RHS Level I Updates Suspended

[el cid again]

This is a notice that I am working on completing the HQ review. It basically is
an FYI for anyone who mod's AE - as something you may wish to change. However,
it also explains the delay in the "final" form of the file set: I have found numbers of issues of every sort (even some I my self created) which need review in the area of HQ.

In this case, IX Corps is shown as a permanently restricted unit which must withdraw by 440630. This comes from Stock Scenario 1. Never mind this corps never left the theater and it was a major element in first line for Operation Olympic! Even more curiously, Stock Scenario 14 (Downfall: The End) simply omits it entirely (honoring the withdraw data I guess). This is location slot 153. By the time RHS Scenario 106 starts (27 January 1945) it is on Leyte - almost certainly at Tacloban - planning for Olympic. It DID leave Conus (specifically Fort Lewis, Washington) in 1944 - first for Hawaii - then to Leyte.

quote
IX Corps was a corps of the United States Army. For most of its operational history, IX Corps was headquartered in or around Japan and subordinate to US Army commands in the Far East.

Created following World War I, the corps was not activated for use until just before World War II almost 20 years later. The corps spent most of World War II in charge of defenses on the West Coast of the United States, before moving to Hawaii and Leyte to plan and organize operations for US forces advancing across the Pacific. Following the end of the war, IX Corps participated in the occupation of mainland Japan.
end quote

[el cid again]

7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi


This is a major (database) update. It includes major changes to device and location files as well as minor changes to class, leader and ship files. It might contain a couple of pwhexe updates (I can't remember but there were some a few days ago).

I was just looking for eratta in HQ - and frustrated by finding so many I had to do a comprehensive review. But I learned a lot and found ways to actually simplify things a bit - and make them both more functional and more correct. But in the process, I checked some Allied bases - and found many small issues as well as many "undeveloped" cases. Still - since people have played AE for years with one device bases - I suppose we can live with the fact a minority of them are still that way for a while. The Allies have an overwhelming number of bases anyway. I will clean up the rest over time. I did clean up many of the existing ones - particularly start of game locations certain to be used in every new game. These changes were mainly along the lines of making the formation consistent with the pointer. I also made new formations - giving more control over units in future (we can change their content IF they have a pointer and IF they have defined something in the slots). Some changes were also cosmetic - to the names - or to the assigned senior HQ, if any.

At the same time, I was testing AA and trying to "calibrate" the values. I found I needed a new way to find AA devices: the names were not 100% reliable indicators. [They are now!] I had to search for devices with a "ceiling" field. That led me to notice many used absolute rather than effective ceilings. And also that ranges were not always tied to ceilings - never mind the RHS "standard" that says they should be. Many inherited devices were never reworked to have effective ceiling and range = 1/3 of ceiling (because range is in yards while ceiling is in feet). This meant I must rework all AA devices - and this time I included DP devices. Reduction in range and ceiling has the net effect of decreasing AA effectiveness. Catching devices missed has the same effect. But I changed the constant in front of effectiveness - and that - where the devices had been reworked already - will increase it. Most of all - using a common standard universally makes relative performance of devices consistent. This involved hundreds of devices spread over about 1500 device slots. However, I believe this will help obtain more pleasing results from the game engine. Some of the changes were cosmetic - to names. In particular now a unit that can perform AA either has DP or AA in its name. A few units picked up SP (single purpose) for clarity.

In the process I identified a stock radar which was first tested in 1948! I exchanged it for a radar common during the war. Presumably someone didn't know when the radar was actually developed. It was called CPS-1 and its daughter - CPS-4 - became widely used in the 1950s. But no, in no variation of WITP should there be a CPS anything!

I am calling it. THIS is the version we will use for test ten. There are ALWAYS more things to do. But we need to test the many changes to insure we find eratta and to insure calibration (that values are in the correct range). So we will do that now.

[el cid again]

One location was developed for 9.70.

As issued by stock, and all mods I have examined, Enewetok did not permit
development into the huge port and significant airfield it became when
captured by the USA. As well, no mod, including RHS, had the JAPANESE
units that were sent there.

In late 1942, Japan decided to develop it as a seaplane base. So a small
naval support unit was sent there. In 1943, the First Amphibious Brigade
(modified) was sent to garrison the place. It was used as a transit base
between Truk and Kwajalein, and probably also as a recon base - by floatplanes
and flying boats.

In 1944 the US turned it into a gigantic naval base. Also a significant heavy
bomber base was built there. Neither the engineers nor the base forces
are tasked to show up there in stock or the major mods I have examined.
The base build levels had to be revised upward to permit this development.

I found and assigned two Japanese and US units and arranged for them to appear there in strictly historical scenarios. The anchorage WAS slightly developed - the one thousand islanders had been a colony since Germany took over the place before WWI - and there was a very tiny port with a small amount of copra production. But at the start of the game it should have zero airfield development - it is just suitable for waterplanes - and the port should be level 1.

That this base now has major development potential is of significance in RHS games using it. EITHER SIDE may develop it. Don't forget to consider that when looking at the Central Pacific area.

[el cid again]

See link above or below

This was supposed to be a minor update because of eratta detected by the generation of Test Ten's Axis Turn. But it turned into a bit more than that:
certain issues related to air groups turned up. Investigation revealed problems
with missing aircraft in Scenario 101 - seems it was using Scenario 102's aircraft file.
This file set will fix that even for ongoing games. It also turned out that "Simplified RHS" Scenarios (even numbers 102, 104 & 106) had training air groups - which they should not have (so players don't have to manage them) and which they are not set up to support (smaller pilot pool, less production capacity and either no or only 10% of the "free trainers" in full RHS scenarios). If you are playing the Japanese in 102, 104 or 106 and find a training unit - disband it forever - and it will not be a problem.

While I was waiting for the report of issues from the Japanese I updated USAAF (mainly) and USN base forces so they are in sync with their formations and so that they are fully outfitted with RHS devices. So that means, besides aircraft and group files, there also are new location files. And there was one unimportant update to the device files - a cosmetic name change to make display more readable in the USMC/USN 03Rfl Squad: this models either USMC or USN squads armed with 03 Springfield bolt action rifles - often as base security early in the war. But some second line units use it - e.g. the Samoan Marine Battalion. Shorter names make some displays easier to read.

This file set will not change significantly. When it does change, it will be minor eratta fixes. My focus will be, first, on completing updates to pwhexe files, and then on trying to address some ship and air art issues. After that I will explore some map edge issues now possible to address (in theory) because I have editors for certain off map files. This may permit some off map movement not previously permitted for the Allies. The principle problem is that code restricts Russian and other Allied access to each others ports/locations: it doesn't allow it! But the Russians, at least, should be able to move between Russian Arctic locations, and supplies (etc) should be able to move from Europe or the Persian Gulf to Russia (in fact both were important routes) - a contingency for games in which the Russians get heavily involved and need supplies. I also may be able to permit US submarine production to occur in the Midwest - it did - and then move down the Mississippi to be able to move to Panama. This is longer term planning.

[el cid again]

7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi


This is generally a remarkably large collection of remarkably tiny changes.
It is mainly a result of efforts to create a Japanese start turn for test ten.
But it also owes something to a report from our eratta hunter in Poland - he
detected an issue with a Philippine Army 75 mm AA gun and that led me
to detect three similar ROC device issues. As well, my own effort to explore
a start turn for "Allied Chair 2" led me to discover a pwhexe issue near
Adelaide in the base (1941 Winter) pwhexe.dat file. So a few changes are not
related to the Japanese efforts to build a solid foundation for a test that may
run for years. These other items led to revised pwhexe files and device files.

