CHS questions, comments & feedback

[Bradley7735]

Oh. I get it. The planes with a production of 1 probably had some higher number in the stock scenario. You guys reduced it to 1 because that is historic. Planes with a production of 0 just stayed at 0.

Makes sense to me.

Originally I thought that you increased it from 0 to 1. So that the player had a bit more freedom to work with those groups that happened to get to zero planes (once at 0, you can't transfer or load the group.)

bc

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

The reasoning behind some aircraft being set to zero is that is how Matrix had it and i did not change it.

Don, if you wish you could make those '1' but they are very non important aircraft.

Mike

Actually, as I seem to recall, additional CW-22 aircraft were on order and not yet delivered when the NEI fell. Perhaps this aircraft should have a replacement rate higher than 1. I'll see if I can find a source.

Don

[Tom Hunter]

Wirraway

Didn't Australia produce something like 750 of these? Why set them to one per month, that would have them producing them from 1939 to 2021 to get the full run. [:D]

[Don Bowen]

OK - it appears that the Dutch ordered at total of 65 CW-22B Falcon. Of these 35 had been delivered prior to the outbreak of the war and 21 more were enroute when the NEI fell (see: http://www.marsethistoria.nl/artikelen/ ... tralia.htm). I've not bothered to try and trace the remaining 9 as I assume they would have been delivered if Java had held out.

Apparently 34 were still in service (see: http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/016 ... rcraft.htm) and 23 were issued to squadrons (see: http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/Dutch_OOB.html)

Therefore, I am considering the following changes:

CW-22 Falcon (Aircraft 135): set pool to 11 (34 minus 23), set replacement rate to 3 (7 would be better - 21 aircraft by end Feb, 42 - but would accumulate too many over time).

VkAfdeling-1 (Airgroup 1676): increase ready aircraft to 12.
VkAfdeling-2 (Airgroup 1677): decrease damaged aircraft to 2 (totaling 11 for the airgroup).

As always, comments appreciated.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Wirraway

Didn't Australia produce something like 750 of these? Why set them to one per month, that would have them producing them from 1939 to 2021 to get the full run. [:D]

A Factory at Melbourne produces 40/month. Which still leaves the question of why replacements should be set to 1.

[Bradley7735]

Does CHS have both a factory producing 40 and off map production of 1? If so, then I'd put the off map to zero.

As always, comments appreciated.

Don, you're doing a fantastic job. Keep it up.

bc

[bstarr]

Just noticed something - shouldn't Akyab be in 30, 28? Certainly looks closer to the atlas I'm looking at, and it won't be so impossible for Japan to take it. There is a town called Maungdaw located in 30, 27 (that's where Akyab is now) but I doubt it should be included in the game.
bs

[Captain Cruft]

Having read the comments above I have now changed my mind about the T-IVa. It should remain as a Torpedo Bomber. This will stop it flying from 0 size airfields but I suppose no-one will miss doing that since it has been impossible up to now ...

I have found a few more issues:

PG Wake @ Shanghai

I have run the first turn three times now but in no case did the Wake ever get a shot off. On two occasions the game said "PG Wake opens fire on Japanese ships" but it did not actually do so. My theory is that because sys damage is at 50 the ship effectively "doesn't work". It might be worth reducing it to 49?

Some Australian and Dutch base forces have objectives in China

Like the Chinese base forces heading for Russia ... All these look like the result of a wholesale shift in Location slot numbers at some point caused by using the Insert button in the "editor".

Strange penetration results

For a laugh I tried an experiment with the British DDs at Hong Kong. On Dec 8th they headed over to Pescadores (6 hexes away) on a Surface Combat mission with Retirement Allowed set. Sure enough, a night surface combat ensued and a convoy containing APDs, PGs et all was encountered.

What was bizarre was that multiple 4.5in shell hits from the DDs bounced off the deck armour of the opposing ships. Specifically, the APDs suffered precisely no penetrations from about 5 hits. I can't remember the range but I think it was about 6,000 - 8,000 yards. Looking in the database within the game it seems the 4.5in gun has a pen value of 35 and the APDs have a deck armour rating of 5. So ???

Land combat and gameplay

In my main test I am now at 22nd Dec 1941. Khota Baru has just fallen, much to my relief. This was solely down to the 18th Div but it seemed much harder work than usual. Maybe this is just because I am playing both sides though. I have for example been using the Allied level bombers in Malaya on ground attack rather than the futile naval attack.

