CHS Pending Change List

[Halsey]

I think your map is pretty accurate.
Don't change anything, unless you want eye candy.[;)]

I'm saying this because scenario finalization has to start somewhere.
If tiny fixes are continued, the patching required for scenarios based on your map will become a chore. Instead of an enjoyment.

Nice work Andrew![8D]

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Bangalore: 1 Battalion (9/9th Jat Rgt)

There's no base force or garrison in Bangalore. Will probably ignore this. Other option is to add a Base Force here - ideas??

Bangalore is a major city, not that that's relevant. How about a standard 2064 base force but with all av support etc. disabled and/or missing?

[Captain Cruft]

IJN Pilot Pool/Replacements

I have played a lot as the Japanese. IMHO what is needed here is to keep the replacement rate low but either a) increase the starting pool or b) reduce the plane numbers in certain IJN air groups. What drains the pool at the start is damaged or superfluous extra planes which get repaired or put into service as a result of losses. The worst offenders are the Nell and Betty groups which all have 3-6 extra planes at the start.

I come at this purely from a "comfort factor whilst playing" viewpoint. What annoys me is not the low number of pilots available but having no control hoice as to which air groups they get sucked in to.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

IJN Pilot Pool/Replacements

I have played a lot as the Japanese. IMHO what is needed here is to keep the replacement rate low but either a) increase the starting pool or b) reduce the plane numbers in certain IJN air groups. What drains the pool at the start is damaged or superfluous extra planes which get repaired or put into service as a result of losses. The worst offenders are the Nell and Betty groups which all have 3-6 extra planes at the start.

I come at this purely from a "comfort factor whilst playing" viewpoint. What annoys me is not the low number of pilots available but having no control hoice as to which air groups they get sucked in to.

I'd been led to believe that control of the pilot-replacement issue had been addressed for v1.5. Has this turned out not to be true? Is it not possible to simply turn this off completely now?

I wouldn't disagree that the starting supply of "trained" pilots should be bucked up some for the Japanese, but by how much? Not much I'd say. The pool idea itself ought to be scrapped. It's only in there for the AI begin with. It has no bearing at all on what actually happened, only leads to faster play and less historical play. Increasing these pools amounts to madness of the first order.

[michaelm75au]

Turning off replacements stops a group from getting both planes & pilots.

Thats where the "Get pilot" button can be used to pull pilots into a group, even if it is not getting replacement planes/pilots.

[Captain Cruft]

No it all works in the same way except that now you have the "Get Pilot Now" option, which just allows you to jump the queue a bit for specific airgroups.

The pool would be unnecessary if you could define the number of pilots for an air group in the scenario editor. Since you can't there is a need for a pool. Or for a reduction in the number of planes, as I said above.

Overall I wouldn't sweat this issue, it's not that big a deal. You get far more trained pilots come through attached to reinforcements. Also, having played through the start of the game as Japan many times, it doesn't affect how fast you can go. That is all down to supplies and troop transportation and, frankly, how bothered you can be to optimise things.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Bangalore: 1 Battalion (9/9th Jat Rgt)

There's no base force or garrison in Bangalore. Will probably ignore this. Other option is to add a Base Force here - ideas??

Bangalore is a major city, not that that's relevant. How about a standard 2064 base force but with all av support etc. disabled and/or missing?

Beats me! There were no forces in Bangalore in Scenario 15 and I have no specific reason to add one. Does anyone know about the Bangalore garrison??

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

And I have to disagree back - everything does not speak for them to be included for example the source MARC posted in the K&O threads a couple of weeks ago - which I reposted above - and now repost again ... this indicates first IJN shipborne radar installed on ISE in 1942 ...

Further have you actually seen these radar's do anything ? I ran 10 tests on CAP over KB with K&O in the TF ... and 10 more without K&O in the TF .. and actually the CAP was a little bit thicker w/o K&O in the TF though the difference was within the margin of error ( this was under stock 1.4 ).

And it probably isn't even worth our discussion because there are many more important fish to fry !

Sure, disagreement is the mother of all discussion [:)]

Well, if I read your source right, it speaks of the "Type 2 shipborne radar model 1" and when the first prototype of that model was put on the Ise. If we read the other sources, they speak of how Oi and Kitikami had prototypes for the Type 13
radar. It would seem we are talking about two different types of radar. And if that is correct, then your source does not seem to contradict the previous sources.

The issue here is not "what is the in-game effect of these radars", although the tests you report seem somewhat disheartening, but well in line with what one has come to expect of this game. The issue here is "should they be included". And the answer to that question points firmly to "yes".

For the sake of brevity - I did not repost all of the pages of MARC's previous post - this was because the one page seemed to address the question as it says "In January 1942 the Navy started developing an aircraft search ... device ... it was adopted in April for shipboard use ... " thus indicating that this was first use of shipboard airsearch radar in Japanese Navy thus indicating a contradiction to prior use of airsearch radar aboard IJN ships !

Here is link to previous MARC post with all pages of his source included.

Also I think though it is a different issue ( one issue is were T13 or equivalent radars on K&O in Dec 41 - do they do anything in the game ) they are related because we have more issues to solve with the game than can be soloved in finite time - hence we must prioritize ... I suppose I should prove it by not posting any more on the subject - so hopefully this will be the last !!!


MARCs_Thread

[Lemurs!]

Okay, this is getting stupid.

Tristan, I did not feel i 'blew you off' about Wildcats. In fact i feel we discussed things and Don and I fixed a problem that I had let slip in.
The only very slight problem i might have had was your insistance on more models of Wildcats when i have more models of Wildcats than any other aircraft in the game already.
I have no more slots. CHS can do nothing about that.