The original focus of the review as location files with respect to production devices
at defined locations, or with respect to issues like a newly defined major population center lacked the garrison required for it. Sure enough - never mind it wasn't in any version of AE - there really was a Japanese base at Toyohara. In fact, it was the gateway to Sakhalin Island and a somewhat important one. This process - looking
at locations for similar errata (I always try to catch them all when I am on to an issue) - led me to discover three remote islands where the starting resources were in the wrong field. A small number of locations were reworked - mainly in Japanese territories but also in India and Australia and the South Pacific. Most places actually lost industry - but in India some picked up - and others "traded" (e.g. one industrial city lost a steel mill not built until the 1950s, but another picked up one not previously accounted for). The net changes were not significant - but the point effects sometimes are significant. And it is always good form to have the numbers be in sync with the "standards" we use and, to the extent possible, with historical reality.

But then the problem of aircraft production became acute. This eventually led to a review of all the Japanese aircraft - and even to the addition of a new one - the A6M1m11. Contrary to the scene in Tora Tora Tora, what then commander Fujida said when he landed the first A6M2m21 on the deck of a carrier, it was not "see, it has the new folding wingtips, so we can store more aircraft below." A proper translation would have been "see, it has folding wingtips so now it can be struck below on our carriers." Prior to that the Zero was ONLY a LANDPLANE - and there were fully 68 of those (counting prototypes which USSBS says are hopelessly mixed in with production serials so we don't really know how many there were). Two were lost in combat - so 66 survive - but they are classified as fighter rather than carrier fighter aircraft. The process of the review led to minute technical changes. 3 or 4 changed engines. Some of the changes the Japanese won't like: I decided it makes no sense to have identical models of the Frank (and there were multiple cases of that). Ki-84 nomenclature is peculiar and confusing - manufacturer and JAAF didn't use the same system! - so DIFFERENT planes use the SAME designation! RHS has "rationalized" this by honoring the manufacturer's standard - calling some of them Ki-84 IIs instead of Ki-84 Is. [There are a and b variations of both. But no less than 6 different engines and two armament combinations inside that!] So I simplified the system (long ago) such that I models use a lower power engine and an all metal airframewhile the II models use a higher power engine and a wooden afterbody. A means it has two mg plus two cannon and B means it has four cannon in BOTH I and II series. But I messed up my own system by mixing guns across the a and b definition I just gave - so I fixed that. But I decided WHY HAVE IDENTICAL planes in different slots? I decided there should be a durability penalty for the non-metal afterbody, so the II models now are slightly less durable than the I models. Curiously, the balance of power and weight resulted in no measurable performance difference between any of them! [In fact with about 12 variations of engines and body, but here modeled by only 4.] Anyway - the point is - I tried to justify using slots by showing some difference between the planes.

The above is both an introduction and a digression: the real focus ended up being trying to address the problems of production of aircraft in AE. This is complicated and quite different for Japan and the Allies. It is clear that historical numbers are never, ever possible in game terms. Much RHS development effort has been with a view to addressing this problem in particular (inside the more general problem of production of all Japanese devices needing HI points, all of which more or less suffer from the same problems). SOME of the problems are player induced - insofar as the mods (and stock) try to give you everything planned - but Japan simply cannot afford to buy all that on its industrial base. By NOT TURNING OFF production - as soon as starting HI stocks (fixed by hard code at 50,000) run out (in a matter of days) - production nose dives, never to recover to anything like historical levels. And Japan did BETTER THAN GERMANY at expanding aircraft production (see the Air War, 1939-1945, by R. J. Overy). Yet the huge expansion of production is generally not possible: more common is players NEVER EVER expand after the first few days - they just change what is being built (at a loss in numbers for every change not automatic). But the argument was made that EVEN IF players turn off EVERYTHING ELSE, code does not permit production at anything like the numbers stated in the fields. So all the work we do on databases to get the "number per month" value correct - the players don't get them in fact. Now part of that is for good cause: the game wants players to move resources and fuel (made from oil that also must be moved) to generate HI points - and then to use some of those HI points to make engines and others to make aircraft and others to make other things (none of which the player controls directly). The system kind of sort of works and permits players to modify important factors (like what engine or airframe a factory is assigned to build, how much it will expand, and wether production or expansion is turned on or off)? Yet at the end of the day nothing like historical numbers of aircraft are generated, even with more HI centers each producing no less than 6 HI points a day (even if they are "fed" resources and fuel). I also feared giving players total control over "junk" aircraft they surely would not order - and the engines for them - turning all and sundry into front line combat planes no doubt. So (long ago) I mitigated both issues by removing part of the aviation industry from player control and making it automatic - you get planes for training (wether or not the scenario has training units - directly in "full RHS" and abstractly in "simplified RHS") and some kinds of utility transports or other support types automatically - both helping insure production numbers are up - and preventing "misusing" those abstract factories to make planes that were not made and would not have been made. But the Japanese did NOT get anything like the Allied repair depots I was able to put in the game - because for one thing Allied engines are "free" while Japanese engines come from pools which determine new production potential. So here I have created a system whereby the Japanese have abstract repair depots. Essentially, in cases where production was in hundreds or thousands, 1% (of historical vice game) production will be replaced per month during the period the aircraft is defined as in production (and stops automatically when the type goes out of production). This is generally a small deal - the typical case is 0 and when not 0 it is most often 1 airframe per 30 days: nevertheless in important cases it can be more than 10 and in aggregate over time the numbers are significant. [Modders who work with Allied data are generally amazed by the tiny numbers that occur on the Japanese side of the board.] Nevertheless, combined with the automatic production of planes players would never order but which must be present to model what was available for operations, the "depot repair" aircraft help make operational numbers more realistic. [In "simplified RHS" scenarios 102, 104 and 106, 90% of trainers and 100% of trainee pilots are missing from the game - but 10% of the armed trainers are available for recon or other missions if a player is desperate. In "full RHS" the player has all the trainers and has the option of gutting the training force for planes and pilots - this was actually done in 1945 - although the quality of both planes and pilots may make this worse than continuing to train green pilots would be!] The AE pilot training system does seem to work - but it insists on getting pilots in batches of 10 - so I reworked training units to be multiples of 10 - which isn't generally precisely true.

The real focus of these changes was to make life easier for players who play the production side of the game as well as to get rid of irritating problems (e.g. Japan loses a victory point every day because its base force at Toyahara was not present).

I gave the Japanese one more day to submit the Test Ten start turn. I expect they will find more issues: never mind, with this much data theory says there WILL be eratta.
We will fix it (to the extent we can) and fold it in later - but I won't redo the files to restart again (hoping nothing important enough turns up to change that concept).

[sanderz]

Sid - I'm not that experienced an player so may have misunderstood you but i really don't recognise some of your comments on the working of the stock/modded game. The following is my feedback based on what little i have played and from reading AARs. Also, i am unclear if your reference to "production" refers to HI or stuff actually produced liked engines and devices etc. (i assumed the latter)

ORIGINAL: el cid again

SOME of the problems are player induced - insofar as the mods (and stock) try to give you everything planned

no they don't - with PDU on you can build what you like and you don't have to build anything like what was done historically

but Japan simply cannot afford to buy all that on its industrial base. By NOT TURNING OFF production - as soon as starting HI stocks (fixed by hard code at 50,000) run out (in a matter of days) - production nose dives

I'm in early April 1942 and have NOT turned anything off (except a BB and CV) - i have 275,000 HI in the pool and its steadily increasing (with the odd small blip down when yet more aircraft/engine/etc factories are built)

Yet the huge expansion of production is generally not possible

not true - my aircraft production has been ramped up very significantly as has engine prod - with minor increases to vehicle and arms production - if you are referring to production of HI this does get increased by a small amount but either way it doesn't stop japan producing lots of stuff

more common is players NEVER EVER expand after the first few days

absolutely not true - see my comment above or read some of the many fanastic AARS

they just change what is being built (at a loss in numbers for every change not automatic)

again, not true at all - the airframes i'm building and R&Ding in my April 1942 game are nothing like they were in Dec 41

But the argument was made that EVEN IF players turn off EVERYTHING ELSE, code does not permit production at anything like the numbers stated in the fields.

who made this argument? and what exactly is the code stopping you building (and how)? What fields are you referring to, can you give an example to clarify things
i have no data on historical production but i get the distinct impression from AARs that it ends up way over what was historically produced - though i stand to be corrected here

[el cid again]

See link above or below

I failed to honor Joe Wilkerson's Law ("Test, Test, Test) - I "fixed" a problem without checking to see if it was fixed. No matter I re-assign units all the time - what I didn't detect was that the unit I reassigned was NEVER, EVER working! Ever in all the history of AE, from day one.