Hong Kong is down to fort level 42. The last combat odds were 7-1. Casualties have been about even. It seems like it's going to be the new year before the base falls but I suppose the defenders might just collapse at some point. Attacking forces are 23rd Army, 38th Div, 19th Eng Regt and 1st Heavy Arty Brigade with no air support. I have not used Shock Attack.

Intrinsic Supply on West Coast

Two weeks into the game and I am convinced this is completely unnecessary. Supply at SF is c.260,000 whilst at LA it is c.110,000. The other bases without intrinsic supply are at between 60,000 - 80,000. United States has plenty too. This is with no ships left in the ports, they are all carrying stuff westward.

Intrinsic Oil in Perth and Adelaide

Just noticed this. Presumably this is to represent shipments from the Cape similar to the intrinsics in Karachi/Bombay. I like it, and the amount is not overwhelming.

Non-Generic Merchant Shipping

Before actually playing the CHS I wasn't really bothered about this one way or the other but having now played with it for a while I can honestly say it's one of the best features. Forming up transport convoys is fun again!

Aircraft bombloads

These seem to have been reduced across the board (not just for the Allies). I am all for this, it makes flattening bases much more difficult, as it should be.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

(snipped)

PG Wake @ Shanghai

I have run the first turn three times now but in no case did the Wake ever get a shot off. On two occasions the game said "PG Wake opens fire on Japanese ships" but it did not actually do so. My theory is that because sys damage is at 50 the ship effectively "doesn't work". It might be worth reducing it to 49?

Sound's good - we'll give it a try (not that it matters, poor Wake!)

Some Australian and Dutch base forces have objectives in China

Like the Chinese base forces heading for Russia ... All these look like the result of a wholesale shift in Location slot numbers at some point caused by using the Insert button in the "editor".

Thanks. Someone already told us about the Chinese. Now I did a full database search and found a bunch. Compared them to Scenario 15 (many are genuine) and ended up with the following list - which will be corrected:

No. 102 RAAF Base Force (Location 3345): Clear planning data.
No. 103 RAAF Base Force (Location 3346): Clear planning data.
7th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3414): Clear planning data.
8th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3415): Clear planning data.
9th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3416): Clear planning data.
10th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3417): Clear planning data.
11th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3418): Clear planning data.
12th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3419): Clear planning data.
13th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3420): Clear planning data.
14th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3421): Clear planning data.
15th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3422): Clear planning data.
16th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3423): Clear planning data.
17th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3424): Clear planning data.
18th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3425): Clear planning data.
19th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3426): Clear planning data.
20th NEIAF Base Force (Location 3427): Clear planning data.
21st NEIAF Base Force (Location 3428): Clear planning data.
22nd NEIAF Base Force (Location 3429): Clear planning data.
1st Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3430): Clear Planning data.
2nd Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3431): Clear Planning data.
3rd Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3432): Clear Planning data.
4th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3433): Clear Planning data.
7th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3436): Clear Planning data.
8th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3437): Clear Planning data.
9th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3438): Clear Planning data.
10th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3439): Clear Planning data.
11th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3440): Clear Planning data.
12th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3441): Clear Planning data.
13th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3442): Clear Planning data.
14th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3443): Clear Planning data.
15th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3444): Clear Planning data.
16th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3445): Clear Planning data.
17th Chinese Air Base Force (Location 3446): Clear Planning data.
1st Soviet Naval Base Force (Location 3447): Clear planning data.
2nd Soviet Naval Base Force (Location 3448): Clear planning data.
3rd Soviet Naval Base Force (Location 3449): Clear planning data.
4th Soviet Naval Base Force (Location 3450): Clear planning data.

Strange penetration results

For a laugh I tried an experiment with the British DDs at Hong Kong. On Dec 8th they headed over to Pescadores (6 hexes away) on a Surface Combat mission with Retirement Allowed set. Sure enough, a night surface combat ensued and a convoy containing APDs, PGs et all was encountered.

What was bizarre was that multiple 4.5in shell hits from the DDs bounced off the deck armour of the opposing ships. Specifically, the APDs suffered precisely no penetrations from about 5 hits. I can't remember the range but I think it was about 6,000 - 8,000 yards. Looking in the database within the game it seems the 4.5in gun has a pen value of 35 and the APDs have a deck armour rating of 5. So ???

