Suggestion for CHS...

[Ron Saueracker]

Since I've been back at least semi regularily, I have noticed that very few people actually play the CHS. Main reason is it keeps bloody changing. I can't believe all the new guys proposing changes to something which has been worked on for over a year but has had little actual utilization. Perhaps it is time to take a development hiatus (hey, keep up the research etc) and let people actually play the darn thing. Do we even know that the logistics work as changed, or if any of the other changes have the intended effect? Probably not as nobody has gotten past mid 42 from what I can see in a PBEM. After some serious play testing is in the bank, a major revisit and revamp might be in order BUT at least people played it and might have some constructive opinions.

What about it? Stick Nik's A2A modifications on top of Lemurs data (should not compromise the research he has done if approached this way), leave the flak issue alone for now as there seems to be more than one take on how to fix it, leave the CHS ASW mod in with the new 1.7 ASW model so we can compare it to the stock version (only problem I see is that the DC ammo might need to be brought back to individual DCs as opposed to the patterns (approx 6 DC =1 ammo factor) we used to help fix the earlier uber ASW used earlier, and maybe compromise on the CV deck armor issue (ie IJN CVs having deck armor equal to what was really over their machinery spaces...this should at the very least be cut by 50% because it plays havoc with the overly simplified ship damage model and turns the CVs with wooden decks into Illustrious class CVs without the capacity trade offs.).

Time to get off the pot in my opinion and see how it holds up during play. Otherwise we are going to need an emulator to play the finished product.[;)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Since I've been back at least semi regularily, I have noticed that very few people actually play the CHS. Main reason is it keeps bloody changing. I can't believe all the new guys proposing changes to something which has been worked on for over a year but has had little actual utilization. Perhaps it is time to take a development hiatus (hey, keep up the research etc) and let people actually play the darn thing. Do we even know that the logistics work as changed, or if any of the other changes have the intended effect? Probably not as nobody has gotten past mid 42 from what I can see in a PBEM. After some serious play testing is in the bank, a major revisit and revamp might be in order BUT at least people played it and might have some constructive opinions.

What about it? Stick Nik's A2A modifications on top of Lemurs data (should not compromise the research he has done if approached this way), leave the flak issue alone for now as there seems to be more than one take on how to fix it, leave the CHS ASW mod in with the new 1.7 ASW model so we can compare it to the stock version (only problem I see is that the DC ammo might need to be brought back to individual DCs as opposed to the patterns (approx 6 DC =1 ammo factor) we used to help fix the earlier uber ASW used earlier, and maybe compromise on the CV deck armor issue (ie IJN CVs having deck armor equal to what was really over their machinery spaces...this should at the very least be cut by 50% because it plays havoc with the overly simplified ship damage model and turns the CVs with wooden decks into Illustrious class CVs without the capacity trade offs.).

Time to get off the pot in my opinion and see how it holds up during play. Otherwise we are going to need an emulator to play the finished product.[;)]

Mostly good points.

I've got one CHS PBEM game in Sept 43 .. and 2 stock games in Nov 42 and May 43 respectively. But don't know of anyone who is farther along than the Sept 43 point. But yes people have commented about the amount of changes. Unfortunately I don't know if anything worked as intended since I came along too late to know what was intended ! I do not post AAR as I'd have to give up one of my games to have the time, hence you don't see my games in the AAR section - but I do provide data from them as topics come up.

Andrew is currently our "coordinator" and he asked me to work on an upgrade to air/ground for IJA/IJN ... and so I accepted the mission and will continue down that path until the mission changes, but I do agree we need more stability. Some people wanna be able to compare their games to previous games. And like I couldn't start a new game against my current CHS opponent a switch sides and compare the two games since CHS has changed so much since 1.02 version we are playing. But CHS has been driven by "accuracy" improve "accuracy" of the OB/TOE ... and thus is a job that will never by 100% done. Can we get to a reduced frequency ? Yes, but not sure I can answer when.

Why don't you dialog with Andrew and see if you guys can come to some common ground on these issues ?

[TheElf]

Concur Ron. I just want to see Nik's A2A model applied to the CHS with its individual tweaks to certain a/c, on top of Lemurs! work. Blend them together as best we can etc. I don't know enough about the AAA mechanics to push it one way or the other. I do see the merit in it though. I personally have no qualms against limiting LBA to <25K'. Much higher than that and what's the point anyway? Silly that people find that unacceptable. Heavy Bomber attacks rarely went higher than that anyway.