As usual, I take a problem to mean "look for more problems" - and I found three more bad slots. I was able to verify it is the slots, not the data in them. The data works fine in other slots. Working records from other slots fail in these. They truly are bad. And they always were bad - but there are so many units no one noticed.

To fix it I had to find four more slots - hard to do in RHS - there are virtually no Axis location slots left. But I did.

Apart from that, there was one other issue in most RHS scenarios that matters - the 144th Regimental Combat Team (better known as the South Seas Regiment) started at its objective - instead of loading on its assigned task force. My fault surely, it long has worked, and somehow I re-assigned it. Fixed of course.

There were some minor eratta fixes. Mainly things like not enough supplies. This is a stock issue - most units were created without them - as well as without planning for objectives - and I will be fixing that for the rest of my life (approximately). But more were reported and addressed.

There was a request for a drydock famous for being hit at Pearl. She turned out to be a sister (five years younger) of the Dewey Drydock at Subic - so we already had the class defined. It is now added. It WILL fix ships. It will NOT let ships be inside it however. [Three ships were hit inside it IRL.]

I finally figured out how to model the Bin Xuyen "Pirates" in Indochina. Most of them are invisible in game terms. But one unit was more or less an infantry battalion - it mustered 2000 men in 1945 when they decided to take to the field to oppose the return of the French. This unit was allied to the Japanese - and later to the Communists - but also its leader was made a colonel and later a general by a nationalist regime: anything to oppose the French it seems. This unit should never leave Indochina - and it is restricted of course. The "pirates" (the term is slightly apt but they were more official than that, and had police powers in some places officially designated) also were a power on the river. Their largest craft is also now modeled - and its "headquarters" is the land unit. Which is to say it won't coordinate with other naval units very well.

Many Royal Indian Navy officers were added - because of new material from Neihorster. And for the first time we have the RIN Fleet HQ - which turns out to be at Bombay - with its historical commander in charge. For a small collection of frigates it seems overstaffed with a Vice Admiral in charge - but the Indian Navy has ever since always been top heavy with more admirals than could be justified for its size, in every period of its history. This is a small HQ - and its only "power" is to help ship repair within command radius - but there are only two ports in range - and one of those is not even British (Goa). I am not sure it will cooperate well with the RIN HQ - but it probably will.

I redefined slightly a few Japanese aircraft - trying to make the data better model the differences between them. There is also now slightly more development between scenarios - with fewer things common to all - and more things scenario specific - in this case relative to aircraft.

The Japanese start turn for test ten is unusually well organized and defined - so data entry will not involve decision making - as these have been made. For the first time - probably ever - spreadsheets have been made so players can see the numbers of aircraft and engines by type - organized on the basis of required engines. This makes planning decisions more practical than guessing what might be required?
This organization in turn has led to an integration of production with strategy so that production will be optimized to fit what is needed. No longer will four engine bombers and transports be built - just because they can be - in numbers sufficient to curtail the numbers of one and two engine aircraft critical to virtually all operations. A surprising effect has been that the evaluation of types vs production capacity and the impacts of changing what is already tooled up for resulted in much more focus on historical types rather than optional alternatives (but not always in the same proportions).
If you change a factory's plane type, it loses its capacity - typically 30 planes become 21 or 22 capacity. And NONE of the plant is producing - ALL of it needs to be "repaired." If you change a factory's engine type, it does not lose capacity, but once again ALL the lines are "damaged" - so it starts at zero production of the new engine. In both cases it costs 1000 supply points to fix every point of plant capacity. These factors create an incentive to leave production as is as long as it produces useful aircraft. It is interesting to see players reject almost every option - in particular relative to imports. This is wise - I put options in partly to give players choices - but also as a sort of hidden opportunity to make poor choices. In general, German aircraft lack the range required for PTO operations, for example. Investing in them may yield some tactical advantages, but at the expense of the operational flexibility longer ranges permit. Both Axis powers split their production efforts too many ways, over too many kinds of aircraft. It is generally more effective to mass produce a smaller number of types. The test ten Axis team has come up with a variation on that - produce FEWER types of ENGINES! Mass produce a few engines. Use airframe overcapacity in tandom with engine production such that you can turn on or off different planes - as needed - but when needed - you get instant numbers because the engine production rate is high enough to permit that. We will see if this works well - or not! I expect test ten to go to the Allies tomorrow.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: sanderz

Sid - I'm not that experienced an player so may have misunderstood you but i really don't recognise some of your comments on the working of the stock/modded game. The following is my feedback based on what little i have played and from reading AARs. Also, i am unclear if your reference to "production" refers to HI or stuff actually produced liked engines and devices etc. (i assumed the latter)

ORIGINAL: el cid again

SOME of the problems are player induced - insofar as the mods (and stock) try to give you everything planned

no they don't - with PDU on you can build what you like and you don't have to build anything like what was done historically

REPLY: I was speaking generically and generally. It is actually true that no mod ever gives players "everything" - the
main limitation being the time it would take to define everything - and also in some cases the lack of slots to put
"everything" in. We can add ships for the rest of our lives, but not aircraft, for example. But relatively speaking,
AE is more or less a static model of the economy - when in fact there was a vast increase in capacity which players
don't really get to use. Even so, the system works surprisingly well and mainly suffered from a lack of development
and long term testing. There are amazing omissions in terms of locations and significant industries producing this or
that - all over the map. And apparently players were not trusted to actually move enough resources to Japan for industry
to function - so fictional sources were put into the Home Islands. But having got rid of those - and added every
significant population and industrial center - I find the system REALLY WORKS PRETTY WELL! But only if it is understood
that "we can do almost anything, but we can't do everything." Players must manage limited resources. Writing off the cuff,
without review, I may not perfectly express my meaning on the first pass.

but Japan simply cannot afford to buy all that on its industrial base. By NOT TURNING OFF production - as soon as starting HI stocks (fixed by hard code at 50,000) run out (in a matter of days) - production nose dives

I'm in early April 1942 and have NOT turned anything off (except a BB and CV) - i have 275,000 HI in the pool and its steadily increasing (with the odd small blip down when yet more aircraft/engine/etc factories are built)

REPLY: This is an RHS thread. You won't do that in RHS. We do NOT give you free sources of resources in Japan (only the actual ones
which are grossly below what industry requires). We DO give you all sorts of production options. Most navies - not just Japan - order more
ships than they can deliver. [Perhaps half the aircraft carriers of history never were completed. The same can be said for other types.]
Japan ordered no less than 6800 of the last version of the Zero in 1945: somebody thought the plant capacity and aluminum existed to make
such a formal order realistic. And perhaps it WAS realistic in terms of what they needed! But not one was completed. I find in AE it is very
easy to get into a similar situation - ordering vastly more than you can get.

