CHS mod w/special map v.3b: Tristanjohn (Japan) vs. Ron Saueracker (Allies)

Post descriptions of your brilliant successes and unfortunate demises.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: Gremlins?

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: TheElf
Only problem was the Tojo file did not replace the old one...still have the white blob fighter

Hmmm,
I KNOW I gave you guys the right file. Did you replace the old file? Dumb question, I know but check your ART folder for two copies of the Jtop and Jtop_alpha. If you have two the game will reference whichever was there first. I just checked the zip file and the red Tojo is in there.

TJ, let me know if you have the same problem, it could just be operator error on Ron-Fighter's part.

The Tojo looks like good tight art on my screen since you sent me the new palletes, Ian. I checked and I don't have a screen shot from this last turn, or I'd post it.

Good work!

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE:Sides

Post by Ron Saueracker »

OK...so we are agreed to keep going since this is a test. Great.

Seeing as Japan is being run by Tris and Steve, I've recruited Justin (TankerAce) to run half the Allied. I'd like to get Don Bowen involved as a third ally but I'm not holding my breath as he is an AI only player.

Have you guys divided the forces along IJA and IJN?
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Gremlins?

Post by TheElf »

TJ, let me know if you have the same problem...
The Tojo looks like good tight art on my screen since you sent me the new palletes, Ian. I checked and I don't have a screen shot from this last turn, or I'd post it.

Good work!
...it could just be operator error on Ron-Fighter's part.

[8|].........[:D]
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: RE:Sides

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

OK...so we are agreed to keep going since this is a test. Great.

Seeing as Japan is being run by Tris and Steve, I've recruited Justin (TankerAce) to run half the Allied. I'd like to get Don Bowen involved as a third ally but I'm not holding my breath as he is an AI only player.

Have you guys divided the forces along IJA and IJN?

If you must know, it was more along the lines of . . . Steve will conquer everything west of the home islands and I will conquer everything east of the home islands. A division more complicated than that was just too taxing for us. [:D]
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Tristanjohn »

Would someone explain to me why the Kate's range now reads 4/3 instead of 5/4?

Bettys/Nells have had their operational radii increased by one hex. I'm curious as to the rationale for that change, too.

Leaving aside the Betty/Nell issue for now, I have an immediate problem with the Kate. If we want to change the range of the Kate, then for reasons of historical comparative ability of this bomber vis-a-vis American carrier assets to "reach out" with its ordnance one must logically suppose we'd be perforce obliged to similarly downgrade the SBD's range to 3/2, same as the poor Devastators. Isn't that so? Because if we portray the Kate as now having no greater range than an SBD we strip the Japanese of a crucial tactical advantage they enjoyed in CV-CV encounters with their American counterparts.

Thoughts?
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Lemurs! »

Tris,

If you look closer you will find that there is a Martlet II and a Wildcat V/VI in the database for the British.

Martlet II was the most commonly used version on British carriers in WW2.

The Wildcat is representing late war versions for escort carriers.

The Martlet I is NOT represented because it was not carrier optomized and was used by the RN only from land stations.

Mike
Image
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Lemurs! »

That is accurate for the B5N2. Actually the Kate is a little overranged.

The Dauntless will have its endurance lowered to 210 minutes or so which will lower its range to 3/2. The Devestator will stay 2/2. This will be in the next bug fix.

I realize this is not perfect but i am working within the hex size limits. I realize this could never happen but boy do i wish this map was 30 miles a hex.
Or even 40 or 45. ahh... dream.
60 miles a hex limits fighters and single engine bombers.

The Dauntless having too much range is a Matrix problem that i had not caught yet. They gave the stats for the B5N1 which was out of service by '41 and the SBD-6 which was produced in limited numbers in late '44.
Hmmm... and some people say that Matrix were Japan fan boys. Not!

Mike
Image
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Tris,

If you look closer you will find that there is a Martlet II and a Wildcat V/VI in the database for the British.