If this is something you are unhappy about write a letter to Gary.

Now, my problem with your post on this thread which started all of this mess is that you attacked, yes attacked, Don for no reason. There has been a good deal of discussion about pilots pools in private between the members of this mod.

This mod is not an official product of Matrix.

We are not required to listen to anyone who is not a member of the mod team.
In many ways i enjoy your posts because you look at many problems differently than many people on this board.
But, when time came to start this mod you did not join us and frankly, i would not have wanted you to as you can not put problems that we can not change out of your head.
We can only work with the editor, and now the map. Nothing else.
Nothing. Cannot change the database. Cannot change the AtA combat model.

My feeling is that anyone who is not a member of our mod team can post their ideas and corrections but other than that they have no say into what goes into this.
If all you can do is attack people because you did not have 'your say' than you are just wasting our time.

You did not join the team because it seems you like to sit outside and complain about the people who are doing something.

Numbers.
Okay, with the way the pilot system is set up nothing, i repeat nothing, will be accurate as this system is artificial.

If i had a wish it would be for the pilot system to be just a pool that you draw out of, but the longer you leave pilots there the better they get, within reason.

But if wishs were fishs we would all be casting nets.

Many people list a very small number for Japanese navy pilots graduated per year. Unfortunately, that number is usually wrong.
Japan doubled navy training in 1940 and added half again in '41.
Half again in 42 and tripled in 43.
I cannot represent this in game.

I believe we all carry fallacies about many things in our life. One is Japanese pilot quality and numbers.
In 1943 US navy pilots and Japanese navy pilots received exactly the same (435 hours) training. Not what you would expect is it?
The problem is, if you read the manual, is that Japanese pilot training numbers falls to quickly in this game. In 43 Japanese is well below US numbers.

All i can do in an artificial system is guess to the best of my abilities. I feel the Allies should get a 5 point training bonus to their pilots for sending back many experienced instructors. Not that Japan did not do this, because they DID, but because the allies did this more.
I feel a 5 point penalty to Japanese training pilots due to individualism, lack of team spirit.

In this game however, Japanese navy pilots in '43 get a 60 rating while US Navy pilots get a 75. I believe through my study that this rating should be closer to 75-65. Not much, but there.

Again, my feeling is that when there are no pilots in the pool the first 'free' pilot drawn should be 5 points or so below the trained rate.
Then, every additional pilot should be a bit lower.
As it stands there are two groups; the fully trained and the half trained. Nothing in between.

I counted how many free pilots Japan gains AFTER the first turn from the pilot list and fully trained pilots per year and the number is low to what actually fully graduated. My feeling is that 15 is closer to the late 42 early 43 number.

The army numbers, Pry might be 'more correct' on; they graduated more than twice as many pilots as the navy did thus 35 might be closer then 30.

Hope this helps people create helpfull commentary.

Mike

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

No it all works in the same way except that now you have the "Get Pilot Now" option, which just allows you to jump the queue a bit for specific airgroups.

The pool would be unnecessary if you could define the number of pilots for an air group in the scenario editor. Since you can't there is a need for a pool. Or for a reduction in the number of planes, as I said above.

Overall I wouldn't sweat this issue, it's not that big a deal. You get far more trained pilots come through attached to reinforcements. Also, having played through the start of the game as Japan many times, it doesn't affect how fast you can go. That is all down to supplies and troop transportation and, frankly, how bothered you can be to optimise things.

Well, it does affect things, and if it's "not a big deal" then why would anyone argue for its inclusion in the first place, and why would CHS be interested to make the change?

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Pry, others,

On the radar the sets on Kitikami & Oi was NOT type 13; it was the prototype for a type 13. The prototype for many things exists two years before full production but in a rapidly changing industry that prototype is not as good as the production model two years later.

That is why i feel we should leave it out. Sorry PanzerJaeger.

Well, I have to disagree. It would seem a consensus is forming that the radar sets were there on Oi and Kitikami. They were prototypes, yes. And maybe they were not as good as the type 13 that went into mass production. We dont know whether the prototypes were better or worse than the mass produced type 13 however.

I guess my point is, they were there, we dont know if they were better or worse than the mass produced type 13's, but they were there. And the japs need every break they can get. It is not the end of the world for the allies to have two japanese ships with radar in 1941. And they can be worth their weight in gold for the japanese.

So I think everything speaks for them to be included.

I doubt the prototypical units would be better than the production runs. That makes no sense to me. The purpose of installing prototypes is to find flaws and come up with improvements, not the other way around.

The only good reason to include such radar would be if someone could demonstrate that these radar sets were used in 1941 by the Japanese in any meaningful operational sense. Otherwise they're eye candy. As Dirk points out, and I've alluded to, as the game engine treats all radar the same (as far as I know), then to assume these experimental sets (which isn't even known by us for sure were actually installed in 1941) were as useful as Allied operational radar of the same period is somewhat of a stretch.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean to say by ". . . the japs need every break they can get." What does that mean? Are we trying to give the Japanese "breaks" or is our purpose to come up with a more accurate simulation?

Gary already has this game confused with all sorts of Japanese "breaks." That's his specialty. Leave it him.

If you are going to take prototypes out of the game then dont stop there. There are many more...

Try the Tojo group at Canton in 41.

Or the Judy's that Lemurs put into his scenario in 41...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Pry, others,

On the radar the sets on Kitikami & Oi was NOT type 13; it was the prototype for a type 13. The prototype for many things exists two years before full production but in a rapidly changing industry that prototype is not as good as the production model two years later.

