RHS Thread: Planned Update 8.20

[el cid again]

During a comprehensive review of ship class data, focused on making durability
consistent (and that based on full load displacement, the only meaningful standard
as taught by US Navy damage control schools - from which I hold a Gold Certificate
- meaning best in class), I found some amazing maneuverability values.

Originally an amphib sailor on the last APA ever built (for USN, and probably in
all nations), I strongly object to rating landing craft with extremely high maneuver
values. In the first place, even alone (which is not how landing craft normally
are employed), they maneuver like a shoebox. That is, poorly. But operationally,
a landing craft is NOT ABLE TO MANEUVER AT ALL. If it is to succeed in its combat
mission during an assault landing, the landing craft MUST remain in line with
the reset of the craft in its wave. If it does not do that, the craft will not
"hit the beach" together - and the enemy will concentrate fire on them, one at a time,
the closest one to the beach first. When they beach and drop the bow ramp, this is
particularly effective. [See the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan, the only film
remotely doing a good job showing what an assault landing is like?]

This was so important that each craft has 3 sailors on board. It only takes one sailor
to steer a landing craft. No need for a mechanic, you are not going to fix the engine
during a landing. Anyone can throw a line if you are coming alongside. So why three?
Because sticking your head above the (hopefully) armored steering position likely will
get you killed. Someone has to take over steering the boat. It must be a sailor, not
the troops, who are needed when you hit the beach. Three makes it probable at least one
will still be alive when you hit the beach! So why would a sailor step into the blood
of the previous cox'n (the boss of a boat is a coxswain). Because if you do not, the
troops will shoot you! THEY know that they have no chance if someone is not keeping the
vessel in the line. Which is to say - the boat is NOT free to maneuver at all.

There are other anomalies, but that is the worst one.

So what should the maneuver value be?

Maneuver probably should relate to rate of change of position. This at first blush seems
to imply maximum speed limits maximum maneuver rate. A small vessel, particularly if
designed for maneuvering, might get a multiplier. For example, if a large ship gets
maneuver = maximum speed, a small fast ship (e.g. a destroyer) might get maneuver =
2 x maximum speed. Perhaps an intermediate fast ship (e.g. a light cruiser) might get
1.5 x maximum speed. One might also vary individual ratings for cause. Thus, USS Alaska
class BC - with their terrible turning radius - might be rated as large ships are -
Maneuver = Maximum Speed - or even Maneuver = 0.75 x Maximum Speed - to make them
worse than battleships - which they were. A class noted for outstanding maneuverability
might get a slightly higher multiple than normal for its category.

Requesting thoughts, opinions or any information about the "standards" used by AE
nominally. [The problem is, lacking formal definitions in a manual, people entering data
do not generally know what the standards are, even if they once existed. So data in the
database is inconsidtent, and no person ever reviewed new class data as an editor would
do in a professional organization - to insure consistency with the standard, even if
there was one.] But if there IS a theory nominally officially used - I want to know what
it was?

[el cid again]

I am confused. My guess is that you are looking for the AIF 6th and 7th Divisions
as such. If that is the case, you indeed won't find them in that form. They
appear as their component sub units and need to combine to form divisions. Now
in a simplified scenario - the sub units do not appear - and the parent units
do appear. This is true for many divisions. It is part of what "simplified" means.

This matter does not belong in this thread. This is about airborne. It should
be in the RHS thread. That way I would have noticed it sooner.

[el cid again]

Simplified scenarios have these divisions as divisions. Full RHS scenarios
have them appear in sub-unit form.

[el cid again]

Revision:

This discussion was reviewed. The proposal results are too far for safe
use in game. So are other hypotheses needing too much work to implement.
I settled on adding maximum speed and "durability" (which is depth rating)
- the depth divided by 100 and rounded up - this sum being then divided
by full load displacement (submerged) itself divided by 1,000 rounded up.
This will NOT be implemented until the current surface ship review is
done - then implemented all at once.


Subs have two different maneuver situations - surfaced and submerged.
Since we cannot enter two different values and apply them separately,
sub maneuver needs to be a composite rating.

I propose to add surface and submerged speeds, and divide by the sub displacement
in thousands of tons, rounded up (so a midget under a thousand has a value of 1).