Martlet II was the most commonly used version on British carriers in WW2.

The Wildcat is representing late war versions for escort carriers.

The Martlet I is NOT represented because it was not carrier optomized and was used by the RN only from land stations.

Mike

Mike, what I find in your CHS database is this. I find a listing for a "Martlet," not a Martlet II as you state. The implication of what you write above is that the "Martlet" you actually included was modeled by you to be a Martlet II even though it reads in the database as a "Martlet." Is that correct?

Then I also find in the CHS database a "Wildcat VI," not a "Wildcat V/VI." Do you also mean to say that your "Wildcat V/VI" was in actuality modeled to be a Wildcat VI or a Wildcat V or a kind of cooperative . . . both? If the latter, why don't we just take the "Zeros" and lump them together as well? That'd go over like a lead balloon. [8D]

And what do you mean to say by "late war"? What's "late" about 1942? That's when the F4F-4-inspired variants Martlet IV (Wright Cyclone engine) and Martlet V (Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp engine) were introduced. And the Martlet VI was the GM FM-2, again, a distinctly different airplane: it was a superior climber, had a higher ceiling (single-stage supercharger degraded performance way up there, though), was a bit more agile and had longer range than the FM-1. Also, the last 1400 were fitted for HVARs.

The point I'm trying to make is that a one-size-fits-all approach to the much-varied "Wildcat" series fails.

Re which mark Martlets were used for naval aviation: first of all, the fixed-wing F4F-3 (G36)/Martlet Mark I and Mark III was "carrier optimized" as far as the state of the art then could optimize it. It was specifically designed for carrier operations. As far as I know the 802 Squadron FAA on CVE HMS Audacity operated Martlet Is from her deck in December of 1941 when she escorted convoy HG 76 from Gibraltar to Liverpool. That's from three different sources, including this site: Fleet Air Arm Archive -- 802 Squadron. I also found a further source which listed her six-plane complement as being "Martlets," so I disregarded that one altogether as they obviously don't know what they're talking about, and one source (which I can't find anymore for some reason) as listing those planes to be Martlet IIs. It would seem to make sense that the Mark II would be used in preference to the Mark I due to the former model's folding wings, but the FAA Archive site clearly lists the 802 Squadron's Martlets both as Mark I's and Mark IIIs (remember, the fixed-wing version eventually was called the Mark III after the folding-wing F4F-3s (G-36Bs) were delivered, hence the Mark I became belatedly the Mark III).

That seems like conclusive proof to me. Not that it impacts the CHS project, because it does not, but just for whatever it's worth.

Look. I appreciate all of your work. It's great. You've gone to a lot of trouble. But as long as I'm now involved with the CHS project, to whatever minor degree, I intend to put in my two cents, and my suggestion at this juncture is that you and Don put your heads together some more and rethink this "Martlet" business.
.
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Lemurs! »

Tris,

You seem not to understand the concept of 'carrier capable slots'.
Every Allied (and Japanese) carrier capable aircraft slot in the DB is full. I can add no more.
So, the Martlet is representing the Mk2 while the later Wildcat is a mix of Fm-1 & Fm-2.
I am sorry if that is not how you would have done it but i made the mod. I did the best i could with two slots.
My sources state that the Mk1 did not have folding wings and only served from shore bases.
Maybe at some point some were carried by a CV but they were not operated from a CV.

To justify myself, I felt we needed a Martlet to represent the '42 fighter sqds and then a Wildcat V or VI to represent what was carried on the escort carriers in '44-'45.

Mike
Image
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Tris,

You seem not to understand the concept of 'carrier capable slots'.
Every Allied (and Japanese) carrier capable aircraft slot in the DB is full. I can add no more.
So, the Martlet is representing the Mk2 while the later Wildcat is a mix of Fm-1 & Fm-2.
I am sorry if that is not how you would have done it but i made the mod. I did the best i could with two slots.
My sources state that the Mk1 did not have folding wings and only served from shore bases.
Maybe at some point some were carried by a CV but they were not operated from a CV.