That is why i feel we should leave it out. Sorry PanzerJaeger.

Well, I have to disagree. It would seem a consensus is forming that the radar sets were there on Oi and Kitikami. They were prototypes, yes. And maybe they were not as good as the type 13 that went into mass production. We dont know whether the prototypes were better or worse than the mass produced type 13 however.

I guess my point is, they were there, we dont know if they were better or worse than the mass produced type 13's, but they were there. And the japs need every break they can get. It is not the end of the world for the allies to have two japanese ships with radar in 1941. And they can be worth their weight in gold for the japanese.

So I think everything speaks for them to be included.

And I have to disagree back - everything does not speak for them to be included for example the source MARC posted in the K&O threads a couple of weeks ago - which I reposted above - and now repost again ... this indicates first IJN shipborne radar installed on ISE in 1942 ...

Further have you actually seen these radar's do anything ? I ran 10 tests on CAP over KB with K&O in the TF ... and 10 more without K&O in the TF .. and actually the CAP was a little bit thicker w/o K&O in the TF though the difference was within the margin of error ( this was under stock 1.4 ).

And it probably isn't even worth our discussion because there are many more important fish to fry !

You need to run new tests with the fixed radar as Pry has done. These should be air search not ship to ship. These tests are not valid as the radar has been the wrong type.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Okay, this is getting stupid.

Tristan, I did not feel i 'blew you off' about Wildcats. In fact i feel we discussed things and Don and I fixed a problem that I had let slip in.
The only very slight problem i might have had was your insistance on more models of Wildcats when i have more models of Wildcats than any other aircraft in the game already.
I have no more slots. CHS can do nothing about that.

If this is something you are unhappy about write a letter to Gary.

Please go back and read my thoughts on this in the AAR thread. I dismissed the "Martlet" issue as not really affecting CHS, happily acknowledged your limitation re carrier slots, though I did think your response re the use of these planes on British carriers was a "blow off" insofar as you responded to me re your sources (actually failed to provide me with any at all) while ignoring mine, but that's ancient history. It was, however, and for whatever it's worth, bad form on your part and dubious research method to boot.

It was not a propitious start.

Re Wildcats: all I said is that an excellent case could be made that this was the most "important" (influential?) fighter plane the Allies possessed in the Pacific, and a good case might be made that it was the most important for either side in the Pacific, possibly most influential single fighter of the entire war, European or Pacific theater. (The other fighter might be the Me-109, take your pick.) Ergo, why not treat its various iterations, which were different in terms of performance, as closely as possible? Certainly include another Wildcat before you put in anything like an exotic Japanese plane with a production run of 50, say. (And no, I don't know if you have any of those. I just use that as a for-instance. That was not an insult.)

Now, my problem with your post on this thread which started all of this mess is that you attacked, yes attacked, Don for no reason. There has been a good deal of discussion about pilots pools in private between the members of this mod.

First of all I did not "attack" Don. Second of all private discussion serves small use in a public project. You want good feedback, you want the best feedback? Then open these discussions up and get as much useful feedback as possible. That only stands to reason.

This mod is not an official product of Matrix.

We are not required to listen to anyone who is not a member of the mod team.

Well, I wouldn't know what a mod-team "member" is or isn't. Nobody bothered to issue me a "card" when I volunteered my time to help Ron test the alpha CHS scenario. Neither did anyone bother to give me a card (or card me) when I took the time to give you feedback on fighters or Andrew feedback on his map or the project as a whole feedback on this, that or the other.

So what are talking about? What is a CHS "member"?

In many ways i enjoy your posts because you look at many problems differently than many people on this board.
But, when time came to start this mod you did not join us and frankly, i would not have wanted you to as you can not put problems that we can not change out of your head. We can only work with the editor, and now the map. Nothing else.
Nothing. Cannot change the database. Cannot change the AtA combat model.

Whatever that could mean. Frankly, I get the feeling you write with emotion, Mike. Not good for this kind of work. And a lot of ego as well. Equally not good. You respond heatedly, not rationally, all too often.

As for problems which cannot be solved and my feedback to date: please list one, I repeat only one time I've asked this mod-team (of which I do not appear to be or have ever been a member) to do something which was "impossible."

My feeling is that anyone who is not a member of our mod team can post their ideas and corrections but other than that they have no say into what goes into this.

I see, that old "membership" hurdle again.

If all you can do is attack people because you did not have 'your say' than you are just wasting our time.

"All" I can do is "attack" people? You mean the way I "attack" Frag, and for all I know by your definition, everyone else on the general board? Poor people there. Or the way I "attack" you? The way I "attack" Andrew? Anyone I've missed?

And that's "all" I do? I never post articles of interest? I never raise intelligent counterpoints? I never get anyone to think harder than they'd bothered to before?

Well, if your answer is "yes" to any one of those questions then you've missed the boat. If you answer is "no" to those questions then why would you write what you've just written?

You did not join the team because it seems you like to sit outside and complain about the people who are doing something.

Again, I was not informed until now and by you that 1) "membership" was required or 2) how to go about getting over that hurdle were it required.

Numbers.

Okay, with the way the pilot system is set up nothing, i repeat nothing, will be accurate as this system is artificial.

If i had a wish it would be for the pilot system to be just a pool that you draw out of, but the longer you leave pilots there the better they get, within reason.

But if wishs were fishs we would all be casting nets.

Many people list a very small number for Japanese navy pilots graduated per year. Unfortunately, that number is usually wrong. Japan doubled navy training in 1940 and added half again in '41. Half again in 42 and tripled in 43. I cannot represent this in game.

