CHS Mod Proposal

[el cid again]

Since the allies do not have a production system I am reluctant to move into the non-historical completions. Construction resources spent on a "could have been" ship would not have been available for a historically-completed ship so simply adding the additional hulls seem wrong.

You are correct. However, since players CONTROL this, why not give them the option? You can suspend construction, and that means it does not consume resources.

[el cid again]

I am confused by this. In CHS 1.06, Argentina Maru (ship #1362) and Brazil Maru (Ship #1363) are both classed as Brazil Maru Class Transports (Class #679). Historically Argentina Maru was converted to escort carrier Kaiyo. Brazil Maru was sunk before she could be converted. In CHS, both of the large liners are present and Kaiyo is also included. This was originally done as it is only a small stretch and Japan could use the help. If any correction should be made, it would be removal of either Argentina Maru or Kaiyo.

In freshly downloaded current installs, Braxil Maru is listed as an AK. This is plain wrong. And the Argentina Maru is BIGGER and FASTER than the AP shown - in fact ALL the 20 to 22 knot liners are missing for Japan. [They cruise at 18 knots]. My solution is to classify both ships as they really were, and to allow players to convert one or both or none, player's choice.

[el cid again]

Conversion of ship types using the upgrade function works very well. The problem is airgroups. A ship that has an air group prior to conversion must somehow shed it and a ship the gains an airgroup by conversion (like Brazil Maru would) must acquire one (or else just be another ferry carrier). It is possible for a human player to handle these complexities but they are beyoud the AI.

Good comments. I have no problem with air groups for new carriers. If you create one and use the same set up as WITP does, it appears magically if and ONLY if that ship appears. On the other hand, there are no air groups to get rid of for most ships I convert (APs). Have to experiment with the cruisers. But I think if you move the group ashore it is not an issue. Anyone wanting to help with testing please advise.

[el cid again]

Does this mean that we can select what speed we want to cruise at? How will you handle the documented cases of in service speed/endurance being significatly less than peacetime or even designed? Will there be a mechanism to account for enviromental factors such as fouling of the hull, which can have the effect of both reducing top speed and decreasing endurance, sometimes up to 15%?

People like me (using editors and simple import/export utilities) cannot get at the code. Further, it is not documented publically - we could not safely modify the code in most cases, even if we reverse engineered it. It is a principle of CHS not to try - we wish to be welcome with Matrix people and not seen as a threat. So we are stuck with the system AS DESIGNED. I can give you ONE cruising speed per class - and it does not change as the ship fouls - unless it changes as a result of system damage (which I think it may). As for differences between design and service, IF there is service data we use that, not design. Higher or lower, we use it.

[el cid again]

So the Allies will have some control over ship production?! I like the idea of eliminating the mandatory respawn feature to one that would allow for user control over reneming. i would like to see the Montana class added... Will the include the many japanses ships that were planned but never constructed being available for building?

In my view Pearl Harbor grossly changed USN thinking about what to build. If it didn't happen the same way, odds are long that EXISTING plans might have been built to a greater degree. Similarly, I think Japan changes a lot after Midway. I think a good HISTORICAL design starts you with the HISTORICAL building plans for both sides - and then YOU cancel ships IF you want to - just as both sides did. However, I cannot change the renaming code - beyond my reach. The Japanese get to have Shinano as a battleship - not a carrier - and they can have Job 111 - possibly to be named Kii - which really was building. The Ibuki and her sister lay down as CAs, not as CVLs. You CAN convert, but if you do, you lose the gunship. At least, that is the plan: testing.

[el cid again]

There was also the USS Canberra II (CA-70) which isn't even included in the game.

There are a number of US cruisers and other ships not included. It looks like the logic was "if it never was in the Pacific it does not get to go there." I found at least one error, but mostly that is not a bad thing: the US must have SOME ships in other places - and the game lets them put far too many in the Pacific (too many because they don't have to transfer when they historically did leave the area, except for British). So I honored that scenario concept. However, I found some ships building that were just ignored - as you say.

[el cid again]

el cid again,

Are you looking at the CHS data or the original scenario 15 data?