I leave the ASW decisions to you. I've done my share of SSC in my life to know I'm not up for it.

More than that I am not too interested in changing much. Except maybe the Russian OOB needs CD and Minelayer capability at Vladivostok. I've all but given up on pushing the Mine Torpedo regiment thing... no one seems interested in that. But they will be the first time their opponent invades Russia and they have no defenses against the combined fleet pummelling anything at Vladivostok.[:@]

Frankly I'm just plumb tired of waiting to play CHS. I wish I had the time to do this stuff myself. I would. I really would.

[TheElf]

J,
Do you see in your 43' game that Nik's A2A work might be either useful or redundant? What is your take on that?

[jwilkerson]

As I said this morning in the "Oscar" thread ... I did go and read through the Nik/Speedy AAR using NIK Mod 4.x ... and what I see there for A2A looks good. There was also a CV versus Kwaj test that looked good. I'd like to see an Uber Airbattle with B17s versus something - just to see how that fairs.

I don't know anything about the flak changes and the altitude issue. But I like what I saw in the AAR and support continuing down the path of trying to integrate into CHS.

Unfortunately, don't think Lemurs! is available, so we will have to decide how to proceed. If Nik and Andrew could dialog about it that might be best at this point. If Nik has documented or can document his changes by row number, then we should be able to merge them in.

[Ron Saueracker]

My point here is to simply draw a line at some point regarding all the changes. Let it stand as is and be used for a useful length of time. Then, drop a huge upgrade 6 months to a year down the line for additional OOB/Art work etc that people are working on, as well as any changes deemed necessary after extensive play utitilization.

After all, people should not have to play the bland stock scenarios when a gem like this exists...but they do because at least the stock scenarios are stable.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Unfortunately, don't think Lemurs! is available, so we will have to decide how to proceed. If Nik and Andrew could dialog about it that might be best at this point. If Nik has documented or can document his changes by row number, then we should be able to merge them in.

I will take this up with Nik...

Andrew

[jwilkerson]

Of course the CHS game I'm playing is quite stable - it started as 1.02 back in May and it is still at 1.02 [:D]

But I agree, people want stable. GH for example played a CHS game, and then returned to stock ( the AB port ) for his current games.

But also, there is an inherent conflict between desiring greater historical accuracy and at the same time desiring greater stability. But life is all about resolving such conflicts, no different for us in WITP land i guess.

[Alikchi2]

I agree - we really need a CHS version that will stick aroudn for a while. Not to say that the project should be halted! But CHS versions need to be more permanent.

In my own experience I started a CHS game with Cruft on version 1.02 (I believe) at around the time it released. At the same time I started working on my scenario mod (based off CHS) and we eventually postponed our CHS game to playtest my new scenario. Now, we're done with the playtest, but it doesn't seem worth starting our old game again.. and Iron Storm (the scenario based off CHS) is based off an outdated version, which is a pain in the ass to fix, lol.

Just my ramblings, but I think that flatlining things for a while would be a good idea.

[ragtopcars_slith]

howdy guys!

I didn't get a chance to play the earlier versions of CHS, but currently Desert Fox and myself are in early Jan '42. To me, it appears like things are going well, and losses seem to be in line with probable reality. I would agree that making change after change makes it impossible to get to the actual end of a game! If CHS 1.07 comes about, it would be greatly appreciated if the changes would work with current 1.06 games. As you all have said, at some point you get tired of beta testing, and just want to play! [8D]

derek

[el cid again]

My point here is to simply draw a line at some point regarding all the changes. Let it stand as is and be used for a useful length of time. Then, drop a huge upgrade 6 months to a year down the line for additional OOB/Art work etc that people are working on, as well as any changes deemed necessary after extensive play utitilization.

Since the data is significantly wrong

in the form of missing things

AND in the form of bad data

I say this is a good idea AFTER we have a version that is revised for accuracy. Why play with known omissions and gross errors (e.g. ship and plane ranges 2/3 off, the best CD guns in the world wholly absent, grossly overrated and even duplicated Japanese heavy weapons, etc)?
I mention something good for Japan (16 inch CD guns) and something bad (grossly excessive hw in combat units) to make it clear I am neither a JFB nor an AFB. If CHS is supposed to be HISTORICAL - lets make it such - and stop pretending it really is already. It ain't (yet).