I'm sorry to say this, Mike, but you continue to make statements which are cockeyed. What you've written above is a perfect example.

It doesn't matter a hoot in hell what the Japanese did re "starting" or "enhancing" pilot-training programs as the war rolled along. It only matters what the result of these programs was. Same same for the Allies, of course.

The result for the Japanese was dismal as it turned out. And the documentation for that is spread far and wide throughout relevant World War II histories. But you seem to ignore that simple truth, for whatever reason, and just post what is apparently more convenient for you to post, and for you to believe. Furthermore, you offer this up as if it were something accepted and widely known, as opposed to being the rather marginalized "truth" that it actually is. I mean, even Japanese sources have it the other way around, at least the few reliable ones we have to go to and I'm familiar with, and which have been cited by the most respected authors on this period. But your sources, whatever they are, say something different, so that's the way it now has to be?

I don't think so.

Regardless of all that, you seem content to ignore another fact: in the game new Japanese air units come completely outfitted with "trained" pilots. In other words, those training programs which you want to cite are already at work. And if you don't like the training levels the game provides it would be an easy matter to change these to something more "appropriate." But you see, with the pilot "pool" working every month in the game the Japanese are then afforded a surplus of trained pilots. So now it turns out . . . what? That the Japanese not only didn't have a shortage of trained pilots, which I happen to believe they did for the simple and good reason that the best (i.e., most responsible) sources I can find say they did, but that the Japanese actually had more trained pilots than they needed? And for carrier ops, too?

I haven't the foggiest notion what the actual respective pilot ratings for the Japanese and Allies ought to be in game terms. That would depend wholly on how the formulas are written with those values in mind, and I haven't seen those formulas, though I've asked for them. And then tests would need to be run to see if the results in the game came out "feeling" about right. And like that.

But the pilot pool itself is an aberation. And a bad one at that.

I believe we all carry fallacies about many things in our life. One is Japanese pilot quality and numbers. In 1943 US navy pilots and Japanese navy pilots received exactly the same (435 hours) training. Not what you would expect is it? The problem is, if you read the manual, is that Japanese pilot training numbers falls to quickly in this game. In 43 Japanese is well below US numbers.

All i can do in an artificiial system is guess to the best of my abilities. I feel the Allies should get a 5 point training bonus to their pilots for sending back many experienced instructors. Not that Japan did not do this, because they DID, but because the allies did this more. I feel a 5 point penalty to Japanese training pilots due to individualism, lack of team spirit.

In this game however, Japanese navy pilots in '43 get a 60 rating while US Navy pilots get a 75. I believe through my study that this rating should be closer to 75-65. Not much, but there.

Again, my feeling is that when there are no pilots in the pool the first 'free' pilot drawn should be 5 points or so below the trained rate. Then, every additional pilot should be a bit lower. As it stands there are two groups; the fully trained and the half trained. Nothing in between.

I counted how many free pilots Japan gains AFTER the first turn from the pilot list and fully trained pilots per year and the number is low to what actually fully graduated. My feeling is that 15 is closer to the late 42 early 43 number.

The army numbers, Pry might be 'more correct' on; they graduated more than twice as many pilots as the navy did thus 35 might be closer then 30.

Hope this helps people create helpfull commentary.

Whatever. I never disputed your right to "feel" one thing or another. But to state that you know better than legitmate authorities on this subject is something I cannot and will not accept. And why any other thinking person would is far beyond my grasp. Your thesis simply doesn't hold water. Neither does it stand the test of historical use, actions and results by the Japanese in World War II. It is, in a word, ca-ca.

I'd suggest you back up (which I somehow don't believe you'll do, but one never knows) and re-read each and every one of Mogami's posts in the two threads I referenced above. And then, if any "meaningful" change is to be made in CHS with re to pilots, I'd suggest this be done in some special versus-human-opponents-only scenario where all pilot training, except that which is implied in the game by the new pilot arrivals in already-constituted air units, be handled by the players themselves and where we wouldn't need to cater to the AI--which is really why we have pilot pools of any kind to begin with.

The rest, re pilots at least, is nothing but conjecture.

Here's another thought I have on the game and people and life in general.

I listen when Russ (Mogami) Neer speaks about the game. This is because I know he knows more than me about it. I'm not sure he has a better feeling for it than I have, but he's logged many more hours. Plus, he strikes me as not only a conscientious man but also a man who is extremely focused on whatever he takes interest in. On top of that he comes across as a man who is able to exercise patience, and to leave his emotions and ego off to the side when he discusses the game system. To Russ it might as well be an abstract problem in mathematics for all the emotion he displays.

Where Russ and I part company is at the juncture of his seeming reluctance (or inability, I can't tell for sure) to look at some of the game's features strictly from the historical point of view, and then judge the game accordingly as to its "accuracy" regardless of where these chips fall. He does often give the impression of someone who is somewhat a "company man" who cannot quite divorce himself completely from the "company line" which apparently clouds his reason. A perfect example would be the ASW model, which for whatever reason he simply can't or won't address objectively and so cannot see that's it terribly out of whack. Because of this "company" tendency of his I've been arguing with Russ on and off for three years now and counting about any number of game-related issues, both with UV and WitP. But I do listen to him nevertheless, even while he ploughs obediently down whatever company row he's working on that day. Again, this is because in terms of the game's nuts and bolts he happens to know more than I do. Which means I can learn from him.

Now there's a useful object lesson in those two paragraphs, if you can find it.