Land combat and gameplay

In my main test I am now at 22nd Dec 1941. Khota Baru has just fallen, much to my relief. This was solely down to the 18th Div but it seemed much harder work than usual. Maybe this is just because I am playing both sides though. I have for example been using the Allied level bombers in Malaya on ground attack rather than the futile naval attack.

Hong Kong is down to fort level 42. The last combat odds were 7-1. Casualties have been about even. It seems like it's going to be the new year before the base falls but I suppose the defenders might just collapse at some point. Attacking forces are 23rd Army, 38th Div, 19th Eng Regt and 1st Heavy Arty Brigade with no air support. I have not used Shock Attack.

Intrinsic Supply on West Coast

Two weeks into the game and I am convinced this is completely unnecessary. Supply at SF is c.260,000 whilst at LA it is c.110,000. The other bases without intrinsic supply are at between 60,000 - 80,000. United States has plenty too. This is with no ships left in the ports, they are all carrying stuff westward.

Intrinsic Oil in Perth and Adelaide

Just noticed this. Presumably this is to represent shipments from the Cape similar to the intrinsics in Karachi/Bombay. I like it, and the amount is not overwhelming.

Non-Generic Merchant Shipping

Before actually playing the CHS I wasn't really bothered about this one way or the other but having now played with it for a while I can honestly say it's one of the best features. Forming up transport convoys is fun again!

Aircraft bombloads

These seem to have been reduced across the board (not just for the Allies). I am all for this, it makes flattening bases much more difficult, as it should be.

I'll leave most of this for other CHS guys. I do think the Hong Kong fort may need to come down. I too have noticed that the AI does better against Hong Kong in Human Allied/Japanese AI games. I bet it cheats.

Thanks for the input.

Don

[Hortlund]

I might aswell ask in here rather than open up a new thread on it.
I was planning to dl the alpha tonight and have a look at this one. Do I need to create a separate install if I want to be able to play "vanilla" witp aswell?

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

I might aswell ask in here rather than open up a new thread on it.
I was planning to dl the alpha tonight and have a look at this one. Do I need to create a separate install if I want to be able to play "vanilla" witp aswell?

Strictly speaking no but practically yes. That's what I have done anyway.

What would be useful is per-scenario map and art definitions but hey ho ...

[michaelm75au]

The AI does not cheat.

It just has a better understanding of its own logic.[:D][:D]

Michael

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The AI does not cheat.

It just has a better understanding of its own logic.[:D][:D]

Michael

Cheating may be the wrong word. I have noticed that the AI consistently does better against a human opponent than in AI-AI or Human-Human. I suspect some advantage is given the AI when playing people, perhaps in "dice roll" odds, as the game designers assumed the AI was dumber than most people.

Either that or I am not one of the "most".

[Bradley7735]

There are lots of things I see that the AI can do that I can't.

It's LCU's travel at rail speeds in any hex with a road or trail. They are always faster than mine. Even when mine have low fatigue and full supply. And I'm air bombing them.

Also, if I sink an AI transport full of troops (noted when there are troops casualties on the AAR report and when you see the message "TF 23 rescuing troops from XXXX LCU", "AP Holed Maru sinks", I won't score LCU points for killing the troops. I've never seen my score go up from sinking AP's full of troops. Whenever one of my troopships sinks, the AI gets about 40 LCU points.

I'm sure there are other things, but I can't think of them right now.

FYI, try shock attack at Hong Kong. Deliberate attacks only reduce forts by maximum of 1 level. Shock attacks reduce forts by how much your odds are.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

OK - it appears that the Dutch ordered at total of 65 CW-22B Falcon. Of these 35 had been delivered prior to the outbreak of the war and 21 more were enroute when the NEI fell (see: http://www.marsethistoria.nl/artikelen/ ... tralia.htm). I've not bothered to try and trace the remaining 9 as I assume they would have been delivered if Java had held out.

Apparently 34 were still in service (see: http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/016 ... rcraft.htm) and 23 were issued to squadrons (see: http://www.geocities.com/dutcheastindies/Dutch_OOB.html)

Therefore, I am considering the following changes:

CW-22 Falcon (Aircraft 135): set pool to 11 (34 minus 23), set replacement rate to 3 (7 would be better - 21 aircraft by end Feb, 42 - but would accumulate too many over time).