To justify myself, I felt we needed a Martlet to represent the '42 fighter sqds and then a Wildcat V or VI to represent what was carried on the escort carriers in '44-'45.

Mike

The "Martlet" question re carrier use is not the problem. I only mention the early mark Martlets to be complete and to illustrate the real differences between the various models of "Wildcat" that were out there.

The "Wildcat" is without question the most important fighter the Allies have, and a good case could be made that it was the most influential airplane of the war in the Pacfic theater, bar none. That being the case, a way should be found if possible to model its distinct forms as accurately as we can. That was my only point. Should no slots are available, so be it. That's dumb design. Plenty of slots ought to be available to accomodate everything. [8D]

Re research in general, this is the drill. It is impossible to do too much research. And when someone comes to you with a sound argument backed up with good data to suggest your research to date has not been complete, then forget about taking offense, forget about digging a trench in which to hole up with your former notions, but rather take this new idea with its supporting research and, either accept it at face value (bad idea in principle) or go to the pains to follow in the steps of this other fellow's research in order to see for yourself whether or not it leads to something useful or false. To stand there with an indignant look and cry "It don't believe that, I believe something else!" gets you nowhere fast.

I offered you counter-opinion based on what I consider to be thorough research, plus I also gave you a site to go to which would serve you as an excellent starting point for your new further research effort should you have the interest to so improve your knowledge on the subject. If I happen to be mistaken, so be it, and I'll admit my error freely, but to merely cry back at me "I don't believe that, I believe something else!" doesn't carry any weight.

And now I've come full circle.

Someone told me recently that I often come across as teacher scolding his pupil. Well, maybe so, but then again, at times it's necessary to be somewhat direct in order to get good things done properly. For example, take this issue with the Kates. You wanted to downgrade their performance. Okay so far. But you did this without first checking how that would impact the game vis-a-vis the capabilities of Allied carrier assets. That only demonstrates a careless approach. It's bad method at work. I respect the time and energy you have poured into this project, and I appreciate that you are in earnest; however, I will repeat myself again and say it is impossible to do too much research. So please, Mike, do some more. If you can prove me wrong on a point I'll be the happiest guy around, because then I'll have learned something new and shall be better off for it.

See how it works?
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by mogami »

Hi, Go in and change the "Text" from "Surprised" to "Screwed up" because it confuses Ron. Now it should read "Allied TF screwed up"
Ron takes every animation as a direct play by play reinactment of what ever action and every text phrase as gospel.
Maybe having text changed to FUBAR would help. "Allied TF FUBAR"
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Go in and change the "Text" from "Surprised" to "Screwed up" because it confuses Ron. Now it should read "Allied TF screwed up"
Ron takes every animation as a direct play by play reinactment of what ever action and every text phrase as gospel.
Maybe having text changed to FUBAR would help. "Allied TF FUBAR"

Not true. I just don't buy the bullshit naval combat model which has ships in the same TF "off doing something else" and missing the engagement they are 3 fingers, knuckles deep in yet seperate TFs in the same hex always intercept each other.

So, friendly ships 500 yards from each other have this penalty but opposing TFs up to 60 miles from each other don't.

Pure "Bullshido".
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by Tristanjohn »

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Go in and change the "Text" from "Surprised" to "Screwed up" because it confuses Ron. Now it should read "Allied TF screwed up"
Ron takes every animation as a direct play by play reinactment of what ever action and every text phrase as gospel.
Maybe having text changed to FUBAR would help. "Allied TF FUBAR"

Ron may or may not be "confused" as you suggest, Mogami, I don't know. But he's spot on about the "Bullshido." [8D]

Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
mogami
Posts: 11053
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: You can't get here from there

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by mogami »

Hi, Where do you get the figure 500 yards from? How do you know where ships in a TF actually are during a battle. There is nothing that indicates they are 500 yards apart.
I would guess better TF leaders keep tighter formations but there is nothing to tell me what kind of formation.
All I get is the result of having a TF in a hex. There is nothing that provides me with the level of detail you seem to get from the game.