I wish you well.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund



Well, I have to disagree. It would seem a consensus is forming that the radar sets were there on Oi and Kitikami. They were prototypes, yes. And maybe they were not as good as the type 13 that went into mass production. We dont know whether the prototypes were better or worse than the mass produced type 13 however.

I guess my point is, they were there, we dont know if they were better or worse than the mass produced type 13's, but they were there. And the japs need every break they can get. It is not the end of the world for the allies to have two japanese ships with radar in 1941. And they can be worth their weight in gold for the japanese.

So I think everything speaks for them to be included.

I doubt the prototypical units would be better than the production runs. That makes no sense to me. The purpose of installing prototypes is to find flaws and come up with improvements, not the other way around.

The only good reason to include such radar would be if someone could demonstrate that these radar sets were used in 1941 by the Japanese in any meaningful operational sense. Otherwise they're eye candy. As Dirk points out, and I've alluded to, as the game engine treats all radar the same (as far as I know), then to assume these experimental sets (which isn't even known by us for sure were actually installed in 1941) were as useful as Allied operational radar of the same period is somewhat of a stretch.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean to say by ". . . the japs need every break they can get." What does that mean? Are we trying to give the Japanese "breaks" or is our purpose to come up with a more accurate simulation?

Gary already has this game confused with all sorts of Japanese "breaks." That's his specialty. Leave it him.

If you are going to take prototypes out of the game then dont stop there. There are many more...

Try the Tojo group at Canton in 41.

Or the Judy's that Lemurs put into his scenario in 41...

I'm not aware of all the changes that have been made to the stock scenarios. A lot of the work Mike has done makes good sense and I applaud it warmly. Some of it does not make good sense. This kind of stuff needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. No good can from from throwing the baby out with the bath water.

     (andnowivebeenreducedtoplatitudes...headded)

[Lemurs!]

Tanaka,

There are no Judies added in '41 in my scenario.
They were in late '42 but the Judy started production in May '42.

This Judy was an unarmoured recon dive bomber while the later carrier bomber version was armoured. As Matrix had put an unarmoured version in the game i felt it should be entering at a more appropriate time.

Mike

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund



Well, I have to disagree. It would seem a consensus is forming that the radar sets were there on Oi and Kitikami. They were prototypes, yes. And maybe they were not as good as the type 13 that went into mass production. We dont know whether the prototypes were better or worse than the mass produced type 13 however.

I guess my point is, they were there, we dont know if they were better or worse than the mass produced type 13's, but they were there. And the japs need every break they can get. It is not the end of the world for the allies to have two japanese ships with radar in 1941. And they can be worth their weight in gold for the japanese.

So I think everything speaks for them to be included.

And I have to disagree back - everything does not speak for them to be included for example the source MARC posted in the K&O threads a couple of weeks ago - which I reposted above - and now repost again ... this indicates first IJN shipborne radar installed on ISE in 1942 ...

Further have you actually seen these radar's do anything ? I ran 10 tests on CAP over KB with K&O in the TF ... and 10 more without K&O in the TF .. and actually the CAP was a little bit thicker w/o K&O in the TF though the difference was within the margin of error ( this was under stock 1.4 ).

And it probably isn't even worth our discussion because there are many more important fish to fry !

You need to run new tests with the fixed radar as Pry has done. These should be air search not ship to ship. These tests are not valid as the radar has been the wrong type.

Agreed ( and I mentioned retest might be worthwhile for this reason in my first post in this thread on this topic ! ). But tonight I'm repeating the AI vs AI test Don did last night which sank a couple dozen japanese submarines all by airplanes ( first 6 months ... scenario 15 ... he ran CHS ... I'll run stock ).

[Lemurs!]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Okay, this is getting stupid.

Tristan, I did not feel i 'blew you off' about Wildcats. In fact i feel we discussed things and Don and I fixed a problem that I had let slip in.
The only very slight problem i might have had was your insistance on more models of Wildcats when i have more models of Wildcats than any other aircraft in the game already.
I have no more slots. CHS can do nothing about that.

If this is something you are unhappy about write a letter to Gary.

Please go back and read my thoughts on this in the AAR thread. I dismissed the "Martlet" issue as not really affecting CHS, happily acknowledged your limitation re carrier slots, though I did think your response re the use of these planes on British carriers was a "blow off" insofar as you responded to me re your sources (actually failed to provide me with any at all) while ignoring mine, but that's ancient history. It was, however, and for whatever it's worth, bad form on your part and dubious research method to boot.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: It was not a blow off. I have no slots. You seem not to understand this. I am glad you have a different opinion; that is great but don't start telling people i blew you off because i didn't follow your idea.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It was not a propitious start.

Re Wildcats: all I said is that an excellent case could be made that this was the most "important" (influential?) fighter plane the Allies possessed in the Pacific, and a good case might be made that it was the most important for either side in the Pacific, possibly most influential single fighter of the entire war, European or Pacific theater. (The other fighter might be the Me-109, take your pick.) Ergo, why not treat its various iterations, which were different in terms of performance, as closely as possible? Certainly include another Wildcat before you put in anything like an exotic Japanese plane with a production run of 50, say. (And no, I don't know if you have any of those. I just use that as a for-instance. That was not an insult.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: You do not even know how the editor works and yet you give advice that if people do not take they are belittling you.
American aircraft cannot go in Japanese slots. Also, i am dealing with a game system that abstracts many ideas into numbers. Why add another version of an aircraft with identical numbers (in the game)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, my problem with your post on this thread which started all of this mess is that you attacked, yes attacked, Don for no reason. There has been a good deal of discussion about pilots pools in private between the members of this mod.