The idea is that faster speed is better maneuverability. Also that smaller
size is better maneuverability. This composite system should work well as it
considers surface speed, submerged speed, and the inverse of size. The result
also is in a range that is generally below surface ship maneuverability - and
in the cases where a sub maneuver rating is higher than a specific surface ship
maneuver rating - it is well deserved - and should outmaneuver the attacks most
of the time.

[el cid again]

RHS Update 5.26

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes a new map panel (WPEN08) which
adds trail art in one hex in Thailand, and a new
start of game pwhexe.dat file (also called II41WINTER)
which corrects a river hexside somewhere in China.

It includes every sort of scenario file, but mainly
includes class, device, leader and ship files involved
with the surface ship update implementing the new
durability definition, and also includes revised
detection devices. For the very first time, a new
model distinguishing actual radar from acoustic, visual
and ECM detection is implemented. All use the radar
code - but those devices not really active radar are
likely to fail for various reasons. Note that stock
searchlights, acoustic detectors and even ECM (which
I didn't realize existed) all pretended to be active
radars just as good as actual active radar is. To which
add that pre-production Japanese active radars also now
have a failure rate: this permits introduction on
dates they went to sea WITHOUT being as good as the more
reliable types that replaced them midwar. Finally, note
that I added late war Japanese ECM suites which, in my
view, are astonishing. I once operated a USN AN/WLR-1
set (patented in 1945) which was impressive: signal
gain of a billion to 1 - the limit that is practical.
But the set can only watch one frequency at a time on
only one band (of 7 bands). The Japanese system used
multiple antennas, and multiple sets - providing instant
warning on all bands (with hemispheric - port or starboard -
direction) combined with a direction finding antenna for
any signal of interest. Information on these was not
previously available.

All class slots below the 1300 range are done, and some
above as well. At least one more round is still to come.
The review INCLUDES the new maneuver ratings for SURFACE
vessels.

[el cid again]

I am not yet done implementing electronic warfare and radar equipment, and new maneuverability ratings for ships and submarines, and insuring that multiple AAA devices have replaced the original system (whichrates a twin, triple, quad or even octal mount as a simple multiple of a single mount in hit probability - whenthat is never true). [Separate aimed single mounts each have someone else aiming them. As well, they have a different rate of elevation and traverse than a multiple mount does. Both factors make a single gun in a multiple mount less likely to be on target than a stand alone mount is. The multiple mount, however, does throw more shells down range - and dispersal means there is a slightly better chance some of them will hit when aim is not perfect - which indeed is most of the time. RHS multiple mounts use the function of effect times the square root of the number of tubes in the mounting to crudely simulate these effects.]

WHEN this total review of ship classes is finished, I propose to introduce sonar devices.I have some exposure to sonar and sonar simulation. I got bogged down in too much detail: there is no sonar in AE or its ancestor games. I could not do the kind of detail sim I want. But working on countermeasures (which, shockingly, I found was introduced in stock - for aircraft at least) - I figured out we CAN crudely simulate sonar.First - the device function to use is surface search radar. It will detect either a submarine or a surface ship, and sonar really does that.Second - the device must be omnidirectional. Although both hydrophones and active sonars are set up to determine bearing, they can do that on any bearing. Third - we have to work with three parameters. Range - which is always low - accuracy - which is low to moderate, but never high - and dud rate. This is a feature I introduced to deal with prototype radars that fail a lot, and with ECM which fails when the enemy isn't cooperatively transmitting. Sonar has a similar problem - particularly passive hydrophones: if you don't move, they can't hear the noise you are not making. So a hydrophone has a high dud rate. We can model the statistical averages well - just not the details of how these things work in any ordinary sense of simulation. We just have to be content that a patrol boat with a hydrophone is better off than one without one - slightly.Hard code makes ASW more effective according to type of ship. DE is the most effective. DD is second most effective. Maybe the third category is "everything else." [There is a theory there is a third category below DD, above everything else. Difficult to prove by testing.] I attribute this difference to TRAINING and PRACTICE - a DE SHOULD BE better - given equal equipment. So no need to worry about how giving sonar to ships will contradict this hard code. They are complimentary ideas.