The rules of engagement are simple. As long as 1 TF is on a combat mission there will be a battle if opposing TF are in same hex. A surface TF will engage more often then a bombardment TF. Transport TF will never start a battle so it is possible to have 2 opposing transport TF's unloading in a hex with no battle. The only important details produced by battles are damage. All the replays and text messages mean nothing precise they just add a little flavor. Results matter. Only results. Don't think
"My TF had 3 ships that did not fight" because you don't know they did not fight. They produced no noticeable results. From your high Operational Chair you then change the leader of the TF or the compostion of the TF so that next time you attain a more favorable result. Don't let yourself become mired in petty text messages or animations. Concentrate on results. And by results I mean mission results.

The game is Bullshido if your watching animations and thinking you are watching battles. It is more like "You saw it on the radio" The animation is a fast way of showing results but it is not an exact way of showing battles.
Image




I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

Tojo screen save

Post by Tristanjohn »

This looks pretty good to me, Ian.



Image
Attachments
Tojoincombat.jpg
Tojoincombat.jpg (154.26 KiB) Viewed 175 times
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: Tojo screen save

Post by TheElf »

Sweet! Thanks TJ.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
Tristanjohn
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 4:50 am
Location: Daly City CA USA
Contact:

Hong Kong fort level at 49?

Post by Tristanjohn »

Is this a game problem or CHS-game issue, or is it intended? Is it possible to pump forts up to any level one wishes? If so, why so high at Hong Kong?





Image
Attachments
HonkKong..9RESULT.jpg
HonkKong..9RESULT.jpg (79.79 KiB) Viewed 175 times
Regarding Frank Jack Fletcher: They should have named an oiler after him instead. -- Irrelevant
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: Hong Kong fort level at 49?

Post by ChezDaJez »

Well, given the 3:1 odds that I got with those forces, I would have to say that 49 forts is a type, either that or the Brits forgot to man them![:D]

CHez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4083
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: Hong Kong fort level at 49?

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

Is this a game problem or CHS-game issue, or is it intended? Is it possible to pump forts up to any level one wishes? If so, why so high at Hong Kong?





Image

It is intended. The huge fort level was given to Hong Kong to see whether it would result in Hong Kong falling later than it otherwise does.
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
ChezDaJez
Posts: 3293
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:08 am
Location: Chehalis, WA

RE: More thoughts on the CHS design

Post by ChezDaJez »

According to my sources, the range for the B5N1 was 683nm and 609nm for the B5N2 with an 18" torpedo loaded. Search range with 2 60kg bombs was 921 nm.

Range for the Dauntless SDB was 456nm with a 500lb bomb and search range (empty) was 773nm.

So for the sake of argument, subtracting 60 miles to allow for manuevering gives the following range in game hexes:

B5N1 (loaded): 5 hexes (5.19)
B5N2 (loaded): 5 hexes (4.57)
B5N1 (Search): 7 hexes (7.17)

SDB (loaded): 3 hexes (3.3)
SDB (Search): 6 hexes (5.94)

I can understand having to work within the hex limitations but I think you have taken it to far and cancelled out one of the historical advantages the Japanese had with their carrier forces. They could detect and launch outside of US CV attack range.

In addition, knocking the SDB down to 3/2 hexes puts US CVs in range of just about every land-based Army divebomber (Sonias, etc...) should the US CVs try to launch an attack against an airfield, something that should not be able to happen.

Just my .02 cents but I think these changes will change the entire tactical and strategic outlook for the game. Players will be able to put Sonias at every central and SE Pacific field they can because it is easier to replace army pilots than navy pilots and it will save a lot of carrier capable aircraft for later use.

Please reconsider, Mike.

Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”