Yet the huge expansion of production is generally not possible

not true - my aircraft production has been ramped up very significantly as has engine prod - with minor increases to vehicle and arms production - if you are referring to production of HI this does get increased by a small amount but either way it doesn't stop japan producing lots of stuff

REPLY: I am unclear if you understand the huge increase in production IRL. See The Air War, which I cited. If
you are - and if you can get the game to duplicate it - I am pleased to know it.

more common is players NEVER EVER expand after the first few days

absolutely not true - see my comment above or read some of the many fanastic AARS

REPLY: Once again, I am advising players of RHS - who have huge ship orders on the books. If they are allowed
to remain all on line, they will rapidly suck up the HI point pools - never mind the RHS economy produces three
times as many HI points PER center at significantly MORE centers than stock does. What matters is the balance
of production and consumption. Here there are two different problems:

Uno - You do NOT produce HI points if you do NOT feed the HI plant. And RHS forces massive imports of resources to
do that - because there are no huge (fictional) resource centers in Japan. Players who do not move resources back to
Japan - and in particular to locations which (even in stock) have 1000 HI plants - needing more than rail lines can move -
will not get all the HI points that, in theory, they "should" get.

Dos - You can NOT feed everything that wants HI points. On paper - RHS produces more HI points than the total
demand of every industry - by a few hundred a day. In fact, because of production shortfalls - this is never true.
You simply must turn off something or you will deplete the stocks of HI points - and that will in turn shut down
much tertiary industry production of stuff (planes, ships, etc).

they just change what is being built (at a loss in numbers for every change not automatic)

again, not true at all - the airframes i'm building and R&Ding in my April 1942 game are nothing like they were in Dec 41

REPLY: I think I begin to see what you mean. Yes - 1942 production is MUCH greater than 1941 production.
But this trend actually increased in later years IRL. In game terms - you get more April 1942 production because
you expanded industry using start of game pools of HI points. You can't keep that up because you are not producing
enough HI points to maintain the pools. At least in terms of my experience.

But the argument was made that EVEN IF players turn off EVERYTHING ELSE, code does not permit production at anything like the numbers stated in the fields.

who made this argument? and what exactly is the code stopping you building (and how)? What fields are you referring to, can you give an example to clarify things
i have no data on historical production but i get the distinct impression from AARs that it ends up way over what was historically produced - though i stand to be corrected here

REPLY: This comment has two different sources and meanings. In gross supply terms, a player should have problems feeding units just supply points
late in the game. Not to mention impossible requirements for political points to change commands to do HISTORICAL
operations with HISTORICAL numbers of units. In terms of aircraft production, the two sides differ: The Allies
don't really produce airplanes in the same sense Japan does (or anything else). But the Japanese will find it hard
to produce the numbers of planes really produced in 1944. In particular, if they don't make a real planning effort
and ongoing major management efforts, they won't. At least IMHO.

[el cid again]

7.13 update
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi

This is a collection of mainly minor things learned because an unusually
comprehensive Japanese start game turn was worked up for Test Ten.
[This test goes to the Allied Tag Team today.] Most of the changes are
in the aircraft files and are fairly technical. Possibly the most dramatic
was that the "Japanese B-36" (aka G10N1) - and its transport variant -
had engine problems. [Something like IRL - where they had to contemplate
building the plane - if at all - with half the engine power it required.] In
this case, the engines were in the wrong slot, and were tractors instead
of pushers. Most of the rest was device level corrections. One of these
required altering a date in the device files - so device files also changed.

Possibly the most important part of this update is a revised start of game
pwhexe.dat file. Two hexes needed hexside mismatch pairs fixed - and
one of them (on Formosa) mattered. So we have revised pwhexe.dat files.

I reworked the Philippine Army slightly. Most units lacked fatigue values -
which is very wrong in that place. My motive was to swap two garrisons
so they are nearer their parent units to facilitate re-combining with the parent.
I revisited the official US Army history. I also reworked scenario 99 so its
Philippine Army is now in sync with other RHS scenarios, and substantially
removed it from scenario 106 - because most of it didn't exist in 1945. These
scenarios are not yet ready to use - but getting there requires changing records -
and when I work on a record - I deal with them at the same time.

I have learned how to make start game files work better in some ways -
in particular for AI in scenario 102 - but have not yet worked them in.

[el cid again]

I did it again - I used a series 9 number in the subject line instead of a 6.

Once again I was too optimistic. Many things are working very well. But the Test Ten Axis Start turn failed to pass a dummy test. In three different ways.

1) Critically, logistics at several locations (e.g. Samah) were not adequate. The many units and loading ships require too many supplies. When this happens at a HQ location (e.g. Saigon) - it means air units cannot upgrade or disband without losing aircraft - air HQ cannot "buy" torpedoes to arm them - drop tanks are unavailable - and a host of other effects.

2) Probably the most important JAAF airborne unit (the only one at the start of the war) was unable to appear - and would never appear - due to a technical problem. For reasons unclear a different unit picked up the right bits in the right field to point at it - and this is "remembered" by a start of game file - so the unit is forever in "not in play" status.

3) Three armored brigades - which have what looks like good data in their daughter units (they are essentially two battalion sized regiments plus a support unit that combine up) - lose all their tanks and most other useful squads if combined! This is a device order issue - when combined the original device order is lost in favor of the parent one. But the numbers of devices remain the same in the original slot order.

All three of these issues are really my fault. To determine start supplies I have a set of "rules"

Base Rule: Every location has 10 days of production - the normal inventory in business - unless there is cause to know it has more or less than that. This applies to supplies, fuel, resources and/or oil.

Port Rules: If a location is a port that exports resources, oil, etc - and if the location also is connected by good land lines of communication to other locations with surplus production - than that location either gets the sum of the production of the nearby locations up to a maximum of 20 days. This mainly applies to resources and oil.
In addition, a port gets 1300 tons of fuel per port build level for major ports normally functioning; really minor ports - and Japanese ports in 1945 - get 300 tons. Third world primitive ports get 100 tons - unless the local economy is too small to justify fuel for vessels - 0 tons.

Industry Rules: if a location has HI, it gets 10 times the daily HI fuel requirement IN ADDITION to any port requirement. If a location has an oil refinery, it always gets 10 days of production at start - just as it always has 10 days of the oil required by the refinery. However, at the start of the war, certain locations have larger inventories: the actual inventory if known (e.g. Pearl Harbor); 30 days supply for a key storage facility; 90 days supply for an unusual strategic storage facility; in Japan in 1941 at certain points 24 months of oil supply. At the map edge, 2000 tons per day (one train load) of supplies, fuel, oil and/or resources if there is a RR (and lesser amounts if there are primary or secondary road connections off map). If the off map destination has no oil source, it supplies no oil, etc.

Military Rules: A location must have twice the supplies (the code rule to render the display white) required by units present. If it is an important start of war logistical center, add 10,000 supplies. If it is a rare critical logistical center, add 100,000 tons. This latter turns out, rarely, to be inadequate.

Entering data in the editor does NOT reveal what is required by a location. Only looking at every location in the game does that. And that must be done AFTER all changes are done or units are added to the location. Sometimes I didn't do that.

The problems with pointers and device order are data entry errors I am responsible for, either in creating or modifying or reviewing a unit.

I have detected and fixed all these issues.

Version 6.80 - which should be clean - will be issued in a matter of minutes. Test Ten will restart using this.

Never mind I was "taking too long" to get things right. I did not, in fact, spend enough time. This is why we test - to find what isn't right so we can make it better.

[el cid again]

Level I Update Link 2.51
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwg-8ZqLaG9QbsVHAolg

[el cid again]

See link below

This is a very slight enhancement of 6.80 made after the creation of the Japanese
turn for Test Ten - an usually comprehensive and intensive bit of work. It produced
only 7 eratta. But one of those - an air group with too many airplanes because it had damaged and undamaged planes both equal to maximum size - also was assigned to a theater HQ vice an air HQ. Looking up the air HQ I learned something about names - and changed six names to respect history and Japanese usage.

First - at the start of the war - the Hiko Shidan were instead called Hiko Shudan.
That changes in April of 1942. The editor permits using both names - and changing on the right date. [Hiko Shudan = Air Group. Hiko Shidan = Air Division.] There were five such cases.