First of all I did not "attack" Don. Second of all private discussion serves small use in a public project. You want good feedback, you want the best feedback? Then open these discussions up and get as much useful feedback as possible. That only stands to reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Yes, you did attack Don. Several other members have emailed me about this and i am wasting my time in Crete talking to you rather than getting something useful accomplished.
Feedback is great; whining that we do not listen to you enough is not feedback.
----------------------------------------------------------------

This mod is not an official product of Matrix.

We are not required to listen to anyone who is not a member of the mod team.

Well, I wouldn't know what a mod-team "member" is or isn't. Nobody bothered to issue me a "card" when I volunteered my time to help Ron test the alpha CHS scenario. Neither did anyone bother to give me a card (or card me) when I took the time to give you feedback on fighters or Andrew feedback on his map or the project as a whole feedback on this, that or the other.

So what are talking about? What is a CHS "member"?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: The members are Don, Ron, Joe, Subchaser, Elf(Ian), Tanker, Andrew, and myself. Bstarr, Iron Duke, Kerguelen and probably some others who i am forgetting are a great help to us
and maybe members.
----------------------------------------------------------------

In many ways i enjoy your posts because you look at many problems differently than many people on this board.
But, when time came to start this mod you did not join us and frankly, i would not have wanted you to as you can not put problems that we can not change out of your head. We can only work with the editor, and now the map. Nothing else.
Nothing. Cannot change the database. Cannot change the AtA combat model.

Whatever that could mean. Frankly, I get the feeling you write with emotion, Mike. Not good for this kind of work. And a lot of ego as well. Equally not good. You respond heatedly, not rationally, all too often.

As for problems which cannot be solved and my feedback to date: please list one, I repeat only one time I've asked this mod-team (of which I do not appear to be or have ever been a member) to do something which was "impossible."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: I respond with emotion because you use emotion (insults, whines, etc). It is as simple as that. People whom i respect such as Don or Andrew or others i do not respond that way to.
I often am an emotional person, i am sorry that offends your dignity.
Do you know what the internet did for the world? It allowed everyone a voice. Whether they deserve a voice or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------

My feeling is that anyone who is not a member of our mod team can post their ideas and corrections but other than that they have no say into what goes into this.

I see, that old "membership" hurdle again.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: What is your problem now? Were you kicked out of cubscouts as a kid? I do not understand this problem.
I am under no obligation to allow anyone else to work on "my" mod. Conversely, no one in the universe is under any duress to play "my" mod.
We at the CHS, and myself with my origional mod, understand the value of focus. We are trying not to get bogged down in things that have very little effect on the war. This is why the decision makers are a limited group of focused people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If all you can do is attack people because you did not have 'your say' than you are just wasting our time.

"All" I can do is "attack" people? You mean the way I "attack" Frag, and for all I know by your definition, everyone else on the general board? Poor people there. Or the way I "attack" you? The way I "attack" Andrew? Anyone I've missed?

And that's "all" I do? I never post articles of interest? I never raise intelligent counterpoints? I never get anyone to think harder than they'd bothered to before?

Well, if your answer is "yes" to any one of those questions then you've missed the boat. If you answer is "no" to those questions then why would you write what you've just written?

You did not join the team because it seems you like to sit outside and complain about the people who are doing something.

Again, I was not informed until now and by you that 1) "membership" was required or 2) how to go about getting over that hurdle were it required.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements are that you have grown up into an adult that can handle a conversation without it turning into a personal trial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Numbers.

Okay, with the way the pilot system is set up nothing, i repeat nothing, will be accurate as this system is artificial.

If i had a wish it would be for the pilot system to be just a pool that you draw out of, but the longer you leave pilots there the better they get, within reason.

But if wishs were fishs we would all be casting nets.

Many people list a very small number for Japanese navy pilots graduated per year. Unfortunately, that number is usually wrong. Japan doubled navy training in 1940 and added half again in '41. Half again in 42 and tripled in 43. I cannot represent this in game.

I'm sorry to say this, Mike, but you continue to make statements which are cockeyed. What you've written above is a perfect example.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: So, you are saying what? That Japan never increased pilot training before or during the war? That is the only factual statement i made and you are saying that it is 'cockeyed'?
Thanks for letting me know that Japan, in fact, never increased pilot training.
---------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't matter a hoot in hell what the Japanese did re "starting" or "enhancing" pilot-training programs as the war rolled along. It only matters what the result of these programs was. Same same for the Allies, of course.

The result for the Japanese was dismal as it turned out. And the documentation for that is spread far and wide throughout relevant World War II histories. But you seem to ignore that simple truth, for whatever reason, and just post what is apparently more convenient for you to post, and for you to believe. Furthermore, you offer this up as if it were something accepted and widely known, as opposed to being the rather marginalized "truth" that it actually is. I mean, even Japanese sources have it the other way around, at least the few reliable ones we have to go to and I'm familiar with, and which have been cited by the most respected authors on this period. But your sources, whatever they are, say something different, so that's the way it now has to be?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: I am not even sure what you are babbling about here other than your next personal attack. Thats Trist.
The 'Result' is 'dismal'. Well thank you, how do i represent dismal in the game?
Again, i feel many historical authors are not very good researchers or historians. The only fact or number i mentioned above is 435 hours. Again, curiosly enough, it is the same for the US navy pilots at that ime. Was this your example of dismal?

You are that kind of 'historian'; you distill 4 years of change and ideas, thoughts and proposals down to one word; dismal.
I will make all Japanese pilots 5 training just for you because they were 'dismal'.