[el cid again]

Level II Update 5.27
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update involves almost all scenario files, but most of the work was done
in classes and ship files. There are new devices including new EW devices and
radar devices for both sides. There are a few new or revised leader, pilot,
location, and aircraft records.

In addition, the start of game pwhexe.dat file changed. For some reason, the
hex side between Sinkawang and the South China Sea was no longer blocked. This
has been wrong since stock: Sinkawang is at the head of a bay and is approachable
only from the West.

A new system of maneuverability and durability is substantially implemented here.
This update includes a very new system for submarine maneuverability by definition:

The maximum speed of the submarine (either surfaced or submerged, whichever is greater)
plus the durability of the submarine (practical operating depth in 100s of feet) divided
by the submerged displacement of the submarine (in thousands of tons, rounded up).

The general maneuverability system for surface vessels is fairly simple and based mainly
on ship size:

For vessels below 4,000 tons use twice maximum speed IF speed is at least 15 knots;
(otherwise use maximum speed);

for vessels 4,001 to 10,000 tons, use 1.5 times maximum speed if speed is at least 15 knots;
(otherwise use maximum speed);

for vessels 10,001 tons to 40,000 tons, use maximum speed;

for vessels over 40,000 tons, use 90% of maximum speed.

Durability is full load displacement divided by 300 for armored ships and divided by 450 for
unarmored ships - except of course submarines. DO NOT use standard or deadweight or any other
kind of displacement or tonnage. Otherwise, results are inconsistent.

[el cid again]

Level II Update 5.28
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This is an unusually comprehensive update: except for art, it
includes every kind of file: pwhexe.dat (the critical start of
game file II41WINTER.pwhexe which is identical to pwhexe.dat;
documentation files (RHS Ship Bind List in particular, and one
eratta correction in the Sorted Axis Radar Types sheet), and
Scenario files. While many scenario files have some eratta worked
in, concentration has been on the ship class files, and on ship
files depending on them. As well, significant changes and additions
were made to device files.

The main effort was to complete the review of ship classes to insure
(a) the class has the correct full load displacement and the durability
field related to that (in two forms - one for armored ships - one for
unarmored ships; subs are different - durability is defined by depth
ratings); (b) the ship has the correct maneuverability rating
(mainly derived from full speed, but also modified by ship size; subs
are different, maneuverability is defined by speed and depth rating);
and sensors. Mainly using game radar devices, these are used to simulate
a wide variety of optical, radar, passive electronic counter measures and
even acoustic aircraft detectors. ALL of those, FYI, exist in stock - in
spite of Forum assertions, for example, "there is no ECM" or "the ECM field
doesn't work" (which is true - ECM only works if defined as a kind of radar).
The radical RHS change in the near past is the discovery of how the dude rate
field permits reasonable simulation of detection models. One may build a
statistically correct OVERALL rating for a device even if one cannot build
a technically correct device that considers - for example - if a submarine
is surfaced or not? AE abstracts this sort of thing, so our models must also
be abstract - depending on being accurate on the average for their simulation
value - rather than depending on a proper tactically accurate value in every
tactical situation. Still (a) it is the best we can do and (b) it is better than
ignoring the overall impact of the devices. The many new or modified devices
are now integrated with ships (and sometimes aircraft or land units) as more
and more classes are reviewed.

The primary exceptions are merchant ships and auxiliary vessels, or very minor
special cases of Navy ships, mainly of minor nations, mainly found in high
numbered class slot numbers. I am being aided in this by data on about 6,000
classes listed in the 1939 Lloyds Register of shipping, which permits determination
of the right full speed, the right relationship between full speed and cruising speed
(it differs for steamships and for motorships which are diesel engine ships), and
for determining the approximate full load displacement (which is proportionate to
deadweight tonnage rather than gross registered tonnage generally used by people
entering data for AE). From this a meaningful damage control value ("durability
rating") can be determined. The reason all Navies use full load displacement is that
this is the maximum weight of a ship and also the amount of water it displaces at
maximum load: above that the ship sinks. The game algorithms appear to use the
displacement value correctly: all we have to do is insure each class has a value which
is relatively correct compared to other classes, "to be fair." This means a single
standard definition must be used. For many classes, this was not originally the case.
Those not yet reviewed tend to have smaller displacements and, for that reason, smaller
durability ratings. These will continue to be updated until all are correct.

