???

[Ron Saueracker]

There is a CHS May 42 start point scenario? Cool. Does the AI do anything or is it just a dog that wanders around aimlessly as it does a few days into the full campaign?

[jwilkerson]

No CHS only has 7/8 Dec start at this point - we're still trying to get that one right !!! But in the process the data gathered can be used to create starts and other points in time - once we think the full war scenario is "done" ( which it never will be totally done - but it will reach a point of almost done ).

Don plays CHS against AI so maybe he can address AI question ( for 7/8 Dec start anyway ).

Now, Andrew has re-done stock scenarios ( not CHS ) for his map - not sure he has re-done May start - he can address that one.

[Gen.Hoepner]

Any chance of seeing Nik's air model in the CHS?

[jwilkerson]

If we could ever do a "converged" scenario - per some of us dreamers - but there is no work plan to make that happen that I know of today.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

Any chance of seeing Nik's air model in the CHS?

Funny you should mention that. I just emailed Don and AB about that very concept and I was seriously considereing starting a thread on the main Form entitled "Who'd like to see a massive mod combing Nik's, Pry's and the CHS's work?" Now I think I must.

[Bradley7735]

I'd like to see it.

I at least agree in theory on most of Nik's changes. I haven't seen them because I play CHS, but if what he says is true, I'd like to see a big combo.

I haven't seen Pry about the forums for a while. It'd be good to have his knowledge if the mod is done.

[Gen.Hoepner]

In my opinion....the way to go is a combo. All the efforts you guys are putting in these projects deserve not to be spread throughout too many projects.

CHS is mainly an OOB MOD
Pry's one, but i know little of it, is another OOB mod but that touches different particulars from CHS
NIK's is a "code mode" ( even if i know that it's not the code cause it cannot be touched) that rewrites the routines of ASW,air combat,AA routines etc.
Andrew brown's Map is the geographical perfection
Subchaser's map is the graphical perfection.

So we need to get one big project...i'm sure when and if this will be done, everybody will play it.

[jwilkerson]

One downside - which has been mentioned - is speed to release. The larger the combo - the harder it will be - and the longer it will take - to do releases - at least if we want to preserve certain design concepts. Like Nik, Andrew, Don and Pry might all need to be on the "gatekeeper" committee ... otherwise we risk the next contributor comming along and "breaking" what they "fixed". Standard Open Source Problem - which is what leads to forks.

This is certainly not saying we shouldn't do it - I advocated for this a few days ago myself ... just pointing out that life is full of tradeoffs and specifying the particular one in this case.

Of course the advantages are as is being said - that we can all enjoy the fruits of these efforts in one mod - and that sounds like a ( good ) dream !

[TheElf]

I really don't know how much work it would take. Suffice it to say I think alot of the work has been done already....in the three different mods. All we need to do is agree that they should be combined. Perhaps the easiest way is figure out which mod is the largest, ie. the one that took the most work to complete, and then add in the other two.

Obviously if this were to be done there would have to be communication between the Mod All-stars: Nik, PRY, Don Bowen, AB, and Lemurs. As far as I know they are the central figures in each mods genesis. Apologies to anyone I left out.

I think the secret to the project would be the ability to agree to disagree. What I mean is, each of the 3 original mods could still be out there for those who want to have them seperated, including the creators. But those who what the best of all three worlds could have it.

[jwilkerson]

Forking is also easier than converging. Some of the changes ( many ? ) will overlap and decisions will have to be made. Though from the impressions I have,while Pry and Nik have been mostly trying to solve problems with the way the game works, CHS was strickly pretty much focused on OB & TOE accuracy. So even though Pry and Nik modify the OBs and the TOE and the units and devices ... they are trying to solve problems like too much supply and a-historical air game results.

But yes you are correct, Pry, Nik, Don, AB and Lemurs! at least would need to be involved though others might at least need to "consult" ... I think the "art guys" have been pretty much supporting everyone .. but I don't have a mental picture of whose art is in which mods at this point.

And I did have an email exchange with Lemurs! a couple of weeks ago, but he was on honeymoon still ...at an undisclosed location ... so his immediately availability is doubtful.

Also it would be possible of course to have multiple scenarios sitting on top of one database, though for mods like Iron Storm, if they add enough not strictly historical ships, there may be some ccompatability issues with a database full or almost full of mostly historical ships. So unfortunately some converging may be hindered by lack of slots.