Second - the Japan Defense Army HQ also changed names. Based (probably) on a famous US Army manual from midwar - it was out of date. At mobilization, in July 1941, Japan created a new body to run things - an integrated national joint one - called Daihoni. Since some Navy units report to this HQ it looks better if it is the national one. For English readers I call it "Imperial General Staff / Daihonei".

We had one unit planning for the wrong location in Manchukuo. We had one location with too high a fort level (to which code objects). The previously reported case of Tunhua (oil shale and the remote mountain HQ of Kwangtung Army) not having an airfield STILL existed - and so the airfield was fixed. [The Japanese in Test Ten simply decided to build it in game rather than restart.] Not much really - but it is all fixed.

[el cid again]

See new link above or below

This is a fairly extensive set of fairly minor changes. Most are in the location files.
Some are in device, aircraft, air group and class files. Also there are changes to one pwhexe.dat file (the most important one - the start of game one) and to a few documentation files.

One pwhexe.dat error was peculiar - Fort St John (Canada) somehow was reclassified as Russian territory - preventing a unit in that hex from ever leaving!
For some reason, it didn't stop units entering the hex either! Another error was
a blocked hexside that probably never would matter but looked bad at Whitehorse,
also in Canada. Finally - for reasons unknown - three blocked hexsides near
Adelaide returned. I suspect errors are generated randomly when one saves a file
in the editor. Regardless - they are all fixed.

Many of the errors relate to start of game supplies for (Allied) units or locations. If I found the error, it is because of setting up the Allied turn for Test Ten (which now is in the hands of Chair 3 - Chairs 1 and 2 are done). But other errors were reported by users worldwide! Regardless of who reported them, I always work on them. Usually I find other similar errors. In this case, one such error related to a US submarine class - it had a tank vice a 30 cal MG on the port side! Must be ugly to see! And I am not sure how it would work. This was in the last update for the class so probably no one ever saw it - but now it is fixed - and even an old game will update to the correct data.

I did find some errors related to Midway, Kure and Layson Island. All of them needed more airfield potential and port potential. I had the impression Kure was a tiny thing, but USCG built an airfield on it after the war. It isn't very big - but it is more than the 0,0 ratings it has always had (in terms of potential build). Midway - which is smaller now than it was in WW2 - has a runway for large jetliners (one has landed in 3 of the last 4 years due to emergencies) - so clearly the potential to build a long runway existed (it was probably greater than because the islands have been sinking and eroding away). Midway remains a level 4 airfield - but its potential build is 5 so it can go to an 8. It also now is a level 2 port - and its port build rating is 2 so it can go to a 5. Kure remains 0,0 facilities - nothing was built there until after WW2 - but it has potential builds of 1 and 1, so it can build to a level 4 port and/or level 4 airfield. Layson island was once exploited for guano, but never had an airfield. But it is a mile and a half long and a mile wide - and in spite of a 440 acre lake - it could have an airfleld built on it. It is now rated as a 1 and 5.

I found more information about the guano islands and re-rated most of them. I learned also that the Wren and Heron "Detachments" which guarded them after a German raider (and support ships) attacked the area in 1940. These small units were called "forces" - so I renamed them. They had no aircraft support squads, so I removed them. But they did have four (!) Vickeers machine guns - so I put them in place of the air support squads (which is just as well - it means old games will simply redefine the device and be approximately correct). I also learned these units were supposed to have 6 inch CD guns, but none were available. Christmas Island (Kampong, Indian Ocean) and Cocos Island (Keeling, Indian Ocean) were also redefined. Most lost industry - but one didn't and Cocos - formerly without industry - turned out to have both coconut plantations (still going) and guano mining - so it picked up some. I found Port Hedland and Corunna Downs were "overdeveloped" using information well post WW2 - Corunna Downs was (and remains to this day) a cattle station - and there was not yet significant mining operations nearby (and, in fact, farther South). Wyndham had also gone into a bust after a boom - and was smaller - although it did still have a small pastoral industry. A number of locations with incorrect starting supplies got more - the worst case being Tacloban which somehow started with zero. A number of units got more starting supplies, and several Aussie and NZ ones offshore now are assigned to an unrestricted command. Clearly if these units could get to some island, they also could load on ships to leave it!

Some Russian RR units were removed from "simplified RHS" scenarios (102, 104 and 106) which are not supposed to have them (for one thing, AI has no idea that a RR unit must stay on RR tracks - and 102 is supposed to cater to AI and might not have human players). The same thing happened to a US RR unit at Hawaii - made mobile so players could move it to some place with railroads - like Australia. But that isn't supposed to happen in simplified scenarios - so it was converted to a static CD unit. The same thing happened to a gigantic train at Vladivostok - with 3 14 inch guns - several 12 and 8 inch as well - which I made mobile not long ago. But in 102, 104 and 106 this unit is now static - like it used to be in stock. But like the one Japanese 12 inch railgun (the First Independent RR Gun Company) - this unit COULD move!
Also - Russian motorized infantry was inconsistent - some of it was like normal infantry - the rest like all non-Russian units I am aware of was classified as armor. That permits it to move faster than walking units. I made them all be that way.

There were a few other things, all minor, but after several days of working I have forgotten the details. This is a lessons learned upgrade. Some of this will apply to ongoing games - but things like starting industry, starting supply and starting command assignment will only take effect in a new game start.

[el cid again]

7.14 link
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=3 ... file%2cmsi



There is a collection of file changes here - mainly to scenario files - but at least one to documentation (Scenario 105 Airborne Logic) - because it was out of date.

Most of the work went into Japanese air group HQ associations. I came up with a new scheme which comprehensively included all Air Armies and Air Divisions - and corresponding naval air HQ - but while all the Sentai's were integrated into it - some independent units and training units were not. This process revealed a couple of cases with the wrong aircraft in some scenarios, and some date issues, which of course were resolved. Unfortunately, most of these changes will only apply to new games.

Two instances were found of aircraft in pools before they were made - the C-87 for example should not be used until there is such a thing. I thought all such cases were purged - but apparently I missed these two. Two other cases - related to Philippine Air Force - addressed the problem that PAF squadrons may never upgrade to anything. Now they have one option - which if taken - will lead to other options over time.

I found the rumor about Douglas MacArthur is true! He led a double life in AE. Two identical Mac's existed. When I relieved him in the Philippines, imagine my surprise that when looking at options for another command, TWO DIFFERENT IDENTICAL Gen MacArthur's were on the list. Whatever the justification for this, it seems wrong, and I got rid of the second one. Stock had him in charge of SW Pacific Area as well as USAFFE. This isn't an issue in RHS because you get the SW Pacific Area in its original form - US Army Forces in Australia - with its original commander (and a tiny fraction of its eventual size). You can relieve Mac and put him in charge of that command afterward - if you wish. But this change will not delete Mac from an ongoing game - only from a new one.

There is one new location. It is Fort Hertz in Northern Burma (see previous discussion). I is an isolated significant airfield at the very top of Burma, just
below the mountains - utterly lacking in LOC. [Today you can only drive there
in summer - mainly you fly in.] This airfield was built before WW2 and was used in support of "hump" operations. There is a local town making some supplies - but for major operations you need to fly in more. This too will only show up in a new game.

A number of land units got initial supplies, adjustments to fatigue and/or planning, and one moved a hex.

These changes are mainly due to lessons learned from Test Ten and from player feedback. They are made with a view to improving the product and getting rid of things that are irritating (e.g. not enough supplies) or not as good as they could be. None are of great importance.

[el cid again]

We will be adding at least USS Patoka, the Nieuw Amsterdam, and YFD-1 class (Dewey and YFD-2) Drydock art -
from the old forms it had in WITP/RHS - in the next update.