I began with Scenario 15, but once I saw CHS, I converted. Too much already done not to stand on the shoulders of giants, as it were. I am in love with the map too.

I am using scenario 155 as a foundation, but I hear it is planned to do more down the road once it is revised. I will help if I can.

[el cid again]

Since a Montana class ship can barely complete in time to reach the battle area, there is no possibility of refit, and I don't include an upgrade. IF there were an upgrade, it would probably replace 40mm quads with twin 76mm/50s - that was the plan. Also, IF you want a WARTIME Montana, she probably does NOT get the 5 inch 54 - which in fact was NEVER completed in the twin mounting. A troublesome gun (I served with a single mounting variation, and they were down more than up), I doubt it would have been used during the war (when they could not even get it to feed). But it is a quibble - we can outfit her with 5 inch 38s or 54s, as you wish. Reviewing shipyard programs, I am able to fit in only a single hull operational during the scenario - and barely that. I selected the one intended as fleet flagship. There also are two more Iowas. They really were building you know.

[el cid again]

I like it. The Montana was the first US battleship designed to be protected against the US 2700lb AP fired from the 16"50. The designed immunity zone was 18,000 to 32,000 yards, which can only be accomplished by a side belt of 21 inches on a 60 degree aspect. Angling the armor was a common way of increasing the ballistic protection using thinner plates. If I remeber correctly US mills were only able to produce class A armor up to 16" thick. There was also a 1" sts backing which should add aome additional armor, probably atleast 20mm. Also, the 5" turret did have 2.5" armor, primarily as a counter balance for the long 5" gun barrels.

It is indeed correct that experts doubted we could make armor of homogenious quality more than 406mm thick. WITP uses maximum armor thickness, but NOT hull thickness.

[el cid again]

The problem is that the engine doesn't account for angled armour. Otherwise I'd obviously like to use it, but it would be a huge, and ultimately futile exercise to go through all the ship classes with a magnifying glass to see if this class or that class had angled armour. I'd like to think that my take on the Montana is pretty bad-ass.

Hello. It is ALREADY DONE. I have done it. The only problem is getting accepted in a mod. I used ships plans wherever possible, doing analysis and measurement. Otherwise reference materials. The existing data was so bad a comprehensive review was needed anyway - so I decided to do it with the best possible data.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The problem is that the engine doesn't account for angled armour. Otherwise I'd obviously like to use it, but it would be a huge, and ultimately futile exercise to go through all the ship classes with a magnifying glass to see if this class or that class had angled armour. I'd like to think that my take on the Montana is pretty bad-ass.

Hello. It is ALREADY DONE. I have done it. The only problem is getting accepted in a mod. I used ships plans wherever possible, doing analysis and measurement. Otherwise reference materials. The existing data was so bad a comprehensive review was needed anyway - so I decided to do it with the best possible data.

I take it you converted the angled armor values to standard armor values (to overcome the game engine limitation)?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Hello. It is ALREADY DONE. I have done it. The only problem is getting accepted in a mod. I used ships plans wherever possible, doing analysis and measurement. Otherwise reference materials. The existing data was so bad a comprehensive review was needed anyway - so I decided to do it with the best possible data.

Then reveal it, for heaven's sake, instead of sitting on it. If you're just saying you have it, that doesn't mean anything.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The only problem is getting accepted in a mod.

[&:]
There's no problem at all - after all you're in charge of your own mod. If you decide the data's fine, you accept it yourself and include it in your own mod.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There was also the USS Canberra II (CA-70) which isn't even included in the game.

There are a number of US cruisers and other ships not included. It looks like the logic was "if it never was in the Pacific it does not get to go there." I found at least one error, but mostly that is not a bad thing: the US must have SOME ships in other places - and the game lets them put far too many in the Pacific (too many because they don't have to transfer when they historically did leave the area, except for British). So I honored that scenario concept. However, I found some ships building that were just ignored - as you say.

This is especially true with the merchant ships, transports, and tankers. The Aqitania spent most of the years of 1942-1945 transporting troops from US the England. She only was a couple of trips in the Pacific. I think she whould not even be in the game.