But I'd suggest PMing with Pry, Nik, AB and Don initially to test the waters.

[Gen.Hoepner]

I also suggest that...but probably this isn't the right thread...however...the PDU is surely a great thing...but many players, me included, are complaining about the fact that in 12 months of war you'll find every single american bomber groups filled up with 4E bombers and every single japanese fighter groups with Tonies.
The main problem is that the vanilla stock upgrades are ( at least for jap IJAF) completely ...mm...how can i say...wrong? or at least handicapping ( sp???). My suggestion ( and i do not know if CHS or other mods already did that) is that the upgrades, for those who do not want the PDUs ON, will be revisited.

However...going OT here....sorry.

I firmly believe a single mod is the way to go.

[jwilkerson]

If I remember correctly, PDU was "most requested" enhancement in immediate post go live era - hence it was done. Not everyone agrees that it improves the game - others just haven't used PDU. I for example have been playing Japanese almost 100% since 4 July 2004, but I have not played one PBEM turn with PDU on, though I've played over 2000 PBEM turns with it off ( so I can at least be envious ! )

Some guys wanna play with the "Tigers" ... others are content with Pz IIIs !!! No difference here ... just mutates to 4EB or Tonysin WITP !

Unfortunately, current CHS handicaps even worse than stock if PDU is off ( I'm having the full experience of that right now !!! ) and I've had situations where like some Claude units only upgrade to A6M3a ( not A6M2 ) and hence I had severe shortage of A6M3a and never completed upgrades of all A5 and A6M2 until after A6M5 became available ... or some G3 only upgraded to G5 ... never G4 ... so current CHS "assumes" PDU is on - hence hard coded upgrade paths were not thoughtout completely due to assumption that PDU would always be on. This is actually being worked on as we speak and new CHS release planned before end of year will correct a number of things, including this.

But hard coded upgrade paths will be constraining - that is their nature. If you want some constraints, play with them, if you want no constraints play with PDU on ... those are the choices, right now anyway.

[Nomad]

I think that the Allies can use PDU to distort things worse than the Japanese can. I have it on in the games that I can and the only one I will use to any extreme is my lunacy game with Mogami. In the others I use it with discresion, if a unit starts with or is scheduled to have medium bombers then they will have those. To me the option is to address the fact that no game follows history but production does.

I think the bottom line is that used with some discresion it is usefull, but if one side goes overboard with it, problems occur. You need to know your opponent and how he will use the option. I hate having to use house rules, do the game right the first time would help. [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

If I remember correctly, PDU was "most requested" enhancement in immediate post go live era - hence it was done.

I was one of the few loud voices against it, at least against the inability to toggle it on or off. But, because the original design was too limiting, they had to go full bore the other way, robbing Peter to pay Paul to satisfy the non wargamer types out there. And, as everyone can see, the game/sim has come that much closer to a Real Time toy as a result.[8|]

By the way, I'm still at 1.40...is the feature toggled or are we stuck with it?

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

If I remember correctly, PDU was "most requested" enhancement in immediate post go live era - hence it was done.

I was one of the few loud voices against it, at least against the inability to toggle it on or off. But, because the original design was too limiting, they had to go full bore the other way, robbing Peter to pay Paul to satisfy the non wargamer types out there. And, as everyone can see, the game/sim has come that much closer to a Real Time toy as a result.[8|]

By the way, I'm still at 1.40...is the feature toggled or are we stuck with it?

Ron, why bash it? You select it at the realism screen, either on or off. I don't see a problem with it. You want it, turn it on. You don't, turn it off.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

If I remember correctly, PDU was "most requested" enhancement in immediate post go live era - hence it was done.

I was one of the few loud voices against it, at least against the inability to toggle it on or off. But, because the original design was too limiting, they had to go full bore the other way, robbing Peter to pay Paul to satisfy the non wargamer types out there. And, as everyone can see, the game/sim has come that much closer to a Real Time toy as a result.[8|]

By the way, I'm still at 1.40...is the feature toggled or are we stuck with it?

Ron, why bash it? You select it at the realism screen, either on or off. I don't see a problem with it. You want it, turn it on. You don't, turn it off.