You just completely went off on me, attacked my credibility, my integrity, and my intelligence because i said that in '43 the Japanese navy trained their pilots for 435 hours.

Um, okay. Did i say that Japanese pilot training program was the best in the world? Did i say that i deny that Japanese pilots were lacking in numbers and training as the war went on?
Did I say that the Japanese were gods on Earth and only the US phasers were able to defeat Japan?

No, i said that in '43 Japanese navy pilots were still receiving 435 hours of training.

I do not need to provide a source to you, as i am working on this mod. You, on the other hand, if you wished to dispute the 435 number, you could provide a source or two that counters it.
Not a source that says Japan was 'dismal' however.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think so.

Regardless of all that, you seem content to ignore another fact: in the game new Japanese air units come completely outfitted with "trained" pilots. In other words, those training programs which you want to cite are already at work. And if you don't like the training levels the game provides it would be an easy matter to change these to something more "appropriate." But you see, with the pilot "pool" working every month in the game the Japanese are then afforded a surplus of trained pilots. So now it turns out . . . what? That the Japanese not only didn't have a shortage of trained pilots, which I happen to believe they did for the simple and good reason that the best (i.e., most responsible) sources I can find say they did, but that the Japanese actually had more trained pilots than they needed? And for carrier ops, too?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Again, with absolutely no basis in fact you are putting words in my mouth.
I have tested this game extensively since it came out. Every change i make is after extensive testing. And much research and soul searching.

What I noticed is that in the game the Japanese carrier air groups by April '42 were close to 1/3rd conscripts and i was launching fewer, and safer raids then Japan historically launched. Japan did suffer a serious shortage of carrier pilots, but they were able to keep their carrier air groups at 80-95% capacity of trained pilots until late october 42.

Believe it or not i added up every pilot Japan receives in air units through the game, through the pilot pool, and as named pilots. I felt the pool could increase by 5 a month and be 'more correct'.

Oh, and Japan does not receive a full groups worth of pilots every time a reinforcement group show up. Most groups will show up very low in aircraft strength and thus with very few pilots.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't the foggiest notion what the actual respective pilot ratings for the Japanese and Allies ought to be in game terms. That would depend wholly on how the formulas are written with those values in mind, and I haven't seen those formulas, though I've asked for them. And then tests would need to be run to see if the results in the game came out "feeling" about right. And like that.

But the pilot pool itself is an aberation. And a bad one at that.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: So, you are admitting you have no clue what they should be rated, but my method is wrong automatically? Whats up with that?
Who spit in your bean curd?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I believe we all carry fallacies about many things in our life. One is Japanese pilot quality and numbers. In 1943 US navy pilots and Japanese navy pilots received exactly the same (435 hours) training. Not what you would expect is it? The problem is, if you read the manual, is that Japanese pilot training numbers falls to quickly in this game. In 43 Japanese is well below US numbers.

All i can do in an artificiial system is guess to the best of my abilities. I feel the Allies should get a 5 point training bonus to their pilots for sending back many experienced instructors. Not that Japan did not do this, because they DID, but because the allies did this more. I feel a 5 point penalty to Japanese training pilots due to individualism, lack of team spirit.

In this game however, Japanese navy pilots in '43 get a 60 rating while US Navy pilots get a 75. I believe through my study that this rating should be closer to 75-65. Not much, but there.

Again, my feeling is that when there are no pilots in the pool the first 'free' pilot drawn should be 5 points or so below the trained rate. Then, every additional pilot should be a bit lower. As it stands there are two groups; the fully trained and the half trained. Nothing in between.

I counted how many free pilots Japan gains AFTER the first turn from the pilot list and fully trained pilots per year and the number is low to what actually fully graduated. My feeling is that 15 is closer to the late 42 early 43 number.

The army numbers, Pry might be 'more correct' on; they graduated more than twice as many pilots as the navy did thus 35 might be closer then 30.

Hope this helps people create helpfull commentary.

Whatever. I never disputed your right to "feel" one thing or another. But to state that you know better than legitmate authorities on this subject is something I cannot and will not accept. And why any other thinking person would is far beyond my grasp. Your thesis simply doesn't hold water. Neither does it stand the test of historical use, actions and results by the Japanese in World War II. It is, in a word, ca-ca.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Did i say at some point that William Green is a dick head or something? I don't remember writing that. I have never said i know more than legitimate authorities in this thread and all i did was question a fallacy that i have seen creep into some peoples thoughts.

"Your thesis simply doesn't hold water. Neither does it stand the test of historical use, actions and results by the Japanese in World War II. It is, in a word, ca-ca."

I am so amused by that. My Thesis. I like that. I add 5 pilots a month to the trained pool and it is now my thesis and it doesn't hold water. So 10 pilots a month (an abstraction by Gary, you admit) does hold water but the 'historical record' does not support 15 pilots a month added to an abstract game system.
You are really digging your hole deep with your attempt to sound intelligent by using 'historical' and 'thesis' all in one paragraph but you create these sentences that make absolutely no sense.
I am sorry if my thesis disturbed the gravity of your meditations with William Green. I won't do it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I'd suggest you back up (which I somehow don't believe you'll do, but one never knows) and re-read each and every one of Mogami's posts in the two threads I referenced above. And then, if any "meaningful" change is to be made in CHS with re to pilots, I'd suggest this be done in some special versus-human-opponents-only scenario where all pilot training, except that which is implied in the game by the new pilot arrivals in already-constituted air units, be handled by the players themselves and where we wouldn't need to cater to the AI--which is really why we have pilot pools of any kind to begin with.