Checking on an archive of ship are (99% of it supplied by Cobra) from WITP/RHS,
I found the curious case of USS Patoka. A class popular in AE and various mods, it appears the ship never did serve as an AO in the Pacific theater. Nor was she in the Pacific at all before 1944 - when she served as an AG. She could, of course, have easily converted to AO or AV configurations - both of which she had done. Note her armament apparently also didn't include 3 inch guns.

USS Patoka (AO-9)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
USS Shenandoah moored to the USS Patoka (AO-9)
Patoka with Shenandoah moored alongside
Career (USA)
Name: USS Patoka
Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., Newport News, Virginia
Laid down: 17 December 1918
Launched: 26 July 1919
Acquired: 3 September 1919
Commissioned: 13 October 1919
Decommissioned: 31 August 1933
Recommissioned: 10 November 1939
Decommissioned: 1 July 1946
Struck: 31 July 1946
Fate: Scrapped, 15 March 1948
General characteristics
Class & type: Patoka-class replenishment oiler
Displacement: 16,800 long tons (17,070 t)
Length: 477 ft 10 in (145.64 m)
Beam: 60 ft (18 m)
Draft: 26 ft 2 in (7.98 m)
Speed: 11 knots (20 km/h; 13 mph)
Complement: 168
Armament: 2 × 5 in (130 mm) guns
4 × 40 mm guns

USS Patoka (AO–9/AV–6/AG–125) was a fleet oiler made famous as a tender for the airships Shenandoah (ZR-1), Los Angeles (ZR-3) and Akron (ZRS-4). It was also notable in that its height (177 feet (54 m)) figured prominently in the design of Rainbow Bridge in Texas (the bridge design required that the Patoka, then the tallest ship in the Naval fleet, could sail under it; however, it never did).

Named for the Patoka River, Patoka was laid down on 17 December 1918 by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company of Newport News, Virginia and launched on 26 July 1919. Acquired by the Navy from the USSB on 3 September 1919, and commissioned on 13 October 1919, Commander Ernest F. Robinson in command.


Contents
[hide]
1 1920s and 1930s
2 World War II, 1941-1943
3 1944-1945
4 Fate
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

1920s and 1930s[edit]

Patoka undergoing maintenance in Boston in 1929

Los Angeles tied up to Patoka during Fleet Problem XII in 1931 off Panama
Assigned to the Naval Overseas Transportation Service, Patoka departed Norfolk on 4 November 1919 for Port Arthur, Texas, where she loaded fuel oil and sailed for Scotland, arriving on the Clyde on 6 December. She returned to Port Arthur for more oil and got under way on 9 January 1920 for the Adriatic Sea, arriving at Split on 12 February. Returning to the United States in April Patoka went back to the Near East, arriving at Istanbul in June. After duty in the Adriatic and Mediterranean she returned to the United States, and served on both the east and west coasts until 1924 when she was selected as a tender for the rigid airship USS Shenandoah

A mooring mast some 125 feet above the water was constructed; additional accommodations both for the crew of Shenandoah and for the men who handled and supplied the airship were added; facilities for the helium, gasoline, and other supplies necessary for Shenandoah were built; as well as handling and stowage facilities for three seaplanes. This work by the Norfolk Navy Yard was completed shortly after 1 July 1924. Patoka retained her classification of AO–9.

Patoka engaged in a short series of mooring experiments with the Shenandoah, which had reported to the Commander, Scouting Fleet, for duty on 1 August 1924. The first successful mooring was made on 8 August 1924.

In October, Patoka, along with the cruisers Milwaukee and Detroit, were assigned stations in the mid-Atlantic to furnish the US Navy's second operational airship, Los Angeles, with the weather reports and forecasts during her flight, 12 to 15 October 1924, from Germany, where she had been built, to Lakehurst Naval Air Station, New Jersey.

During 1925 Patoka operated with both Shenandoah and Los Angeles in demonstrating the mobility of airships, and in reducing the number of ground personnel required to handle them. A projected polar flight by Shenandoah, using Patoka as her base of operations, was cancelled when the airship was lost in a storm on 3 September 1925.

Between 1925 and 1932 Patoka operated with Los Angeles and served as her base of supply and operations on her long-range flights to Puerto Rico (1925), Panama (1928), Florida (1929), and during the fleet concentration off Panama (1931). During 1932 she also operated with the newly acquired airship Akron, but the decommissioning of Los Angeles on 30 June 1932, and the loss of Akron on 4 April 1933 saw a reduced need for an airship tender, with Patoka decommissioned on 31 August 1933.

On 10 November 1939 Patoka recommissioned at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Comdr. C.A.F. Sprague in command, and reported to Patrol Wing 5, Aircraft, Scouting Force. Her classification had been changed to AV–6, seaplane tender, on 11 October 1939.

On 18 January 1940 she departed Puget Sound and, after taking on fuel and cargo at San Pedro, arrived at San Diego on the 31st. She steamed for the east coast on 5 February and reached Norfolk on 25 March. Next Patoka was assigned to the Naval Transportation Service in June and was reclassified AO–9 on 19 June 1940.

On 13 August she departed Norfolk and sailed to Houston. Between August and December 1940, she operated out of Houston and Baytown, Texas, delivering fuel oil to Boston, Melville, Norfolk, Charleston, and Key West.

From March 1941 to September Patoka delivered fuel oil and general cargo to various units of the Fleet in the Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean areas. On 28 September she departed Norfolk and proceeded, via Aruba, to Recife, Brazil. Patoka made one more round trip to Recife before the United States entered World War II.

World War II, 1941-1943[edit]
On 7 December 1941, Patoka was moored at Recife, acting as tanker, cargo, store ship, and repair ship. Here she supplied the units of Task Force 3 (later 23) with fuel, diesel, lubricating oil; gasoline stores; provisions; and repairs.

Shortly after the turn of the new year 1942, she got under way for Bahia, Brazil, anchoring there on 8 January. There, she received word that ships bearing rubber and other vital war goods had left French Indochina bound for the Axis controlled ports in Europe. Patoka requested and received permission to patrol the shipping lanes off Bahia. When she had completed her patrol duties she put into port and returned to Recife on 22 January. Six days later she was bound for San Juan, Puerto Rico, but en route she was diverted to Trinidad, B.W.I. Taking on fuel and stores she returned to Recife. Standing out of the harbor on 21 February, she again set course, changed several times to avoid reported submarines, and reached San Juan, Puerto Rico, on 4 March. Her return trip to Recife was made without incident.

On 25 May 1942, while again returning to Recife from Trinidad escorted by USS Jouett (DD-396), Patoka sighted an enemy submarine on the surface. Jouett attacked, forcing the U-boat to dive and continued the attack until Patoka had escaped. Patoka remained at Recife, continuing to supply the ships of Task Force 23 with provisions, supplies and tender services until April 1943, with occasional trips to Puerto Rico and Trinidad for replenishment. Patoka then got underway for home, reaching Norfolk on 22 May for overhaul. She sailed for New York on 6 August to join a convoy bound for Aruba, N.W.I. and resumed operations along the coast of South America.

1944-1945[edit]
In April 1944, she carried 62 prisoners of war (German naval and merchant marine personnel) from Rio de Janeiro to Recife where they were turned over to the U.S. Army. Patoka departed on 24 March and arrived Norfolk on 6 April for an overhaul period, to prepare for duty in the Pacific.

On 15 June, Patoka departed from Norfolk for the Panama Canal and Pearl Harbor. There she was outfitted for duty as a minecraft tender and was reclassified AG–125 on 15 August 1945. Shortly thereafter she sailed via Guam for Okinawa, reaching Buckner Bay on 5 September. Patoka provided the minecraft with tender services until 21 September at which time she got underway for Wakayama, Japan. Anchoring there on 23 September, she continued to provide logistic support to units of the 5th Fleet, servicing mine vessels of Task Group 52.6. She remained with the occupation forces until the spring of 1946, returning to the United States on 10 March 1946.