At the same time, many ships are getting more options for upgrades or conversions,
and many new capabilities are being added. For example, I just figured out that a CS
(seaplane tender) which is rated at capable of carrying twice as many aircraft as a
transport can be "reconfigured" as an AKV - and also the AKV can "reconfigure back"
to the CS form. Similarly, a few dual purpose minelayers that could carry depth charges
in lieu of mines can configure as Escorts, which in turn can configure back to ML form.
In China in particular, also in Burma and other places, riverine vessels which often
had multiple variations may convert or reconfigure between various forms, rendering the
local utility of these vessels much more significant. [FYI the ONLY US Army commissioned
warships in WW2 - and probably in history - were ALL former Irrawaddy River Flotilla Company
vessels on the Burmese river system. Sunk by their owner to avoid capture - by firing .50
cal MG holes in the hulls - these were raised and turned into a host of vessels, both logistical
and military. These appear in game when and where they really did - if the location has not
been captured by the Allies yet - they will appear instead at the alternate location. Almost
every Irrawaddy River Flotilla Company ship or boat was built in Scotland (where the company
was based) and transited the world ocean to reach Burma in the first place. IFC was the
largest ferry company in the world and, as far as I know, is only modeled in RHS.]

[el cid again]

Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary had a 120 man naval gunnery detachment (each) during WW2. I think they had multiple 6 inch, as well as heavy, medium and light AA guns. I cannot find a listingfor either. If you have one, please advise.

These ships had full load displacements of 72,000 and 77,400 long tons in 1941. This is not reflected in any variant of AE I have seen. They had an "operating speed" (cruising speed in British merchantship parlance of 29 knots), but I credit QE with 30 knots because she set the transatlantic record in1936 at that speed - a record unbroken until the S.S. United States in 1954. Actually, both probablybroke it - but wartime cruises don't count. Technically QE had a full speed of 32 knots and QM 33knots, but for game purposes I think we must use 33 for QE (so full speed yields a different number of hexes in one impulse - this is under test). They are the fastest ships in the game interms of sustained movement.

Both ships were modified in 1942, probably got Type 273 Radar (surface search for large ships),and certainly about tripled their troop capacity. QM could carry 16,000, QE 15,000. Slots 2488 and2489 (upgrading to 2468 and 2367 respectively as of the next update).

Turns out we must assign both Queens a cruising speed of 29 knots (which is, officially, their"service speed") to get them to have a different full speed and cruising speed in hexes per 12 hournaval movement impulse.  All values from 30 to 33 knots produce 9 hexes per phase.  29 knotsproduces 8 knots per phase.  So we should rate them as 33 and 29, and 32 and 29, both yielding 9 hexes full speed, 8 hexes cruising speed.

[el cid again]

It does not appear to be down. But not every place can be accessed by every other place
at all times. I am using Microsoft servers which are mirrored worldwide.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Looks like that server s down right now....

[el cid again]

Comprehensive Update 5.29
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is comprehensive only in that all files are copied for safety.
ONLY Scenario files have been updated.

These concentrated on ship classes, ships, and air groups. There are a
few other eratta - for devices and location files in particular.

The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers to insure their electronics
and AIR GROUPS were correct, particularly at game start. For a variety
of reasons, mods - including RHS - did not generally use the actual start
of game air groups. [A big one seems to be inheriting data from stock
or other mods. A different one is that it is hard to know all the details.
For example, Zero squadrons with only 15 planes should have 18 plane max
size set.] A different issue is that electronics for strictly historical
scenarios should not be based on the date the system is available. In
particular, Type 21 and 22 radars in RHS come in two flavors - prototype
limited production (and less reliable forms) - and production - and more
reliable and more mass produced forms. It was not until November 1942 that the
first were installed on a carrier - although they were first operational in
March and April. It also requires careful analysis to estimate when a ship
would get upgrades to AAA or electronics after it was sunk (since it may well
NOT be sunk in a game). There also should be a difference between strictly
historical scenarios and Japan Enhanced Scenarios. A strictly historical
scenario should use more conservative assumptions - such as carriers don't get
radar before any carrier did get radar (November, 1942).

[el cid again]

Comprehensive Update 5.29
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is comprehensive only in that all files are copied for safety.
ONLY Scenario files have been updated.