The rest, re pilots at least, is nothing but conjecture.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trist: Thank you for your suggestion, it is duely noted but it does not follow the direction of the CHS at the present time.
Thank you for your submission.
Also, your suposition that the pilot pools are just there for the AI is just that, a supposition.
Oh, and another personal attack on me.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another thought I have on the game and people and life in general.

I listen when Russ (Mogami) Neer speaks about the game. This is because I know he knows more than me about it. I'm not sure he has a better feeling for it than I have, but he's logged many more hours. Plus, he strikes me as not only a conscientious man but also a man who is extremely focused on whatever he takes interest in. On top of that he comes across as a man who is able to exercise patience, and to leave his emotions and ego off to the side when he discusses the game system. To Russ it might as well be an abstract problem in mathematics for all the emotion he displays.

Where Russ and I part company is at the juncture of his seeming reluctance (or inability, I can't tell for sure) to look at some of the game's features strictly from the historical point of view, and then judge the game accordingly as to its "accuracy" regardless of where these chips fall. He does often give the impression of someone who is somewhat a "company man" who cannot quite divorce himself completely from the "company line" which apparently clouds his reason. A perfect example would be the ASW model, which for whatever reason he simply can't or won't address objectively and so cannot see that's it terribly out of whack. Because of this "company" tendency of his I've been arguing with Russ on and off for three years now and counting about any number of game-related issues, both with UV and WitP. But I do listen to him nevertheless, even while he ploughs obediently down whatever company row he's working on that day. Again, this is because in terms of the game's nuts and bolts he happens to know more than I do. Which means I can learn from him.

Now there's a useful object lesson in those two paragraphs, if you can find it.

I wish you well.

The only time emotion comes out for me is when people like you post things like this.
You do occasionaly post usefull information, as i stated in an earlier post, but if people do not follow that info you start attacking people, whining, complaining, and saying that the person who didn't listen is obviously a loser.

That is not usefull posting. That is asinine, childlike behavior.
If your numbers, thoughts whatever disagree with ours make your own mod with the perfection that you already 'know'.
Probably people will play it and not play ours. More power to you and them. Again, i am not telling people to play ours.

Mike

[Tankerace]

Don, there is a new class (or upgrade) i'd like to squeez in if possible. Reading Robert F. Sumrall's Iowa Class Battleships, it seems that in April of 1945, each ship received 8 20mms in twin mounts. If possible, I'd like to add that in, along with a new graphic. That way, using the camo set, as arriving in 1944 the ships will be in MS 32 camo, and after an April 1945 overhaul my original 1.3 OOB mod MS 22 camo.

Positions should be 4 guns, twin mountings, on both sides.

Also Don, looking at the OOB for the CHS Alpha, you have 40 40mm Bofors on each side, and 24 20mm on each side. However, it should be 36 Bofors on each side in quad mountings, and 4 facing Forward and 4 aft. These last two mountings are those atop turrets, and should not be put in with side mountings. On 20mm, the OOB lists 48, but Sumrall indicates 49 on all but Iowa, which had 52.

[Captain Cruft]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
Overall I wouldn't sweat this issue, it's not that big a deal. You get far more trained pilots come through attached to reinforcements. Also, having played through the start of the game as Japan many times, it doesn't affect how fast you can go. That is all down to supplies and troop transportation and, frankly, how bothered you can be to optimise things.

Well, it does affect things, and if it's "not a big deal" then why would anyone argue for its inclusion in the first place, and why would CHS be interested to make the change?

It's not a big deal on the strategic level whether the pool is 100 or 200, or the replacement rate is 10 or 30. Japan is still going to get annihilated either way, and can still produce only a fraction of the pilots required for all the planes manufactured. You would have to vastly increase the numbers to make any real difference.

The reason people get annoyed with this and want to increase the numbers is because they don't like having to put rookies into their air units from Jan/Feb 1942 time. If the player could re-allocate the pilots from the reinforcement groups to current ones then this would be a non-issue.

[Andrew Brown]

Don,

I have a few minor comments from my latest trawl through the locations data (while working on my conversion script for converting CHS to my "standard" map). These are very minor points, merely about unit names, so feel free to either ignore them or put them at the bottom of your (too long) worklist. Also, these are mostly questions, or personal preferences only:

• Pacific Fleet (#164) does not have a suffix. Should be "40"?
• Personal preference only: I prefer the names "British" instead of "BR" for the BR 12th and 14th Armies. Perhaps it would be even better to make these units have the prefix "UK" instead, to make them consistent with the UK divisions. The same applies to the "BR Burma Corps", although this is a unique name, so the "British" prefix could just be dropped altogether.
• Personal preference only: Another thing I am not sure about. Why are there different naming conventions for some of the British base forces? There are, for example, a "221 RAF Aviation" and a "221 RAF Base Force". Are these correct, or is this a type of duplication? I notice that they arrive as reinforcements on the same date, so I guess that means that they are meant to be complementary? Forgive my ignorance - this just got me curious.
  
  Also, should both of these examples (and the other similar ones, such as "222 Aviation") have the prefix "No." as the other British base forces have, e.g. "No. 101 RAF Base Force"?
• Personal preference only: Should the "45th Engineer Regiment" (#2844) be called the "45th US Engineer Regiment" for consistency?
• Should the "3rd W.African Brigade" (#3177) be renamed to the 3rd West African Brigade" for consistency? i.e. similar to the "11th East African Division". Same for the 81st and 82nd W.African Divisions.

Now for the ships and airgroups...

Andrew