As always, comments appreciated.

Why not create a factory in US. It will convert to F-5A in 6/42. Set at 6 would give you 42 extra and 18 by 2/42.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Why not create a factory in US. It will convert to F-5A in 6/42. Set at 6 would give you 42 extra and 18 by 2/42.

I think we may have blown this idea by adding the F-4 Lightning with a 12/41 availability. Any Factory would convert to this version and sooner I think??

Another alternative would be to just add the extra aircraft to the pool.

Don

[Captain Cruft]

A minor point:

If you remove the intrinsic fuel from Cristobal then you need to add some at Panama City. Otherwise it will need shipping from the West Coast.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

A minor point:

If you remove the intrinsic fuel from Cristobal then you need to add some at Panama City. Otherwise it will need shipping from the West Coast.

True.

The fuel not moving from onland bases thing is intereseting (I haven't tested it). The official scenarios have daily fuel at the United States base, for example.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Just noticed something - shouldn't Akyab be in 30, 28? Certainly looks closer to the atlas I'm looking at, and it won't be so impossible for Japan to take it. There is a town called Maungdaw located in 30, 27 (that's where Akyab is now) but I doubt it should be included in the game.
bs

I have had a quick look and you may be right bstarr. It does look like Akyab should really be in hex 30,28 instead of 30,27. I'll have a better look soon and try to confirm it. if Akyab does get moved, then this opens up a possibility that I have rejected before - adding a base at Cox's Bazaar (hex 31,26) which was a major Allied base.

Regarding bases, here is a little list of some possible base changes. Some of these have already been fixed by Don, I think:

Code: Select all

 Base             OLD           NEW
 Name          Port   Air    Port  Air   Other
 ---------------------------------------------
 Hue             -    1(5)   0(1)  1(5)  Airfield -> Base
 Kyoto           -    1(4)   2(2)  1(4)  Airfield -> Base
 Taiden          -    1(4)   1(2)  1(4)  Airfield -> Base
 Anshan          -    1(4)   1(2)  1(4)  Airfield -> Base
 Soochow        5(6)  1(6)    -    1(6)  Remove port values 
 Noumea         6(6)  3(2)   3(3)  3(2)
 Brisbane       6(9)  8(9)   5(5)  6(9)
 Townsville     5(5)  3(5)   4(5)  3(5)
 Cairns         5(5)  3(5)   3(4)  3(5)
 Darwin         2(3)  3(5)   3(3)  3(5)  Add 5 resources
 Daly Waters                             Add 5 resources
 Bora Bora      0(3)  0(3)   1(3)  0(3)
 Wellington     6(6)  6(6)   4(5)  4(4)
 Christchurch   6(6)  4(6)   4(5)  4(6)
 Hamilton        -    1(5)    -    1(6)
 Seattle       10(9) 10(9)   6(8)  7(9)
 San Diego     10(9) 10(9)   6(8)  7(9) 
 Middle East    9(9)  3(4)   9(9)  3(6)  Add 300 Daily Oil
 
 Cristobal                               Remove 1000 daily fuel
 Panama City                             Add 1000 daily fuel (or less??)
 
 Move Akyab from (30,27) to (30,28) - Possibly
 
 

Some notes:

• Reducing the size of the port at Noumea has been discussed already, but I also think that some of the Australian and NZ ports should be reduced further as well.
• I have added a couple of tentative reduced starting port values for US West coast bases as well (this was suggested by eMonticello).
• I think that a few resources should be added back to Darwin (actually split Darwin/Daly Waters).
• I have not addressed the huge fuel/supply generation in the USA, or the moving of daily fuel to coastal bases. Some people think the amount of supply generation in the USA should be reduced further, but I think we need to be cautious. How much supply does the US war machine need in late '44, for example?
• Oil should definitely be generated in the Middle East base, for shipment to India. This should be daily oil and not an oil resource, as this base is NOT meant to be invaded by the Japanese, and the presence of an oil resource centre would only entice some players more.
• As the Middle East base is a representative base, I think the potential size of its airfield should be increased.
• Pry told me that Bora Bora did have some basic port facilities at the start of the war.

This list is most likely incomplete.

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

I currently have about half these changes. Attached is the current change list. None of these changes are actually made yet - they will go in after a review of V1.5 - so changes can be easily made at this point.