cause havoc again. Fight it or ignore it as you choose Sid.

BTW, my fatal data base error was the B-24D/G etc is set to begin production at 34 1942 in both CVO and CAIO.

The 34 1942 is not a typo and you get no B-24s during the game, at least not through the date I stopped playing. I think these aircraft should have begin appearing in April or May 1942 according to history. Since you can't correct any database errors for ongoing games I was stopped in my tracks without the energy to restart a new game. I have had ongoing problems with data errors that I assume occured as a result of changes to the number of different scenarios. Sid always corrects the errors (well almost) but again it requires restarts.

Too close to AE to start again, but, I will miss much of what Sid has brought to the game that makes it a rich experience.

What happens in a specific game is not entirely under modder control. There are factors involving players, your computer, and code which make varous possibilities. I have seen games crash. Joe thinks it is no worse than Windows - but I think WITP crashes a lot more than that. But it is remarkably robust and stable - just not totall so.

I don't show a B-24 issue crashing the game on many platforms - so this appears to be unique. Nor is there a problem in early 1942. I can run to mid 1944 without a big problem - and the big problems then are hard code. These problems relate to AI play specifically - and I cannot fix them - and I tried.

As for subs - I lose a lot of Japanese subs. I use them aggressively. If you play vs AI - you won't get many - AI is stupid and not aggressive. I take no responsibility for that. I say AI is not playable - and although I put too much time into making AI scenarios - I failed. Anyone playing AI is not listening: NO WITP mod can do a good job with AI. And RHS has the toughest AI structure there is. But AI is NOT "intelligent" - and it is not functional.