Fate[edit]
Patoka was decommissioned on 1 July 1946, transferred to the War Shipping Administration, and was struck from the Navy List on 31 July 1946. She was sold to Dulien Steel Products Co. for scrap on 15 March 1948.

[el cid again]

I added the USS Utah - armed as it was at the time of loss (with 5 inch 25
short guns to port and 5 inch 38 long guns to starboard). She is, of course,
at Pearl Harbor. I also added the option to convert her back to battleship
form - if she survives and if players want to. The turrets and case mate
positions remain, with supporting equipment - they are merely plated over.
So the original primary and secondary guns can easily be returned - and they
are in storage. But the light armament is entirely different - and has entirely
modern fire control stations. I elected to make the initial form simply to
retain all the 5 inch DP mountings - but with 5 inch 25s on both sides -
and a small number of additional 40 mm and 20 mm - and basic air and surface radar.
Later she can be modernized to have a fully revised AA suite and better radar.
Something unexpected, the ship got new engines at great expense just before the 1930
London Naval Treaty forced her to be disarmed - and she can cruise at 19 knots!

USS Patoka is now revised into an AR (the nearest thing there is to what she was
in 1944) - a ship that could repair mine warfare vessels. She may convert to
AO or AV forms - and back again - at player's discretion. In all forms she carries
a lot of oil if she wants to, and as an AV she is unusually capable in terms of
aircraft support (because she was). She remains slow, but fairly well armed, in
all variations. I used official data for her capacity, range and speed.

[el cid again]

A player asked:

Question. Why do almost all vehicles with anti-submarine equipment so little depth charges?


A very good question.

RHS has a very different concept of ASW weapons than was designed into
all of the games in the series (PacWar, Uncommon Valor, War in the Pacific and Admirals Edition WITP).

Basically the concept used for everything - literally everything - is weapons on bearing times accuracy with various range modifications = hit probability. This is completely not related to how ASW works at all.

There are two variations - so rarely - late war - you sometimes see two different ASW weapons on each ship. These are

1) Depth Charges (generally set to a certain depth)

2) Ahead throwing weapons (generally set for contact detonation regardless of depth)

In both cases, however, the firing ship is relatively "blind" - that is - it is shooting at a target which has time to maneuver before the weapons arrive - and so even if its "datum point" (aim point - the calculated position of the target at the time the calculation was made) were perfect - the target probably isn't there any more!

What really matters is the AREA in which the attack weapons - virtually always fired in multiples - might have damage or lethal effects on the target. RHS therefore builds ASW weapons on the basis of

(a) the number of weapons in the pattern

(b) the area of effect of each weapon, where this defined as the radius squared times pi of the distance between the weapon at detonation and the distance at which it has a 50% chance of penetration of a 19mm steel hull. [That definition, in terms of hull penetration, is taken directly from the Hedgehog deign theory. It, in turn, was taken from the standard pressure hull thickness of German Type VII and IX submarines - which were rather thicker than most others early in the war. RHS compensates for the differences between target subs by how it defines their characteristics]

In RHS, you get a number of "shots" = DC patterns. These are defined so a player can know what they are? Thus you will see patterns as small as 2 or 3 DC - and the name of the DC in the pattern - up to 28 DC for some late war cases. It is typical for a ship to have 3 to 6 shots (early) and 10-12 shots (late).

SOME ships ALSO have a second ASW weapon - mortars, spigot mortars, and certain special cases - all but the mortars late war developments. Here mathmetical models calculate the radius the weapon can reach - and from that its area. Generally these weapons have higher accuracy values than DC patterns (although a 28 DC pattern has a high accuracy value in its own right = accuracy meaning more or less hit probability).

Related to this is RHS sub damage theory. ASW weapons usually do not kill the target but damage it. Code helps here - there is a statistical chance any hit will cause serious damage - including in effect more hits - engine damage - weapons damage. But mostly a sub must be overwhelmed by cumulative damage to matter. We simulate the "toughness" of a submarine (borrowed from another mod in fact) giving submarines "armor" - which in game terms mitigates weapon effects to some degree. Because pressure hulls are not made of armor we use a fraction of pressure hull thickness = "armor" - and we adjusted the constant used until it produced results in the statistically correct range. [Here K = 3 - pressure hull / 3 in mm = "armor"].

RHS subs are not easy to kill - a torpedo or mine usually works in one shot however - and DC rarely do. Even so - the ASW value of an escort is also a function of experience - and code lets ships get too good with experience IMHO. But one might point at USS England to say they got it right - she killed subs on the FIRST pass - consistently - rolling up an entire patrol line of six. For the last sub, she let another ship try - but it failed - so she went in - and first shot had the kill! For inexperienced escorts the RHS system produces valid results. For very experienced ones, possibly it overstates their lethality. However, these values are MUCH LESS than in stock or other mods - and deliberately so. So subs are much more likely to survive (at least if they stay out of minefields and if they go home when significantly damaged instead of risking more damage in a condition likely to make it easier to get some!).

[el cid again]

See link above or below

This is an unusually comprehensive update. For one thing, it includes art.

In this instance, four new pairs of ship art are included - all of them from
the WITP days RHS art created by Cobra AUS. They include the Dewey Dry Dock, USS Patoka and USS Utah. I had to generate revised ship class and ship files to deal with these changes: at least change pointers.

But the UTAH had never been in AE at all - so I had to define her. Utah is unusual - different guns to port and starboard (to train students in two different kinds of five inch DP guns. I also found that Mifune's Scenario 99 (which pointed at a sailboat for art!) had a battleship version of her. Well - why not? USS Wyoming was considered for restoration as a gunfire support ship for late war landings. This would be very similar. Except UTAH had modern fire control, and positions for twin five inch mountings (two on each side). Also I found that her turrets and secondary mountings were still present, as was the fire control systems: the tubes were removed and the openings had plates welded over them.
So I created two versions as upgrades from the initial gunnery training ship (with no big guns at all): a "war emergency basic conversion" which simply restored the primary and secondary tubes and added a few light AA guns of the same sort UTAH already had for training purposes, and radar - and a "late war" version done more like other late war conversions.

Patoka is in stock and all mods, but improperly so - insofar as she does not start the war in PTO - and does not enter it until 1944. It also existed in three different forms, all easily transitioned between - AO, AV and what stock and I call AR (officially AG).
So I used all three sub-class slots - not as upgrades - but as conversion options back and forth - as players like. I used official data - and in each form she is a considerable ship. But always a slow one! As with USS Utah I had to modify ship as well as class files.

The Dry Dock case was simple - simply repoint the class at the art - and the ship file "understood" because it is a dynamic link. Similarly, Neiuw Amsterday was a simple repointing case. I found other cases where I need to repoint art - and possibly copy in new art - but I will continue that process next time. I got diverted by a question about mines.

Never mind I "got mines to work" - I failed to do so completely. And never mind I suspected the issues may be code related, at least some of them are not. On investigating I found many technical matters - including duplicated mines showing up in reports! Here I reworked device, class and ship files in my first pass at addressing this issue. I redefined most or all US and British mines - in a comprehensive sense. One problem was numbers - field limits prevent telling the truth about inventories. [The extreme case is the US Mark 6 mine - of which 100,000 were built - and which remained in US stocks until 1974 - and likely still remains in ROC inventory!] So I designed a new system - "stocks in PTO" - and "production" means "transfer from off the map stockpiles" rather than new builds - in some cases. This works for British, Russian and US cases. It helps solve one of the technical problems confusing code and messing up reports and availability. For ship mines we use weight in tons - because weight in pounds does not work for code - but some were not defined properly by that standard. A few warhead sizes changed slightly - not so much because they were wrong but because I decided to use a single source - for a standard of accuracy reason. But I need to review some other mines (not US or UK in origin) to insure these standards are consistently applied.