That is why I added the ditty about me being at 1.40. I am (was) not sure if this was toggled. Sucks not having internet ccess on a regular basis.

I still must say I was surprised this was jumped on and added as a feature when more serious issues like the almost unworkable land combat engine, ASW and basically useless auto convoy routing issues (just to name a few major issues mind you [8D]) were left untouched. The upgrades were basically fixable for the most part with the editor but land combat is beyond any modders ability.

[JeffroK]

I see PDU as the only Allied option to counter the Japanese ability to produce whatever it wants. Even if you decide to fit out evry bomber unit with 4E bombers, you still have to have enough aircraft being produced. And with Fighters it is useful to have a mix so as to use their various advantages and foibles. I would only suggest that you cant upgrade 2E to 4E, not truly historical but a fair balance.

I also think the game is pretty bloody good, and that tinkering outside of the code is not getting value for the effort expended. I usually use CHS 1.6 on Andrew Map, excellent. I am currently trying Niks Mod on the standard map and it is of high quality, I am noticing more damage (and some losses) to AA fire, havent seen much ASW as yet.

Yes, It would be good to combine the various works that have been done, Its equally interesting to play the variants as well.

Ron, I await your mod with all the changes you list.

[Andrew Brown]

PDU should be tolerable IF aircraft production values are near realistic levels. If they are not, then I think THAT should be addressed. My understanding is that Allied aircraft production in CHS is about right, but I don't know if the same is true of the Japanese. I have not seen any good analysis on Japanese aircraft production in the game vs real life.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

PDU should be tolerable IF aircraft production values are near realistic levels. If they are not, then I think THAT should be addressed. My understanding is that Allied aircraft production in CHS is about right, but I don't know if the same is true of the Japanese. I have not seen any good analysis on Japanese aircraft production in the game vs real life.

Ok Andrew - I guess you have to decide what is "good analysis" ... but here at least is "some analysis" ...

Japanese Aircraft Production in real life ( per Angelucci )
1941 05,088
1942 08,861
1943 16,639
1944 28,180
1945 11,066

Total 69,834 for the entire war

Note that this includes Trainer and Liason aircraft ( 7,192 total ) subtracting these from the total we have 62,642 total production for comparison to WITP.

As a comparison to stock and CHS, here are at least a few numbers

At Start Japanese production ( computed by multiplying the at start monthly production by 12 ) these numbers can be very losely compared to the RL 1942 production ( about 8,000 after subtracting trainer-liason aircraft ), though in the game I would expect the Japanese player to significantly increase these numbers, although it takes time for that to happen, but seeing say 10,000 to 12,000 total production in the game would not be beyond my expectations.

Stock 8,040
CHS 8,244

Japanese production from one of Joe's PBEM games which is in Aug/43 computed by multiplying month production by 12 )

CHS 19,944

Note that after subtracting about 10% of the 1943 total ( taking 16,639 down to about 15,000 ) to allow for trainer-liason, then the CHS production for 1943 might be about 5,000 aircraft too high. However, the snapshot is taken in Aug 1943 and I can't tell you what the actual in game production for 1943 has been or will be - the game doesn't keep data like that, so the best I can do is take a snapshot. But given that players can and will optimize production toward aircraft, I would expect others to report similar or possibilty even higher production numbers for the Japanese in 1943. I have not attempted to maximize aircraft production at all costs, because there are plenty of aircraft in my pools and I have no empty "slots" in front line units. Hence my real bottleneck in slots in the air units, not aircraft ( I have 100s and 100s and 100s of useful aircraft in the pools ). Oh and of course the other bottleneck is training up the pilots from 25/30 up to 70/75 prior to facing the allies.

So, in summary I would say Japanese aircraft production is "in the ball park" for both stock and CHS ...

Andrew, if you'd like to see something diffferent let me know what - and I"ll try to produce it for you.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
So, in summary I would say Japanese aircraft production is "in the ball park" for both stock and CHS ...

Andrew, if you'd like to see something diffferent let me know what - and I"ll try to produce it for you.

Thanks Joe, that is just the kind of information I think we need. More detail would be great, of course, but that would take a lot of time.

"in the ballpark" might be true, but it is still about 30% too high for 1943 (assuming that the early part of the year was not dramatically below historic production levels). It will be interesting to see whan happens in 1944 if you get that far...

Andrew