These concentrated on ship classes, ships, and air groups. There are a
few other eratta - for devices and location files in particular.

The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers to insure their electronics
and AIR GROUPS were correct, particularly at game start. For a variety
of reasons, mods - including RHS - did not generally use the actual start
of game air groups. [A big one seems to be inheriting data from stock
or other mods. A different one is that it is hard to know all the details.
For example, Zero squadrons with only 15 planes should have 18 plane max
size set.] A different issue is that electronics for strictly historical
scenarios should not be based on the date the system is available. In
particular, Type 21 and 22 radars in RHS come in two flavors - prototype
limited production (and less reliable forms) - and production - and more
reliable and more mass produced forms. It was not until November 1942 that the
first were installed on a carrier - although they were first operational in
March and April. It also requires careful analysis to estimate when a ship
would get upgrades to AAA or electronics after it was sunk (since it may well
NOT be sunk in a game). There also should be a difference between strictly
historical scenarios and Japan Enhanced Scenarios. A strictly historical
scenario should use more conservative assumptions - such as carriers don't get
radar before any carrier did get radar (November, 1942).

[el cid again]

Comprehensive Update 5.30
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This is essentially update 5.29 after eratta checking. Also, Shoho class carriers
were updated, and a way was found to permit adding recon squadrons (or night fighter
squadrons) to simplified scenario carriers (when they became available).


This update is comprehensive only in that all files are copied for safety.
ONLY Scenario files have been updated.

These concentrated on ship classes, ships, and air groups. There are a
few other eratta - for devices and location files in particular.

The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers to insure their electronics
and AIR GROUPS were correct, particularly at game start. For a variety
of reasons, mods - including RHS - did not generally use the actual start
of game air groups. [A big one seems to be inheriting data from stock
or other mods. A different one is that it is hard to know all the details.
For example, Zero squadrons with only 15 planes should have 18 plane max
size set.] A different issue is that electronics for strictly historical
scenarios should not be based on the date the system is available. In
particular, Type 21 and 22 radars in RHS come in two flavors - prototype
limited production (and less reliable forms) - and production - and more
reliable and more mass produced forms. It was not until November 1942 that the
first were installed on a carrier - although they were first operational in
March and April. It also requires careful analysis to estimate when a ship
would get upgrades to AAA or electronics after it was sunk (since it may well
NOT be sunk in a game). There also should be a difference between strictly
historical scenarios and Japan Enhanced Scenarios. A strictly historical
scenario should use more conservative assumptions - such as carriers don't get
radar before any carrier did get radar (November, 1942).

[el cid again]

Scenario files Update 5.31
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is focused on start of game, Japanese aircraft groups.
There are a few changes to aircraft carrier classes and ships.

Apart from addressing a host of technical issues, the main
purpose is to make start of game data be strictly historical for
strictly historical scenarios, or consistently honoring the assumptions
intended for scenarios 125 (Empire of the Sun) and 129 (Total War Option).

Japanese carrier air groups in historical scenarios will resize correctly,
and will synchronize better with aircraft production (just in case a player
is letting AI manage aircraft production). This is much easier to say
than to implement!

This process has not ended. There will be at least one more round of such
updates. Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, Kaga, Akagi and Junyo classes air groups were
updated.

[el cid again]

Microupdate Update 5.32
https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update is limited to scenario files and documentation files.

It mainly concerns air groups, classes and ships. There is a single
aircraft designation change: D4Y2-C is now D4Y2-R - for some reason
R was used for Recon on this model. There are a couple of eratta
to location files and others - all are recompiled for safety. [Eratta
are fixed immediately on being reported or detected].

Scenaios 121 and its mirror image, 123 (they differ by a single bit -
Russian Active for 121 and Russian Not Active for 123) had significant
changes to start of game carriers.

Slight improvements to the Ship Bind Link List and to Level II Japanese
Carrier Logic. Both need a lot more work - the bind list is incomplete -
the carrier logic is out of date due to newly available materials.

[el cid again]

RHS Comprehensive Update 5.34

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes revised map art (the panel including Borneo), revised documentation(RHS II Carrier and Capital Ship Logic), and scenario files.Most of the work concerns integrating ship, class and air group files. There is some device and aircraft work (mainly date eratta). The focus was on Japanese aircraft carriers and associated air groups.