I had to rework the USS Argonaut completely (five sub classes in seven scenarios).
Seems nobody - including me - ever got her quite right. She IS in PTO at the start - but NOT in the form we have seen: it is not until January 1942 she gets her new, more powerful engines. So she is slower for one thing. For another, she carried 68 mines, and nobody seemed to get that right (I used US Submarines through 1945 by Friedman as the most comprehensive source). Next, her January 1942 upgrade is NOT to an SST - as we all had: she REMAINED a SSML - but picked up both speed and radar! It was in July 1942, at Pearl Harbor, she was converted to a SST form - for a special operation. [Possibly a strategic error, the General Board wanted her to remain a minelayer - and felt her mines were exceptionally hard to sweep - in combination with the other kind of mines she herself could lay. The Makin Island Raid is what caused Japan to fortify its Pacific Islands - the story she illegally did so pre war is a myth - and we paid a high price for instigating that policy change.] She retained her new radar, but lost her mine tubes and picked up troop birthing - for 120 men (not 110 as some other materials - including RHS - said). She also was sunk in 1943, so needed to be deleted from RHS 106 (which starts in 1945).

This process revealed to me that mines change types over time - so EVERY submarine sub class needs to be checked against the date to insure it specifies the proper mine for its date. I have not done that comprehensively yet. Something similar may need to happen with some non-US subs - not sure if any of those upgrade over time or not? Surface ship mines are slightly more complicated - the WWI mines remained in use long after WWII - so ships don't so much upgrade as get assigned types. I was not aware of this and, in any case, there seems to be a problem with British WWI mines (used widely, by RNN for example) - they appear to work but not to display to players properly. A complicating issue is that I do not want to change slots - or it messes up ongoing games and test games. I have more testing and experimenting to do as well as to check every variant of every class to insure it is using the right ones. Sometimes that will lead to discoveries as with Argonaut - eratta of other kinds not related to the mines per se. I also found some other possible cases of duplicated devices in reports to players. SOME of these are valid - so a device can upgrade along different lines (or not at all) - but SOME of them may need to be 9999ed out - to reduce computer execution time and to not add lines unused to reports.

BEFORE I did any of this with art or mine devices, I had spend a LOT of time working on LCU - doing little things like adding supplies and planning - and integrating units with formations. That led to discoveries of eratta, all of them fixed.

Most of these changes will backfit into existing games, some of them will only take effect in new ones - and some are in between. [A ship will NOT reflect device order changes like an aircraft or LCU will UNTIL YOU UPGRADE THE SHIP - which may or may not be possible - depending on the case. Except it WILL change its speed - e.g. in the case of Argunaut - or picture - as with Patoka.]

There is enough here to warrant issuing an update, but it is interim - and another one with more device, ship and class changes will follow "soon" - depending on how many changes are required. Some of the changes are mere chrome, some are eratta, and some are somewhat important - hopefully the problems reloading mines will be somewhat mitigated by this work.

[archita]

I readed the notes of RHS mod on Japanese strategy on Russia. I want ask if a sort of successfull operation Kantokuen in '42 in game against allied AI in 105 scenario has political effects on Russia like active part of game ? I mean that if Japan neutralize, with luck and opportunities and many risks in other theatres, Vladivostok in '42, Russia may be pushed to negotiate with Japan or Russia will continue to hold far east divisions active in theatre and eventual partisan activity for whole lenght of war ( in this way several ground forces of Japan risks to be trapped as well with great advantage of allied player in other theatres ) ?

[el cid again]

The super battleship fever of IJN was strong. There were,
in fact, no less than four ordered by 1939 and laid down
by 1940, with a fifth unit (No 797) projected for a 1942
order (which never happened). In addition, two "super
battleship" variations on the same hull, with still larger guns,
were projected (No 798 and 799). These were to mount
six 50.8 cm guns in pairs. Such a gun was in fact built
and successfully tested, and full scale models of the
magazines and handling rooms were built, and intense
work done on how to improve protection still more!

This movement in IJN was politically powerful - leading
Admiral Yamamoto, an air power advocate, to despair on
his effort to not fund the Musashi (Yamato herself was too
far along to stop). He said "there are three great follies
in history: the Great Wall of China, the pyramids of Egypt,
and the battleship Musashi!"

The design intent was to create a ship larger than treaty
limits permitted with clear advantages over foreign battleships,
because Japan could not compete in terms of numbers of
due to facing several potential opponents, some of them with
larger economies.

Less well known is that no less than 23 different designs for
Yamato herself were considered (and a 24th was adopted
for later units - changing 5 inch for the superb 4 inch
DP guns for AA purposes). Only the first and last (of the
23) used pure steam propulsion. All the rest contemplated
mixed combined diesel and steam plants, due to the greater
range possible when diesel engines were used. These
engines were in fact built and tested in auxiliary ships. Only
when the demonstration showed the engines might have to
be replaced - impractical under the armored decks of a
battleship - did the final design revert to steam again. And then
they only installed 75% of the plant designed for the first version!
Along the way they had learned how to make the bow more efficient,
and how to make the propellers more efficient - and it was then
possible to achieve 27 knots with 150,000 shp. But with the
earlier plant - 200,000 - 31 knots was possible. Had this plant
been installed with the revised bow and propellers, the ship could
have exceeded 32 knots.

Also less well known is that these designs featured different
primary gun alternatives. There were 8 gun four twin turret
18 inch versions. And there were 9 gun three turret,
10 gun four turret and 12 gun four turret 16 inch gun versions!

Consider the 16 inch gun for a moment. In service on Nagato,
it would provide logistic commonality with that class - and be
able to be reloaded anywhere Nagato can reload - not restricted
to only two points as Yamato was. The gun fired 40% faster,
and 40% more rounds could be carried. That means that in the
same time (required to expend the entire magazine) 40% more
hits should be achieved.

The quest for a more powerful ship included development of
a triple turret for the 16 inch gun (all variations contemplated
would use it - never mind twins of the Tosa sort were in service).
Nagato herself no longer had her original turrets! Instead, turrets
for the later 8-8 program - with more elevation and greater range -
were fitted on Nagato, Mutsu and on three coast defense forts.
But those turrets did not permit maximum range even so - and
slightly more range could be achieved with a new turret - permitting
full elevation - as well as more protection could be worked in.
Just as the Yamato class protection for the ship was not decreased
in its 16 inch armed variations, so neither was the turret protection.
Thus you had a ship designed to take more punishment than other
16 inch gun battleships were.

A query about fast escorts for carriers in a Japan enhanced scenario
caused me to review these matters. Primarily I used Siegfried
Breyers Battleships and Battlecruisers (available in German or English)
and Naval Weapons of World War Two (in addition to articles and technical
papers not in books). I investigated the old, 1920s battle-cruisers and the
post Yamato B-64 and B-65 battle-cruisers as well. The former had
several issues - and we have no art for them (unless we remove a turret
and use Nagato art). The latter were too late and were never even ordered -
were a design begun in 1940 and could not be ordered and completed in
time for the war. So I returned to Yamato herself.

I found a reasonable compromise in the form of building the ORIGINAL
design (A-140 of March, 1935) combined with the armament of Jo of
July 1935 - essentially substituting the 16 inch triple turrets for the 18 inch -
on the ship with the original propulsion plant - but with the improved bow
and propellers actually developed and used. This results in a top speed
of 32 knots and a cruising speed of 18 knots with a range of 8,000 nm
(actually just slightly more as the guns weigh slightly less - but not enough
to bother calculating - it is within the margin of error).

This is a potentially more useful ship - more lethal, faster, with more range -
and equal protection. It will be featured in RHS 105 from the next update.
The other Japan enhanced scenario - 99 - does not have Yamato class ships
at all!