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,

Out of interest. Hasany of this stuff has been considered before for CHS?

What do others think of it?

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There was also the USS Canberra II (CA-70) which isn't even included in the game.

There are a number of US cruisers and other ships not included. It looks like the logic was "if it never was in the Pacific it does not get to go there." I found at least one error, but mostly that is not a bad thing: the US must have SOME ships in other places - and the game lets them put far too many in the Pacific (too many because they don't have to transfer when they historically did leave the area, except for British). So I honored that scenario concept. However, I found some ships building that were just ignored - as you say.

This is especially true with the merchant ships, transports, and tankers. The Aqitania spent most of the years of 1942-1945 transporting troops from US the England. She only was a couple of trips in the Pacific. I think she whould not even be in the game.

From what I've read on CHS, I think these examples were looked at in great detail.

The CHS team decided to leave the respawn feature in the game, so USS Canberra II is represented by that rule. (ie, you need have the HMAS Australia or Canberra sunk and either will respawn as a US cruiser.) (personally, I hate the rule, but I respect and understand why CHS left it as is.)

I have also read a few threads on CHS where they go back and forth on ships that went from the Pacific to the Atlantic and back and forth and on and on. I belive they made their best attempt at putting in most ships that served in the pacific and leaving a few out that really served in the Atlantic. Unless you have their exact data, you will find OOB errors. I'm probalby not explaining myself very well. But, for example, if Don put ABC transport in CHS and left out XYZ transport because both served in the pacific and the atlantic, then someone without this knowledge says "XYZ transport is missing". This would be Don's attempt at keeping the balance. (don't include both, but include one. they were both in the pacific, but also both not in the pacific.)

Sorry that my grammar and lack of vocabulary sucks. I'm sure Don or Andrew can explain it much better than I.

[Don Bowen]

Exactly you explained it perfectly.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

ORIGINAL: el cid again
The only problem is getting accepted in a mod.

[&:]
There's no problem at all - after all you're in charge of your own mod. If you decide the data's fine, you accept it yourself and include it in your own mod.

As with any ( most ? ) open source type situations, the would be collaborator may be stymied by the "requirements" of the gate keeper for the primary code base - though of course - in any true open source situation the would be collaborator has the option of meeting the gatekeepers requirements ( in the software world these usually relate to documenting test results or some such ) or "forking the code" ... the CHS mod is data not code but it is open source ( no hidden data ) and it has a gatekeeper ( Don/Andrew ) ... gatekeeper primarily at this point just wants to be sure that proposed changes meet the standards of research that have tried to be met up to this point. And to try to "collect" changes into releases ( 1 or 2 per quarter seems to be the pattern ) rather than have a new CHS every week. There have been complaints about the "instability" of CHS ( due to the never ending changes ).

So Bohdi is correct - in that if one is doing ones own mod - there are no problems - but if one is contributing to CHS ( open source - "owned" if this forum if by anyone ) they must satisfy the "gatekeepers". So to fork or not to fork - this is - as always - the question !

CHS came together in the first place ( I think ) to reduce by at least one - the total number of mods ( Don and Lemurs! ). But that came at a minor cost - of having those guys coordinate their efforts !

[Don Bowen]

CHS came together in the first place ( I think ) to reduce by at least one - the total number of mods ( Don and Lemurs! ).

The original CHS team also included:

Tankerace - before he withdrew for full time WPO
Andrew Brown
TheElf
Subchaser
Platoonist
CobraAus
Ron Saueracker (who used to have his own computer!)
PhilBass - did excellent research on British forces, then simply disappeared.


Several others came in later, each with their own expertise. The combination of efforts from all of these folks is what made CHS. It is not the exact scenario that any one of us would have liked but it is better than any one of us could have created alone.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
So to fork or not to fork - this is - as always - the question !

True, although "forking" is not the end of the matter. We can still borrow ideas from each other. For example, I am hoping to try one or two of Nik's ideas for reducing the bloodiness of air-to-air combat in CHS (speceifically, increasing aircraft durability by 50%, and increasing AA effectiveness by 50% to compensate). So the "forks" can intermingle again...

Andrew