All the work was on large CV classes, mainly late war ships. However, documentation added the start of war carriers which used to be omitted from documentation (on the basisthat "everyone knows about them"). Strictly historical scenarios use strictly historical dates (or estimates when these do not exist), in part using new information notpreviously available. JES scenarios were revised significantly to insure their internallogic is consistent: Scenario 125 only has changes possible if ordered after July,1941 (the decision to mobilize), while Scenario 129 has changes that date back to1937 (with respect to carriers). The documentation isn't quite complete, and there will be one more round of this - mainly to add omitted historical carriers and smaller carriers. Two carriers based on Improved Taiho class are omitted because they were not laid down (re historical scenarios) or cannot complete during the game(re JES scenarios). Their air groups were also omitted.

[el cid again]

Microupdate 5.35

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

Except for the Japanese Carrier Logic documentation file, this update is purely
scenario files. Mainly ships, classes and air groups. Also aircraft, devices
and locations.

The abbreviation for barrage balloons was changed in device and location files.
Brg Balloon might be interpreted as barge balloon. So we changed it to Brrg Balloon.

[el cid again]

Comprehensive Update 5.4

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ap7XOIkiBuUwhZAU7bdtWbbscE_oLg

This update includes pwhexe.dat files, documentation files and scenario files.

The focus was on CVEs and AKVs (as alternate configurations of CVEs)on BOTH sides.

Having determined how to model the cargo and troop capacity of a carrier when
she is stripped of aviation support elements and fitted as a transport (a process that
takes ten days and may be done in reverse, back to a carrier), I have reviewed the
AKV versions of these ships. Some Allied CVEs have been modified due to data found:
British CVEs in particular are now less like their American counterparts of the "same"
class. The British versions carry less because they considered US loading irresponsible
and dangerous, both to stability and to combat survivability. For this reason, the
British versions fly fewer sortees (having less aviation fuel - typically 35,000 to
50,000 gallons vs 100,000 in US ships), carry fewer aircraft and carry less cargo in
AKV form (because they have typically 1,000 tons of added ballast).

This update features sorting out of the Argentina Maru, Brazil Maru and their CVE counterparts,
which have been wrong since stock was first issued. In Stock Argentina exists both as a CVE
and as an AP! But although a conversion was planned for her sister ship, this isn't an option
in stock. In RHS, all scenarions have Argentina Maru in conversion when the game begins, and
except in Scenario 129, it appears as Kaiyo on the historical completion date. [In 129 she
completes earlier]. Brazil Maru appears as an AP and may convert to CVE form (without an air group)
except in Scenario 129. In 129 it also starts the game in conversion and appears a month later than
her sister WITH an air group.

[inqistor]

How did you defined ship starting in conversion mode? I couldn't do it in editor, so I just start them really damaged.

[JamesHunt]

I´ve downloaded the RHS files and skimmed the docs folder and the threads here but still have a hard time to figure out what RHS actually intends. I guess it is a realism overhaul of the game mechanics?

For the moment being I am only looking for AI compatible scenarios and mods that focus on realism. I found this information:
"Scenario 102 is AI Oriented (AIO) - and in common with all even numbered scenarios - is Simplified
RHS. This means it lacks features that confuse AI. For example, land locked rivers and lakes
have no naval units or naval bases. No railroad units (restricted to movement on rail lines). Etc.
AIO is the ONLY RHS scenario that works with AI. Period. If AI is dumb, it is still the most common
form for games. Also - it is still needed for testing purposes - AI vs AI is the practical way to do
long term testing. So we have the scenario for players who insist on playing vs computer, and so we
can run tests."

So I understand that scen 102 AIO is AI compatible, a couple of questions:

- how does this compare to the other AI compatible big mods Reluctant Admiral and Babes mods I´ve found? I know this question may have an provocative nature but I am not interested in whats better or worse but in finding out the significant differences. I know that for example the RA mod depicts a different historical base but what about the under the hood mechanics?
- is this mod also suited for less experienced players or absolutely geared towards WITP vets?
- does it involve more workload/micromanagement?
- 102 AIO description mentions that it was built for AI testing. Is it still good enough to present a challeging "into late war" experience for a less-experienced player?